Community Corrections
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Researches on the effectiveness of community corrections
3. Public perception of community corrections
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Introduction
In recent years the discussions concerning the problem of community corrections
are growing to be tenser. The contradictions between numerous researches dedicated
to the effectiveness of community correction programs and the opposition of
the public are often very significant to the extent that public perception of
community correction is rather negative than positive, while, in stark contrast,
researches reveal quite optimistic results and indicate in the direction of
the wider implementation of community correction programs.
As a result, the views on the effectiveness of community corrections differ
dramatically. On the one hand, there are researches that estimate that community
corrections can reduce the cost spent on corrections of people in traditional
prisons, community corrections can also reduce the prison population and widen
the net of public control. All this contributes to high effectiveness of community
corrections.
Nonetheless, on the other hand, the public opinion is quite skeptical about
effectiveness of community corrections as they simply lack information about
community corrections at large and their effectiveness, there is also the fear
of risk to public safety resulting in a so-called NIMBY syndrome, and, finally,
it is necessary to say that public opinion is substantially influenced by media
which depict communicative corrections in rather dark colors.
In such a way, there exist quite different views on community corrections that
need to be analyzed and discussed.
Researches on the effectiveness of community corrections
At the beginning it is necessary to point out that community corrections have
provoked numerous discussions within last several decades as for its effectiveness
and nowadays community corrections are viewed by many researchers (Beyer, 1990)
as an effective alternative to traditional incarceration. To a significant extent,
such a positive attitude of the researchers to community corrections is predetermined
by economic effectiveness and more humanistic approach to criminals.
First of all, it is necessary to underline that many specialists believe that
community corrections will need less funding form the part of the state and
it will be less expansive for public than traditional incarceration. For instance,
in 1996, the figures concerning communication corrections were quite optimistic,
notably, the federal government had to spend $45,753 to house a federal inmate
and on the provincial level it was necessary to spend $39,000 on an inmate per
year, while it cost only about $8,527 to supervise in the community on parole
or statutory release for a year (Canadian Center for Justice and Statistics,
1996).
In such a way, savings seem to be quite substantial and the advantages of community
corrections are economically justified, though some specialists are warning
against the possible threat of misuse of cost comparisons on lobbying for community
corrections alternatives. In this respect, it is worthy of mention that Landreville
agrees that it is possible to speak about real savings of public funds by means
of using community corrections only when “they are presented as alternatives
to imprisonment and are suggested as a means of reducing overpopulation”
but he remarks that it is really possible to achieve positive results only “on
the condition that it is presented prudently and it is well documented”.
According to the same research, it is worthy of mention that approximately 90%
of the cost that are spent on traditional increment basically remain stable
and are not susceptible to serious variations or changes. This is why it will
be possible to reduce costs only when the existing system is changed radically,
notably, if the existing penitentiary institutions are eliminated and, instead
community corrections programs are introduced saving public funds (Landerville,
1995).
In such a situation, specialists naturally support community corrections as
alternatives to traditional incarceration as more effective from economic point
of view, but, at the same time, it is also obvious that really positive economic
effects of community corrections may be observed only on the condition that
the cost will be used more effectively and communication corrections will really
replace traditional prisons leading to the institutional closures.
Another argument of researchers in favor of the high effectiveness of community
corrections is the possibility to reduce the prison population that is also
quite costly. It should be said that specialists (Doob, 1990) state that there
are three basic assumptions underlying the introduction of community corrections
as alternatives to imprisonment.
First of all, it should be said that, at the present moment, judges are reluctantly
imprisoning offenders because there is practically no equally effective alternatives
by which incarceration could be substituted and, moreover, in the result of
the failure of community corrections offenders are sent to prison.
Secondly, it is necessary that judges that set sanctions should really believe
that these sanctions will be thoroughly controlled and the punishment will fully
correspond to the guilt of an offender and his or her crime. At the same time,
communicative corrections should also imply the possibility for rehabilitation
of those offenders who really want to change themselves.
Furthermore, it should be said that, on introducing community corrections, judges
could change their attitude to the traditional sentences leading to incarceration
of offenders. Instead, they would rather prefer to use community corrections
programs for different offenders according to their crimes and social danger
they represent to the community.
At the same time, it is necessary to underline that there is a risk that community
corrections will be used by judges not as alternatives but only as sanctions
against offenders. Consequently, it is important that community corrections
became alternatives to traditional incarceration but not an additional punishment
for them. Otherwise, it would be hardly possible to speak about a real reduction
of the prison population as community corrections rather become a kind of additional
sanctions to the imprisonment than its real alternatives. As a result, the number
of offenders in prison would hardly decrease. On the other hand, it is necessary
to remind that specialists (Reeves, 1992) believe that the wide use of community
corrections as alternatives can really reduce the prison population that, in
its turn can lead to savings and, thus, economically it can be more effective
than imprisonment.
Another argument in favor of the higher effectiveness of community corrections
compared to traditional incarceration is the possibility of widening the net
of social control (Blomberg, 1984). Practically, it means that, instead of the
existing correction system of penitentiary establishments, the network of public
corrections programs will disperse offenders throughout different communities
with lower concentration of offenders at one place by increasing the number
of such places.
In fact, community corrections programs, as a rule, imply longer term of correction
and thus, need community supervision for a longer time that, unquestionably,
will need more funding and, thus, it will be more expansive. Moreover, some
specialists argue that “certain forms of use of ‘alternatives’
can inevitably lead to an increase in the total number of people under ‘social
control’ at any given point” (Doob, 1995).
As a result, it is possible to estimate that positive economic effect can be
minimized because of the need to spend more money on funding the longer term
of public supervision and control over offenders but, on the other hand, its
practical effectiveness, i.e. the positive impact of the punishment on offenders
leading to the change of his or her lifestyle and behavior, may be much higher
than in the result of the traditional imprisonment.
Anyway, the savings from the wide implementation of community corrections may
be still quite significant regardless the longer terms and net widening (Marvell,
1995) since they can outweigh the costs of the funding of the existing corrections
system.
Anyway, one of the most important factors with the help of which it is possible
to assess the effectiveness of community corrections is the consequences of
community corrections compared to traditional incarceration. In other words,
it is possible to say that the effectiveness of community corrections can be
measured in terms of reducing recidivism, avoiding exposure to undesirable effects
and promoting the successful re-integration of offenders in the community.
In this respect, it should be said that studies have shown incarceration is
not more effective than community corrections in preventing re-offending (Vyas,
1995). Moreover, community corrections have been shown more effective when delivered
in a community setting (Gendreau and Andrews, 1990). At the same time, it is
worthy of mention that community correction programs spare offenders many of
the negative effects of traditional incarceration.
Community corrections programs also facilitate many of the factors associated
with the offender’s successful re-integration into the community. Obviously,
offenders can benefit from community corrections programs because the life within
the community will inevitably be more effective than traditional incarceration
and contribute substantially to offenders’ re-integration into the society
and, what is more, they will be also able to pursue employment or educational
opportunities (Benzvy-Miller, 1990).
At the same time, it is also necessary to remember about re-establishment of
family relationships of offenders. Researches reveal the fact that family ties
are better maintained when offender is residing at a community-based facility
rather than a prison (Benzvy-Miller, 1990).
Furthermore, the proven ineffectiveness of incarceration at reducing recidivism
and the perceived effectiveness of community corrections has lead the province
of New Brunswick to commit to close provincial institutions and re-directing
correction dollars to community-based programs. The province has planned closing
5 of its 12 correctional facilities. The province expects to reduce institutional
bed by 25% (Benzvy-Miller, 1990). In such a way, the actual closure of correctional
facilities may increase the likelihood that cost savings will be achieved and
net widening will not be a problem.
Public perception of community corrections
Obviously the numerous researches reveal quite optimistic consequences of community
corrections and specialists basically support the further development of community-based
programs as alternatives to traditional incarceration. However, the public perception
of community corrections is less optimistic and, what is more, it often engenders
the public opposition to the further development of community corrections programs.
Naturally, public has its own reasons to oppose to community corrections which
should be analyzed.
In fact, nowadays, one of the major problems that prevent community corrections
from being accepted by the public is the lack of knowledge about the programs
of corrections. Canadians often oppose to the implementation of community-based
correction programs simply because they do not fully realize what these programs
are, how they are supposed to be realized, and what the effect of these programs
on the community will be. As a result, the public naturally apprehends of community
corrections.
Unquestionably, to a significant extent, this problem is the result of the low
effectiveness of the work of agencies that are responsible for community corrections
programs. What is meant here is the fact that it is necessary to primarily inform
the public about the essence of the corrections programs and the basic principles
of their realization. To put it more precisely, it is necessary to inform the
public about the variety of programs that currently exist and can be applied.
Also, the public should know that these products will not produce any negative
effect on the life of the community.
It is equally important that the public perfectly realized how the community
corrections work so that people did not think that their community would become
a kind of prison, but, in stark contrast, their life would not change dramatically.
The encouragement of the public is also quite significant since people should
realize that community corrections are not only cost saving but these programs
are also humanitarian programs targeting at the help to those in need.
Unfortunately, the public remains meagerly informed about all these aspects
of community corrections.
However, probably the major barrier in the way of community corrections to be
accepted by the public and be normally perceived by Canadians is the fear of
risk to public safety. In actuality, Canadians do not feel they will be safe
if community corrections programs are realized in their communities.
No wonder that, at present, community-based alternatives are opposed by the
public and are perceived rather negatively than positively. It should be said
that the public has never fully accepted community corrections programs such
as probation, fines, day and full parole, temporary absences and intermittent
prison sentences. Obviously, in public perception it will be socially dangerous
to place in the neighborhood houses or residential centers for offenders as
this can threaten to the criminal situation in the community and decrease commercial
attractiveness of the area. Such a fear leads to what specialists define as
the NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard syndrome.
According to Webber (1987) the development of such a syndrome is, to a significant
extent, provoked by the fear of crime among Canadians which has risen dramatically
over the past few years although it is disproportionate to the actual crime
rate.
Furthermore, fear and lack of information are the basic reasons for the opposition
of public to community corrections programs and, moreover, the public perceives
the funding of such programs as unreasonable wasting of public funds as money
could be redirected on other needs related to people who also need public help
and support because of certain health problems, for instance.
Moreover, Benzvy-Miller underlines that Canadians have a totally erroneous concept
of corrections system and people simply “fear crime and expect that physical
proximity to offenders will expose them to great risk” and, naturally,
they are “afraid that a group home will somehow taint the neighborhood
and cause property values to plummet” (1990:19).
Naturally, in such a situation it is quite difficult to change public perception
of community corrections since the fear seems to be too strong and, along with
the lack of knowledge, causes the opposition of Canadians to community corrections,
regardless, the results of numerous researches that have quite a different view
on community corrections.
The situation is seriously deteriorated by the negative impact of media on public
perception. It is not a secret that media traditionally form an extremely negative
image of an offender making him or her not just a kind of outcast but a socially
dangerous person that practically needs to be totally isolated from the community.
At least, this is the image of an offender created by media.
At the same time, it is also important how media represent community corrections
to the audience. In fact, it is obvious that the Canadians do not properly understand
how the criminal justice system functions and often they overestimate the threat
of community corrections programs and the role of the media is really great
as they wrongly represent community corrections creating wrong public perception
of these programs. In such a situation, it is really important that media contributed
to the objective informing of the audience and changed public perception of
community corrections. It is worthy of mention that Reeves points out that “citizens
must be helped to understand that effective community based programs are not
simply another manifestation of a ‘soft crime’ philosophy. Instead,
they offer a combination of rehabilitation and punishment. In short, they provide
a chance to return offenders to the community as productive members of society”
(1992:76).
Obviously, nowadays, the role of media is extremely significant and, to a significant
extent, media can define public perception of community corrections.
Conclusion
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that
at present there exist dramatically different views on community corrections
in Canada. On the one hand, there are specialists who, on the basis of numerous
researches, emphasize the positive effects of community corrections. On the
other hand public perception of community corrections is totally different.
This striking difference of public perception of community corrections is based
on the lack of knowledge about community-based corrections programs and, what
is more, traditional public perception of these programs is dramatically affected,
if not to say shaped, by media. As a result, Canadians have a totally erroneous
view on community corrections and, what is more, they simply fear these programs
since people believe that they threaten to public safety.
References
Alberta Justice. (1995). Alberta Justice annual report
1994/95.
Benzvy-Miller, S. (1990). Community corrections and the
NIMBY syndrome. Forum, 2, 18-22.
Beyer, J. (1990). Assignment to intensive supervision: An \
assessment of offender classification and subjective
override in the state of Idaho. In C. Fields (Ed.),
Innovative trends and specialized strategies in
community-based corrections (pp. 19-39). New York:
Garland.
Blomberg, T. (1984). Community control: An assessment of an
alternative to prison. Florida State University.
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. (1996, June). Adult
community corrections in Canada: 1994-95. Juristat,
16(8).
Doob, A. (1990). Community sanctions and imprisonment:
Hoping for a miracle but not bothering even to pray for
it. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32(3), 415-428.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. (1990). Tertiary prevention:
What the meta-analyses of the offender treatment
literature tell us about “what works.” Canadian Journal
of Criminology, 32(1), 173-184.
Hylton, J. (1982, July). Rhetoric and reality: A critical
appraisal of community correctional programs. Crime and
Delinquency.
Landreville, P. (1995). Prison overpopulation and strategies
for decarceration. Canadian Journal of Criminology,
37(1), 39-60.
Marvell, T. (1995). Sentencing guidelines and prison
population growth. The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 85(3), 696-709.
Reeves, R. (1992, December). Finding solutions to the most
pressing issues facing the corrections community.
Corrections Today, 54(8), 74-79.
Vyas, Y. (1995). Alternatives to imprisonment in Kenya.
Criminal Law Forum, 6(1), 73-102.
Webber, D. (1987). Community-based corrections and community
consultation: A how-to manual. Ontario Region: Ministry
of the Solicitor General of Canada.
