Transcript Community Based Corrections, 8th edition

Community-Based
th
Corrections, 8 Edition
Leanne Fiftal Alarid
and
Rolando V. del Carmen
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Chapter 1
An Overview of Community
Corrections: Goals and EvidenceBased Practices
The Correctional Dilemma

Our nation’s crime control policies over the last three decades
have resulted in a steady increase of convicted misdemeanants
and felons in the correctional system today.

Today, in the United States about 7 million people, equivalent
to about 3% of the total adult population, are currently under
some form of correctional supervision.

Yet, our country’s recent economic troubles and military
spending have required a reallocation of resources.
LO: 3
Community Corrections Described


Community corrections are any sanctions in which
offenders serve a portion of or their entire sentence in
the community.
A community sentence seeks to repair the harm the
offender may have caused the victim or the
community and to reduce the risk of re-offending in
the future.
LO: 2
Wide Variety of Community-based
Sanctions (Figure 1.1)
6.
Probation
Intensive supervision probation
Restitution and fines
Community service
Substance abuse treatment
Day reporting
7.
House arrest and electronic monitoring
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
LO: 4
Wide Variety of Community-based
Sanctions, Con’t.
8.
9.
10.
Halfway houses
Boot camps
Prisons and jails
LO: 4
Probation


The most common form of community
supervision is probation.
Probation is defined as the release of a
convicted offender under conditions imposed by
the court for a specified period during which the
court retains authority to modify the conditions
or to resentence the offender if he or she
violates the conditions.
LO: 1
Recent Government Statistics


As of December 31, 2006 there were 4.2 million
offenders on probation, and nearly 800,000 on parole
- more than the 2.3 million offenders incarcerated in
jail and prison.
Over the last 7 years, there was an average increase
of 2.4% of prisoners and 1.7% of those on
community supervision each year in the corrections
system (Bonczar 2008; Glaze & Bonczar 2008).
LO: 3
Female Offenders



The number of female offenders has grown as well,
although women have always been underrepresented
in the criminal justice system in comparison to their
numbers in the general population.
Sources say that in the last 15 years, the number of
women on probation and parole has doubled.
Women still comprise only 12% of all parolees and
23% of probationers today.
LO: 3
Factors Leading to Rise in Number
of Offenders




Changes in sentencing laws
An increase of probation and parole violators
returning to prison
A decreased rate of release on discretionary
parole
Differential police responses to drug offenses
(Beck 2000)
LO: 3
Changes in Sentencing Laws



Indeterminate sentencing was the primary sentencing
philosophy from the 1930’s to the 1970’s, and parole boards
determined readiness for release.
Support declined in the 1970’s due to questions regarding
rehabilitation and fairness of sentencing.
Lack of confidence in correctional programming peaked in
1974 with Robert Martinson’s publication, which concluded
that “with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative
efforts that have been reported so far had no appreciable effect
on recidivism.”
LO: 1
Changes in Sentencing Laws,
Con’t.


The American Friends Service Committee
denounced prisons and called for a repeal on all
indeterminate sentencing laws in 1976 so that
offenders convicted of similar crimes served roughly
equal terms in prison.
The main premise was that punishment should be
commensurate with the gravity of the last offense or
series of offenses. The committee recommended the
adoption of a presumptive sentence for each crime
or category of crimes.
LO: 5
Determinate Sentencing
1.
2.
In 1979, David Fogel proposed a determinate
sentencing model in “. . . We Are the Living Proof .
. .”: The Justice Model for Corrections. He is
considered by many to be the “father of determinate
sentencing.”
Maine became the first state in 1975 to return to
determinate sentencing where the minimum and
maximum sentence range is predefined and release
is determined by legislative statute (Forst 1995).
LO: 1
Types of Determinate Sentences
 Examples
of determinate sentencing
policies include:
 Mandatory minimums
 Truth in sentencing
 Three strikes laws
 Sentencing guidelines
LO: 1
Sentencing Guidelines



Sentencing guidelines are typically a matrix for the
judge based on the offender’s prior criminal record
and the current conviction.
Some guidelines are voluntary while others are
mandatory.
The most controversial set of mandatory sentencing
guidelines is at the federal level.
LO: 3
Sentencing Guidelines, Con’t.

Proponents contended that the guidelines decreased
judicial disparity and potential for discrimination.

Opponents said that the federal guidelines decreased
the use of community correctional alternatives.

Federal parole was abolished and prisoners are now
allowed one year of mandatory release.
LO: 2
The Paradox

Corrections policy shifts as legislators perceive what the
public wants.

Public opinion polls often ask crime policy questions in
simplistic terms.

The media often reports biased, sensationalist views of crime
and criminal justice.

Consequently, the public is not well informed.
LO: 2
Public Perceptions of Community
Corrections
The body of research in this area (Cullen, Fisher, and
Applegate, 2000; Roberts and Hough, 2002) found a number
of observations that include:

The public is interested in both punishment and rehabilitation,
as long as strategies lead to safer communities.

People realize that harsh punishment without treatment is an
ineffective strategy.
LO: 2
Public Perceptions of Community
Corrections, Con’t.

While the public is supportive of prison alternatives
for nonviolent offenders, there is a low tolerance for
failure of people who have been to prison.

Proposed strategies to increase the level of public
support for community corrections include appealing
to the public on an emotional level.
LO: 2
Correctional Budgets
In 2003, $36.1 billion was spent nationwide on
state and federal prisons, with a median of
$368 million per state. (Camp, Camp, and May
2003).
 In comparison to prisons, probation and parole
agencies, whether combined or separate, had
an average annual budget of $82.9 million for
the entire state.
LO: 5

Correctional Budgets, Con’t.

This means that about $0.18 of every correctional
dollar is directed to community corrections programs
to supervise more than 70% of all people under
correctional supervision.

Jail and prison incarceration ranged between $22,000
to nearly $28,000 per year.
LO: 5
Correctional Budgets, Con’t.


Probation supervision costs between $866 and
$3,535 per person per year, but the offender
subsidizes these costs with monthly fees
ranging between $25 and $40.
Parole, electronic monitoring, day reporting,
and residential facilities are all partially
subsidized by the offender.
LO: 5
The Role of Corrections at 3 Major
Decision Points

Discretion, or subjective decision making, in
the criminal justice system begins with
victims and law enforcement.

Community corrections plays a pivotal role at
three major decision points that follow the
arrest: bail, sentencing, and reentry.
LO: 2
Pre-trial and the Bail Decision



Following arrest, a defendant is considered for
release from custody.
Bail requires monetary payment deposited with the
court to ensure return, but most defendants are
released on their own recognizance.
Pretrial supervision is a form of correctional
supervision. of a defendant who has not yet been
convicted
LO: 4
Sentencing Decision



The vast majority of offenders can be punished in the
community.
The community-based punishments shown in Figure
1.1 are known as intermediate sanctions, because
they offer graduated levels of supervision.
A full range of sentencing options gives judges
greater latitude to select punishments that closely fit
the crime and the offender.
LO: 1
Reentry Decision




Over 40 years ago, the President’s Commission on
Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice
(1967) introduced the term reintegration.
95 - 97% of incarcerated prisoners will one day be
released.
Reentry requires the offender to participate in
programs as they adapt to a community setting.
Prisoner reentry applies to prisoners who are released
on mandatory statutes as well as prisoners released
on parole.
LO: 4
Prerelease Programs

A prerelease program is a minimum-security
institutional setting for imprisoned offenders
who have already done some time in prison and
are nearing release.

Prerelease programs are considered to be more
treatment oriented than prison.
LO: 4
Parole


Parole is the discretionary conditional and
supervised release of an offender prior to the
expiration of sentence.
While technical differences exist between
probation and parole, both involve supervision
in the community.
LO: 4
How Community Corrections Fits
Correctional Goals

Community corrections punishes offenders
while protecting the public, addressing victim
needs and preventing future criminal behavior
though:




Rehabilitation
Community Reintegration
Restorative Justice
Shaming
LO: 3
Protection of the Public


A major criticism of traditional probation and parole
has been the failure to protect the public from future
criminal acts.
This criticism can be addressed in several ways:



Appropriate risk assessment must be utilized to select
appropriate offenders.
The supervision of offenders should include proper monitoring
of compliance with conditions.
Violations of supervised conditions must be taken seriously.
LO: 1
Rehabilitation


A goal of community corrections programs is to
correct inadequacies that contribute to criminal
behavior.
Typical problems encountered include drug or alcohol
addiction, lack of emotional control, inadequate
education or vocational training, lack of parenting
skills, mental illness and developmental disability.
LO: 2
Rehabilitation, Con’t.




Correctional treatment or programming is the means
by which offenders receive assistance for their
problems.
The offender has to have the genuine desire to change.
Offenders who pose a serious danger to society or
themselves should not be in a community corrections
program.
Often offenders receive more treatment in the
community than in prison.
LO: 2
Rehabilitation, Con’t.


Community based sanctions provide a means for
offenders who are not dangerous to repay their
victims and the community.
Proponents of rehabilitation believe that for certain
types of offenders, if the issues that are related to
recidivism are addressed, the likelihood of future
criminal behavior may be reduced by between 10 and
60%.
LO: 2
Restorative or Community Justice



Restorative Justice is victim-centered and
emphasizes offender responsibility to repair the
injustice that offenders have caused their victims.
When a crime is committed, the offender harms both
the individual victim and the community
The offender must repair the damage by remaining in
the community and repaying the victim and the
community at large.
LO: 2
Public Shaming as Punishment


Some offenders can be deterred from future criminal
conduct by being publicly shamed.
To be effective, shaming must have 5 conditions:





The offender must belong to an identifiable group.
The form of shaming must be sufficient to compromise the
person’s social standing in the group.
The punishment must be communicated to the community.
The offender must fear being shunned.
Normally, there must be a method for the offender to regain
social status.
LO: 2
The Effectiveness of CommunityBased Corrections



Evidence-based practices (EBP) involves using current best
practices or interventions for which there is consistent and
solid scientific evidence of success. Assessment must show
that such practices work to meet the intended outcomes and
are open to periodic measurement, evaluation, and
dissemination of practices and interventions.
EBP is not based on intuition, speculation, anecdotal
evidence, or tradition (e.g., “that’s the way we’ve always
done it around here”).
Research methodology must be sophisticated and rigorous
enough to determine what does and does not work.
LO: 1
The Effectiveness of CommunityBased Corrections, Con’t.



It would be ideal to compare offenders who are randomly
selected to receive the “treatment” (for example, the
community corrections program) with matched “control”
groups (those on regular probation, in prison, or both).
Then the groups can be compared on a number of outcome
measures. This ideal situation is hard to come by in reality,
because sentencing guidelines prevent it and many judges
cannot be persuaded to randomly assign offenders.
Net widening usually results in a cost increase instead of a
cost savings.
LO: 1
Outcome Measures



Recidivism, or the rate of recidivism, is the most common
form of measurement of program or treatment effectiveness.
Recidivism is defined as repetition or return to criminal
behavior, measured by:
 Rearrest
 Reconviction
 Reincarceration
Different studies identify recidivism in different ways, making
comparisons of effectiveness difficult.
LO: 5
Outcome Measures, Con’t.

Effectiveness might be measured in different
ways:







Amount of restitution collected
Number of offenders employed
Amount of fines and fees collected
Number of community service hours
Number of probationers enrolled in school
Number of drug-free days
Impact on reduction of institutional crowding
LO: 5