Repeat Offenders in Community Corrections - Research Paper Example

Repeat Offenders in Community Corrections For the past three decades, community corrections have become an essential partof the United States correctional system. The impetus to have alternate correction programs has been due to the increasing number of inmates in prisons. Through the corrections programs, interventions have been employed to reduce the rate of repeat offenders within the society. However, each of these restitution programs performs differently in reducing crime among offenders. This paper will highlight the rates of repeat offending and the impact and effectiveness of community corrections in recidivism through the commonly employed community corrections. Introduction Community corrections have their pedigrees in community-based programming adopted by non-governmental organizations. Notably, community corrections are an assortment of numerous reprimands for nonaggressive wrongdoers. Community corrections were adopted three decades ago and have offered residential services in halfway accommodation. Community corrections were introduced for a number of aims, the key one being to instill discipline and hold the offender accountable for their felonious deeds. The other purposes of these corrections comprise protecting public safety and provision of restitution to communities by the felons through restitution programs. Nonetheless, the proportion of wrongdoers has augmented and there have been little changes in strategy on handling the offenders, since all the offenders come from different backgrounds and have different desires. The the system has unceasingly adopted the “one size fits all” tactic without considering their different circumstances. As a result, the community corrections system grapples to offer useful interventions for the huge number of people who pass through the system annually. It is because of this lack of follow up that the offenders find themselves repeating crimes and ending up in the community corrections again. Recidivism Recidivism refers to an individual’s reversion into an unlawful deed after an intermediation or sanction for a previous offense. Recidivism is a critical concept in criminal justice that is assessed through criminal acts that lead to re-incarceration and return to prison or correction center for the first three years after discharge. For the past years, the proportion of repeat offenders into correction centers has shot up. The National Institute of Justice (2014) acknowledges that two thirds of the released prisoners indulge in crime activities that get them back to prison or other correction facilities after 3 years. Conversely, this number upsurges to 76% after five years of release. Role and effectiveness of Community Corrections on Recidivism Over the years, research has produced conflicting findings on the role of community corrections in reducing recidivism. This, on the other hand, has contributed to inconsistencies on how a number of programs are adopted and funded (Harrison & Schehr, 2008, p. 38-39). Nonetheless, the increasing rates of incarceration continue to affect more people and families. The U.S Department of Justice (2010, p. 2) acknowledges that at least 90% of all prisoners are released at some point and they all end up in the society with little or no resources to successfully assist them assimilate with the people. This is, in fact, an attributing factor to repeat offending. Because of the upsurge in offenders due to stringent guidelines, the community corrections were overawed with many new entrants (Harrison & Schehr, 2008, p. 41-42). However, with the upsurge in inmates, Harrison and Schehr (2008, p. 42) admit that the community corrections received inadequate conscription and sponsorship. These programs experience sturdy monetary funding, standard guidelines and management that generate inconsistencies in how they function (Bouffard & Lisa, 2010, p. 8-9). This has resulted to the burdening of the community corrections and reduced the effectiveness of the corrections centers. The failure to deal with some of these concerns has been evident in the correction programs such as “supportive integration, community supervision and electronic monitoring” (Bouffard & Lisa, 2010, p. 6). i. Supportive Reintegration Supportive reintegration is a program that offers the released offender help to assist them integrate well with the society. This program engrosses “professional drill, mental health treatment, case management, provisional accommodation and family convalescence” (Harrison & Schehr, 2008, p. 46) In the urban regions, these packages are offered in the form of day reporting centers. The day reporting centers offer myriad supportive services that can be amalgamated with other forms of conditional release from imprisonment. The centers permit the lawbreaker to integrate with his or her family and make the transition easier. Supportive reintegration also concentrates on employment where vocational agencies offer job readiness skills through training and employment placement (Harrison & Schehr, 2008, p. 46-7). Among these correctional packages, supportive reintegration is the most holistic and progressive. According to numerous studies such as Eggers et al. (2006, p. 22-28), supportive integration is an operational community corrections program that reduces the rates of repeat offenders by 15%. Additionally, Ostermann (2009, p. 143) notes that released offenders who go through social re-integration are only 15% more likely to indulge in crime while those who do not are 55% more likely to engage in crime. Supportive re-integration also gives knowledge enhancement, parenting classes and reasonably priced accommodation. Studies have connected supportive reintegration program with reduction in probability of engaging in law-breaking. Craddock (2010, p. 77-78) also offers supplementary proof to support reintegration. He recognizes that some programs such as “mental health counseling, placement and substance abuse programs” (Harrison & Schehr, 2008, p. 48) have been successful in reducing future indulge in criminal activities. However, Ostermann (2009, p. 148-9) acknowledges that, though supportive reintegration has been fruitful, this relies on the criminal’s “imprisonment account, period detained and crime perpetrated” (Bourfard & Lisa, 2010, p. 10-12). In this scenario, the violent lawbreakers with a high frequency of arrest are still likely to involve in law breaking, even after the program (Ostermann, 2009, p. 151). These are some of the issues if considered can be integrated within the program to allow effective implementation. ii. Community Supervision Community supervision refers to the participation of offenders through probation or parole. Parole involves a provisional discharge of an offender to the community where he or she can be returned to prison for violations of the rules or conditions. Alternatively, probation replaces incarceration for minors or first time offenders. In both the community supervision programs, the offenders have honor the set regulations and standards. An offender in any one of these programs has a probation or parole officer assigned to them to enforce the conditions and the offender is required to check-in after some interval either through a physical meeting or a phone call. By 2010, the Department of Justice estimated that almost one in every 48 adults in the nation were under parole or probation. With such high rates of community observation, the usefulness of the program is questionable. Studies conducted to determine the effectiveness of parole and probation deduced that these programs have low impact on re-offense. Tanya et al. (2010, p. 253) recognized that 51.7 percent of offenders under parole and probation were likely to engage in criminal activities leading to arrests. This is because the effectiveness of community supervision is depended on the supervision officer, the quality of time spent with the offender and the conditions of the supervision. In most instances, the community supervision focuses on the conditions of the release and concentrates less on the treatment and social reintegration that address some of the criminal needs of the offenders. However, parole and probation can be effective if carried out with attention given to the personal needs of the clients. iii. Electronic Monitoring Electronic supervision is employed on offenders who are feared to hide or run away as they await trial. Electronic monitoring is comparable to house arrest and it is also imposed on offenders released from prison. Electronic monitoring occurs when an electronic anklet with GPS is put on an offender to permit the justice system to trail the movement of the offender (Renzema & Evan, 2009, p. 224). The lawbreaker is given a range that he or she should visit and not surpass. Essentially, almost 100, 000 crooks in the U.S are put under electronic monitoring per year (Brian et al., 2011, p. 123-24). However, though the electronic monitoring has been successful in keeping track of people feared of escaping, there are numerous studies that have linked electronic monitoring to recidivism. Padgett et al. (2009, p. 68-72) admit that 73% of offenders under electronic monitoring are likely to engage in repetitive crime as compared to those under probation or parole. Nonetheless, there is little exploration to show the role of electronic monitoring in reducing repeat offenses among offenders. However, some scholars have suggested that electronic monitoring should be integrated with other programs because of the high risk of the offenders. Conclusion The increasing rates of incarceration have put pressure on the community correction programs. Conversely, there has been a argumentative discussion on the effectiveness of such programs in reducing recidivism among offenders. Statistics indicate that the rate of recidivism has been on the increase for the past decade with 76% of the offenders likely to engage in criminal activities and rearrests within the first five years after release. Notably, supportive integration is one of the most effective correction programs that reduce recidivism by almost 85% among offenders. However, though electronic monitoring and community supervision have not yielded outstanding results in reducing recidivism, scholars have suggested numerous ways and interventions through which these programs can be implemented to reduce repeat offenders in the society. References Bouffard, J. A. & Lisa, R.M. (2010). “Program completion and recidivism outcomes among adult offenders ordered to complete a community service sentence.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 43(2):1-33. Brian, K. P.,Demichele, M., & Deeanna, M. (2008). “Electronic monitoring of sex offenders: identifying unanticipated consequences and implications.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 46(3):119-135. Craddock, A. (2010). “Estimating criminal justice system costs and cost-savings benefits of day reporting centers.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 39(4):69-98. Eggers, M., Jaime, P., Jon S. & Patricia A. H. (2006). The community reintegration project: occupational therapy at work in a county jail. Occupational Therapy in Health Care 20(1):17-37. Harrison, B. & Schehr, R.C . (2008). “Offenders and post-release jobs: variables influencing success and failure.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 39(3):35-68. National Institute of Justice. (2014, January). National institute of justice - recidivism. Retrieved April 18, 2015, from www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx Ostermann, M. (2009). “An analysis of new jersey’s day reporting center and halfway back programs: Embracing the rehabilitative ideal through evidence based practices.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 48(2):139-153. Padgett, K. G., William, D. B. & Thomas, G. B. (2009). “Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring.” Criminology 13 & Public Policy 5(1):61-92. Renzema, M. & Evan, M. (2009). “Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders?”Journal of Experimental Criminology 1(2):215-237. Tanya R., Bonta, J., Terri-Lynne S., Guy B. & Annie K. Y. (2008). “Exploring the black box of community supervision.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 47(3):248-270. U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs. 2010. “Prison statistics.” Bureau of Justice Statistics. Read More