For example, offenders without job skills can receive job training, while offenders with emotional problems can be ordered to attend the appropriate counseling. (Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Program, 2005). Because such a huge proportion of crimes are drug-related or committed by addicts, completion of in-patient or out-patient substance abuse programs is often an integral part of an offender's alternative sentencing program. Furthermore, alternative sentencing strives to make an offender personally responsible for their crime. Therefore, mediation and restitution play an important part in alternative sentencing, because mediation gives the victim a voice, while restitution can require an offender to repay his victim. (Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Program, 2005). After one has an understanding of the different sentencing alternatives available, the logical step is to question whether alternative sentencing is effective. In order to answer that question, many criminal justice professionals look to recidivism rates. "However, limited research is available that compares recidivism rates of offenders released through traditional incarceration to offenders released through alternative sanctions." (Jones & Connelly, 2001). In addition, judges consider issues like criminal history, community ties, and the degree and type of offense when determining whether or not to divert an offender from incarceration, which makes comparing the two groups even more difficult. (Jones & Connelly, 2001).

There is no question that incarcerated inmates experience very high rates of recidivism. Those these rates vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the percentage of inmates that re-offend within a relatively short period of time after being released from incarceration ranges from 30% up over 62%. (Jones & Connelly, 2001). There are certain factors that appear to affect recidivism rates, including: age, prior recidivism, race, gender, education, offense, types of custody, disciplinary reports, and time served. (Jones & Connelly, 2001). Therefore, it should be clear that if one of punishment's goals is to prevent future criminal behavior, then incarceration is not successful at accomplishing that goal.

(Jones & Connelly, 2001). On the contrary, the research appears to indicate that alternative sentencing programs are only successful at reducing recidivism rates when treatment services are included as part of those sentences. (Jones & Connelly, 2001). While the findings are inconsistent, the most effective programs appear to have the potential in reducing recidivism rates by close to 20%. (Jones & Connelly, 2001). Even when alternative sentencing does not result in reduced recidivism rates, it does not appear to increase recidivism and results in much lower costs to the community. (Jones & Connelly, 2001).
Finally, one must consider the social costs that are associated with incarceration. First, when offenders are in a relationship with the victim, the possibility of incarceration makes reporting less likely. Second, incarcerated offenders cannot meet their financial responsibilities to their families and their creditors. Not only is an offender's financial ability compromised during incarceration, but also after release because employers are less likely to hire former convicts than other employees. However, the most important societal cost may be the absence of family members from their family units. For example, when a father is incarcerated, children grow up in a household without a father, which has been linked to criminal behavior. However, an offender who is permitted to serve his sentence on the weekends, diverted to appropriate treatment programs, and required to work and support his family while serving his sentence fulfills his obligations to society and to his family.