Community Based Corrections and their Effectiveness - Term Paper Example

 «Community Based Corrections and their Effectiveness» Community corrections are the alternative penal options for sentencing offenders. They are cost effective for the government, and there can be private sector participation in these programs. Many state governments have allowed the private sector to participate in community correction options. For instance, Connecticut has allowed the formation of networks of public and private agencies in this area. These agencies offer services to offenders in their networks (Gormley). They can also take offenders into their custody at the local level and offer them work opportunities. The state of Colorado allowed private organizations to provide minimum security facilities to offenders. Furthermore, Maryland law provides for the funding of the state for community correction centers within the state. However, some private organizations have also been allowed to set up their own networks for this purpose (Gormley). Other models of privately administered community correction programs include pre-release centers for offenders who are on the verge of completing their sentence at prison; retributive centers for community service; and residential substance abuse de-addiction facilities. In the states of California and Texas, there are special low security institutions that provide correction programs for offenders who violate parole and commit other minor crimes. Thus, the involvement of the private sector is on the increase in the area of community corrections. The main reason for this increase is the overcrowding of prisons and the increase of cost per offender (Gormley). Community based corrections include various types of punishments, which may range from pre-trial diversion to intermediate corrections. These corrections have a broad definition, and include non-incarcerative offenders. Community corrections are a type of supervision over the offenders who are due to get conviction or are already convicted offenders. It is the most effective way of supervising offenders, and there are several forms of punishment under the concept of community corrections (Community Corrections). The better forms of such punishment are probation and parole. Other forms include, home confinement, monitoring through electronic devices, day fine programs, work release, furloughs, halfway houses, restitution, community service, checks for alcohol or drug usage, check-in programs, curfews, mediation, restorative justice centers, monitoring the offender and requiring the offender to periodically to report to the authorities (Community Corrections). Statistics indicate that nearly sixty – two percent of all the probationers complete their probationary period in community correction, successfully. A majority of the probationers are prone to repeat their crime during the first three years of completing their sentence. Moreover, several offenders, on completion of their probation, had committed serious offences, like homicide and other violent crime. Almost, ninety percent of the probationers had been referred for drug abuse treatment, restitution or payment of fines by the courts. More than half of the probationers violate court orders. Sometimes, the courts would suggest medical treatment for probationers during their sentence period. According to the records, nearly 300,000 probationers have escaped from their sentence, thereby violating court orders and the extant legislation (Community Corrections). Probation is a program in which the felon or offender completes the punishment imposed by the court, by remaining in the community. They provide an opportunity to the offenders with an alternative to incarceration (May, Minor and Ruddell). As such, Community Corrections program provides several advantages both to the offenders as well as to the government. The most important benefit is the avoidance of prison for offenders who had committed non – violent crimes. This program entails less expenditure and is cost effective, in comparison to imprisonment of the offender. They act as the best alternative measure to the incarceration of offenders. Community based correction programs provide the best opportunity to offenders to receive wide spread assistance in several areas (Tippecanoe County Community Corrections). For instance, drug abusers obtain medical care and assistance from the community members, in order to overcome their addiction to drugs and other related health problems. In addition to this, these programs provide literacy programs to the offenders. All these measures enable offenders to re – integrate with society and transform themselves into productive members of the community (Tippecanoe County Community Corrections). Another benefit provided by this program is that the community is provided with free labor, due to the efforts of the offenders working on various community based projects. In this manner, probationers provide a positive contribution to society. Hence, Community based correction programs reduce the financial burden of the government (Tippecanoe County Community Corrections). In the past, prisons had been considered to be the most effective crime mitigating measure. This had been the general perception of both the public and the policy – makers. This opinion gained strength in the mid – 1980s, and the policy – makers concentrated on imprisonment as the chief measure to reduce crime in society. In order to prevent crime, they enacted stringent punitory measures for offenders (Center For Community Corrections). These measures included mandatory sentences and habitual offender acts. In addition to these, the government had also passed the three strikes law, which imposed imprisonment for protracted periods. These laws are still in force, with the result that more than 1.5 million individuals are in prison. The number of imprisoned people was just 500,000 in the year 1980. This extraordinary increase of people in prisons came to the notice of the policy – makers (Center For Community Corrections). Upon scrutiny, the latter discovered that many of those who had been imprisoned were first – time offenders and perpetrators of nonviolent crimes. A majority of the incarcerated people were low – level drug offenders. Some of the prisoners had been imprisoned due to technical violations of their parole or probation. These violations were minor, and included failure to meet the probation officer or indulgence in bars. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of violent offenders is very less, in comparison to new offenders in state prisons (Center For Community Corrections). The system of community corrections is an alternative punishment system, which is principally applied to nonviolent offenders. There two types of community corrections programs in the US. First, the integrated community corrections model, which comprises of a combination of sentencing guidelines, judicial directions and a wide range of alternative sanctions, parole and probation options. This model mainly depends on judicial discretion and directions (Nieto). Second, there are systems adopted by some states that consist of predefined programs for offenders. These systems employ special correctional officials who attend to some of the sentenced offenders and make them participate in alternate programs. They also provide the offenders with parole and probation options. Whatever the model of the community correction program, the objective is to reduce the inflow of offenders into prisons. In addition, these programs reduce the expenditure of the government (Nieto). In the late 1970s, the community correction programs were commenced in the US. Subsequently, these programs offered the offenders released from prison, employment opportunities. The States of Oregon, Colorado and Minnesota were the first to introduce community corrections programs. These states had selected a few nonviolent offenders who were serving in state prisons and jails, in the first instance, as part of pilot projects. Then they diverted these offenders to alternate punishment programs, which were labeled as community corrections programs (Nieto). These programs were also known as front – end sentencing programs. These initiatives allowed the courts to impose community based correction programs as punishments on offenders. Subsequently, the courts sent nonviolent and first time offenders to these programs, instead of imprisoning them. These community corrections programs were much welcomed by the members of society, as effective rehabilitation programs for offenders (Nieto). Another major factor that promoted community correction programs was the overcrowding of jails in the late 1980s. Most of the prisons were housing more offenders than their capacity. This situation had forced the judges and lawmakers to seek alternate punishment for offenders. The result was the enactment of community correction programs in the criminal justice system by nineteen states. As such, community correction programs have gained legal standing (Nieto). Under the community correction measures, local communities can direct the offenders to several local punishment options rather than have them imprisoned. Over a period of time, these programs proved to be cost effective and less burdensome for the government. The government had been faced with the unwelcome prospect of constructing several new prisons to accommodate the increasing number of offenders. At that juncture, the community correction programs came to their rescue (Nieto). Subsequently, the states streamlined these programs by instituting local courts, state departments of corrections and a state parole board with a wide range of options. Under these options, nonviolent and first time offenders could be directed to serve the community, under their jurisdiction. The correctional program administered to an offender is determined by the gravity of the crime that the offender had committed (Nieto). Dealing with criminal cases is a difficult and strenuous task for mental health professionals and criminal justice personnel. This is because they had to study the background of each case, the education of the offender, their responsibilities with regard to the legislation and the quantum of punishment to be inflicted on offenders. The community corrections personnel act as agents of the courts and prison authorities(Lurigio). They have to supervise the activities of an offender in probation, and the relevant conditions of the parole or probation. They have to file petitions in the event of a violation of the rules of such probation or parole, in the courts. Their ultimate duty is to protect the safety of the community and the mental and physical health of offenders. The role of mental health professional differs from that of the corrections staff. They mainly focus on the clinical characteristics of each case. Many of them consider the actions of the corrections personnel as being harsh and arbitrary towards the persons under their supervision (Lurigio). There are certain procedures to be followed, while directing offenders to community corrections. The correctional institutions have to prepare a case plan through a validated assessment instrument, which is to be related to the parole of the offender. This initiates the role of the correctional centers. Youth correctional facilities focus on young offenders, and provide the latter access to counseling for future guidance and support, education, necessary life skills and other important issues. For drug abusers, these youth facilities provide chemical dependency treatment. They also provide sex offender treatment to offenders on charges of sexual abuse. These correctional centers engage offenders in community service and restitution payments to their victims. Other provisions include health services and faith based options (Gibson and Duncan). The Montana Department of Corrections’ Youth Services Division or YSD had initiated several services with regard to community corrections for young offenders. It establishes contracts for community – based mentoring services, and provides faith and health related services to young offenders. This organization has built homes for these offenders and strives to reintegrate them into the mainstream of society. The mentors employed by the YSD help and guide young people, and encourage them to improve their life skills (Gibson and Duncan). They impart information regarding the importance of leading a balanced lifestyle. The guide home parents are licensed foster care providers, who provide guidance to young offenders and supervise their community activities. The YSD had also employed ordained pastors and parish nurses, to provide faith and health – related services. In addition, it also offers faith connections for young offenders (Gibson and Duncan). Crime and its related activities, undoubtedly, affect every member of the community. When a crime occurs, many community people panic, suffer from trauma and in addition, there will loss of property. Crime primarily creates an environment of fear in the community. The aftermath of such crime would create secondary effects in the community, such as a decrease in the value of property. The insurance companies would increase premium amounts, and people would have to pay taxes to support the criminal justice system. Crime affects almost all segments of society; and crime reduction plans would concern every segment of society. An increase in crime would automatically increase corrective measures. Reintegration of an offender into the community is equivalent to raising a child. Community centers perform that task, and take an active role in offender treatment programs. Therefore, community partnerships are efficient in providing services to offenders (Woodward). The fundamental objective of community corrections institutions is to provide the maximum possible opportunities to offenders, and to reintegrate them into the society and thus rehabilitate them. At the same time, they should not ignore the safety of the community, while discharging their duties. The correction centers enforce rules and subject the offenders to supervision, in order to ensure that the offender does not commit crime in the future. In addition, there are reduced restrictions and early discharge of offenders from correctional activities. However, offenders who violated these rules are imprisoned (Fry). Community Correction programs do not involve detention of offenders in jails or prisons. There is no physical control mechanism in these agencies. They supervise and monitor the activities of the offenders referred to them. The general opinion about the criminal justice system is that it reduces crime and provides safety to the community. The community correction institutions are also expected to do the same. They contribute significantly to the reduction of crime and victimization(Burrell). Furthermore, they prevent adults and juveniles, who are under their direct supervision, from reoffending. This aspect promotes interest in risk assessment strategies. Probation and parole officers are in a position to identify the possibility of reoffending by any of the offenders serving in Community corrections centers. This helps them to prevent the recurrence of crime (Burrell). The imposition of a community corrections sentence implies that the offender does not have to be incarcerated, as punishment, for the offense committed by him. Minor offenses like theft, violation of rules or possession of small amount of marijuana do not require traditional punishments, under the criminal justice system, such as imprisonment or fines. Many jails and prisons are housing prisoners beyond their rated capacity. Therefore, there is a need for alternate punishment for minor and petty offenses. The best suited alternative is a community corrections program. Diversion of an offender into this system would reduce the number of people in prisons; which would be extremely cost effective for the government(Farmington). In the year 2000, there were three times more persons in community corrections programs than people in prison. This alternate punishment is meaningful, practical and cheap. Moreover, these programs are rehabilitative for the offenders. If these offenders had been imprisoned, they would have had to face several social problems, such as being separated from their family members till the completion of the sentence, loss of job and their reputation (Farmington). Compensation for emotional and material loss, ensuing from the crime committed, is obtained via the community correction programs. These programs the best alternatives to fines and imprisonment, and several social science researchers had recognized the importance and cost-effectiveness of these programs. Many of the scholars in this area have recommended imprisonment for serious and violent offenders; while advocating community service programs for nonviolent criminals. In addition, such criminals earn money through the community programs, which would be paid to their victims as restitution. Moreover, offenders who are sentenced to community correction programs are required to pay the court fees and other administrative charges, thereby reducing the tax payers burden (M. T. Farmington). Probation and parole are the traditional methods of corrections. The community corrections system includes an array of programs, like sentence investigation, release of recognizance, treatment for addiction to alcohol or drugs, restitution, community service, half way houses, and family counseling. Some even include vocational training and help in procuring employment. There are several private and public agencies that provide these programs to offenders (Palumbo). However, these agencies lack coordination among themselves. In order, to address this problem, community correction programs bring all of them under one administration; and this task is done either at the city or county level. The government is going to establish a statewide comprehensive program. The state of Minnesota is the first state to have enacted the Community Corrections Act in 1973. Subsequently, many other states implemented such comprehensive programs. In 1977 Oregon enacted such a program, in 1978 Kansas passed a similar comprehensive program, and in 1980 Virginia adopted a similar program (Palumbo). Community correction facilities have gained popularity over the years. They employ several approaches to cater to the needs of offenders who are engaged in community correction services. Gradually, several academicians and scholars have joined the correction centers, and introduced innovative methods and different ideologies. Their knowledge and contribution in inventing new approaches served to transform the community correction system drastically. They are implementing new types of reform techniques, which have proven to be successful in reforming young offenders. However, there are certain setbacks in the criminal justice system, which handicaps the implementation of these innovative ideas. Crime by its very nature is an epidemic to society, and addressing it always entails expenditure, irrespective of the approach adopted. Hence, reformation programs would prove to be an economic burden on the tax – payer (Woodward). Works Cited Burrell, William. "EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION." Criminology & Public Policy (Nov2006): Vol. 5 Issue 4, p737-741, 5p; DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00416.x; (AN 23415746). Center For Community Corrections. Why Community Corrections Works. 9 December 2008 . Community Corrections. 2 July 2006. 9 December 2008 . Farmington, MI. Community Corrections. 2002. 9 December 2008 . Farmington, MI: Thomson Gale. Restorative Justice. In World of Criminal Justice, Gale. 2002. 9 December 2008 . Fry, Russ. "Community Corrections' Core Mission." Corrections Today (Apr2007): Vol. 69 Issue 2, p14-14, 1p; (AN 24833105). Gibson, Steve and Karen Duncan. "A Multifaceted Approach From Intake to Discharge." Corrections Today (Feb2008): Vol. 70 Issue 1, p58-59, 2p; (AN 31199687). Gormley, William T. Privatization and Its Alternatives. University of Wisconsin Press.ISBN 0299117049, 9780299117047, 1991, P. 219. Lurigio, Arthur J. Community Corrections in America: Sounder Investments for Persons With Mental Illness & Codisorders. DIANE Publishing. ISBN 0788181831, 9780788181832, 1996, Page 4. May, David C, et al. Corrections and the Criminal Justice System. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2007. P. 275. Nieto, Marcus. Community Correction Punishments: An Alternative to Incarceration for Nonviolent Offenders. May 1996. 9 December 2008 . Palumbo, Dennis J. "COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS: IS IT JUST ANOTHER WAY OF TINKERING WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM?" Policy Studies Review (Jan83): Vol. 2 Issue Special 1Pp. 203 – 204. Tippecanoe County Community Corrections. Benefits of a Community based Corrections Program. 9 December 2008 . Woodward, Todd G. "Partnerships That Provide Valuable Assistance." Corrections Today (Apr2008): Vol. 70 Issue 2, p50-52, 3p; (AN 32061516). Read More