community based corrections 8 th edition n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Community-Based Corrections, 8 th Edition PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Community-Based Corrections, 8 th Edition

Community-Based Corrections, 8 th Edition

822 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Community-Based Corrections, 8 th Edition

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Community-Based Corrections, 8th Edition Leanne Fiftal Alarid and Rolando V. del Carmen Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

  2. Chapter 1 An Overview of Community Corrections: Goals and Evidence-Based Practices

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Wide Variety of Community-based Sanctions (Figure 1.1) • Probation • Intensive supervision probation • Restitution and fines • Community service • Substance abuse treatment • Day reporting • House arrest and electronic monitoring LO: 4

  6. Wide Variety of Community-based Sanctions, Con’t. • Halfway houses • Boot camps • Prisons and jails LO: 4

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. Determinate Sentencing • 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

  14. Types of Determinate Sentences • Examples of determinate sentencing policies include: • Mandatory minimums • Truth in sentencing • Three strikes laws • Sentencing guidelines LO: 1

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. The Effectiveness of Community-Based 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

  37. The Effectiveness of Community-Based 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

  38. 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

  39. 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