Community Based Corrections, 7 th edition

1. Community Based Corrections, 7th edition Leanne F. Alarid, Paul F. Cromwell, and Rolando V. del Carmen Thomson Wadsworth Publishers

2. Chapter 1 THE STATE OF CORRECTIONS TODAY: WHY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IS IMPORTANT

3. The Correctional Dilemma • Since the mid-1970’s, the public and politicians have pursued “tough on crime” correctional strategies • Today, the United States incarcerates the highest percentage of convicted misdemeanants and felons in the nation’s history • Nearly 7 million people are in jail, prison or on probation or parole

4. The Correctional Dilemma, cont. • In the last decade, the corrections system has increased by 2.7% annually • The number of women offenders in all categories continues to increase • The number of women on probation and parole has doubled in the past 15 years

5. The rise in convicted offenders is directly related to four factors • Changes in Sentencing Laws and Longer Sentences for Violent Offenders • Differential Police Responses to Drug Offenses • Decreased Rate of Release on Discretionary Parole • Increase of Probation and Parole Violators Returning to Prison

6. Changes in Sentencing Laws • Indeterminate sentencing was the primary sentencing philosophy from 1930’s to 1970’s and parole boards determined readiness for release • Support declined in the 1970’s due to questions regarding rehabilitation and fairness of sentencing • Maine was the first state to adopt determinate sentencing in 1975

7. Changes in Sentencing Laws, cont. • Most states gradually adopted determinate sentencing structures that based the sentence on the severity of the crime and the offender’s criminal history • Examples are mandatory minimums, truth in sentencing, three strikes laws and sentencing guidelines • 16 states abolished parole as backdoor release strategy

8. Changes in Sentencing Laws, cont. • Federal sentencing guidelines are the most controversial • State sentencing guidelines provide for more judicial discretion • While discretionary parole rates have decreased, periods of mandatory release have increased • The pendulum may be swinging away from conservative sentencing policies

9. The Toughening of Juvenile Justice • Most states have changed to model the adult system • Some juveniles are tried as adults automatically by type of crime or by discretion of the prosecutor or judge • Other areas, i.e., fingerprinting, opening records, opening court proceedings, etc. have become more like the adult system

10. The Toughening of Juvenile Justice, cont. • The Juvenile Justice system still exists separately from the adult system, with rehabilitation and diversion as core missions • Most juvenile offenders are nonviolent and are tried in juvenile courts under a more informal process than adults

11. 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

12. Public Perceptions of Community Corrections • 8 of 10 adults favored alternative programs for non-violent offenders such as community service, mandatory education and job training 400 citizens • Pennsylvania citizens supported community corrections sentences for drug and property offenders when restitution was a condition

13. Public Perceptions of Community Corrections, cont. • Researchers found the public believed intermediate sanctions fit between prison and probation with home detention, ISP and weekend sentences ranked from most to least severe • 400 Cincinnati residents were open to house arrest, halfway house placement or ISP for four different crime types when provided information about each offender

14. Public Perceptions of Community Corrections, cont. • The public endorsed community-based alternatives that would punish, restrain and change offenders • The public has a low tolerance for failure of those who have been to prison • Public opinion supports use of community-based corrections and intermediate sanctions, particularly if treatment results in safer communities

15. Correctional Budgets • Budgets for jails and prisons has significantly increased while some probation and parole budgets have decreased • $36.1 billion was spent nationwide on state and federal prisons, with a median of $368 million per state, representing a 12% increase over four years

16. Correctional Budgets, cont. • $3.9 billion was spent on probation and parole programs nationwide, a decrease from $4.6 billion in 1999, with average budget per state of $82.9 million • While 70% of all persons under correctional supervision are on probation and parole, these programs receive only 11% of the total budget

17. The Role of Corrections at Three Major Decision Points • Discretion, or subjective decision making, in the criminal justice system begins with victims and law enforcement • Community corrections is a sanction in which offenders serve some or all their sentence in the community • A community sentence seeks to repair the harm the offender has caused the victim or the community

18. The Role of Corrections at Three Major Decision Points, cont. • Community-based sanctions span a wide variety of residential, economic and non-residential treatment options • Probation is the most common form and serves as the base of community supervision • The American Probation and Parole Association provides professional training and standards for community corrections

19. Pre-trial and the Bail Decision • Following arrest, a defendant is considered for release from custody • Bail often requires monetary payment deposited with the court to ensure return, but many defendants are released on their own recognizance • Pre-trial supervision is a form of correctional supervision that monitors the defendant’s compliance with bond conditions

20. Sentencing Decision • The vast majority of offenders can be punished in the community • Intermediate sanctions offer graduated levels of supervision • A full range of sentencing options gives judges greater latitude to select punishments that more closely fit the crime and the offender

21. Reentry Decision • 95% of incarcerated prisoners will one day be released • Prisoner reentry is “conducted to prepare ex-convicts to return safely to the community and to live as law abiding citizens” • A prerelease program is a minimum security institution for offenders nearing release • Programs such as halfway house, boot camps and therapeutic communities are examples of back-end programs

22. Parole • Parole is the discretionary conditional release of an offender prior to the expiration of sentence • While technical differences exist between pretrial supervision, probation and parole, all involve supervision in the community

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Rehabilitation, cont. • 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

27. Rehabilitation, cont. • Community based programming costs the tax payer less because employed offenders pay for all or part of their treatment • Community based sanctions provide a means for offenders who are not dangerous to repay their victims and the community

28. Rehabilitation, cont. • Proponents believe that if the issues related to criminal behavior for certain offenders are addressed, recidivism can be reduced between 10 and 60% • The Corrections Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) indicates that only 10-20% of all correctional treatment programs are “high quality” • The key is to replace ineffective programs with ones that work

29. Community Reintegration • The 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice introduced the term “reintegration” • Institutions isolate offenders physically and psychologically • Reintegration stresses adaptation to the community by requiring participation in programs that develop accomplishments and the use of skills in the community

30. 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

31. Public Shaming as Punishment • Some offenders can be deterred from future criminal conduct by being publicly shamed • To be effective, shaming must have five 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

32. The Effectiveness of Community-Based Corrections • “Evidence-based corrections” attempts to measure the process of a program and the impact it had on participants • Robert Martinson’s 1974 study of 231 correctional treatment programs concluded few had an appreciable effect on recidivism • Lipton, Martinson and Wilks reported reaching a similar conclusion in 1975 • Both studies set off a national debate on the effectiveness of corrections

33. The Effectiveness of Community-Based Corrections, cont. • Martinson’s study coincided with a conservative era of national politics when rehabilitative philosophy was associated with liberal politics • Research methodology must be sophisticated and rigorous enough to determine what does and does not work • When evaluating effectiveness, treatment groups must be matched with control groups, which is difficult to achieve with current sentencing practices

34. The Effectiveness of Community-Based Corrections, cont. • Net widening is a common problem and occurs when an intermediate sanction is utilized unnecessarily in lieu of a less restrictive, and less costly, alternative • Evaluations of community service, ISP and boot camps reflect similar recidivism rates for new crimes as comparable offenders receiving other sentences • Whether this is good or bad depends on whether the participants would have otherwise been in a less restrictive program (probation) or more restrictive program (prison)

35. The Effectiveness of Community-Based Corrections, cont. • 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, or • Reincarceration • Different studies identify recidivism in different ways, making comparisons of effectiveness difficult

36. The Effectiveness of Community-Based Corrections, cont. • The effectiveness of community corrections depends on: • How recidivism is measured • Whether recidivism is measured only during periods of supervision • Whether recidivism rates are compared with rates of offenders of similar age and criminal history or with no control group • Whether group assignment is random or quasi-experimental • If offenders would have received a lesser or greater sanction

37. The Effectiveness of Community-Based Corrections, cont. • 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