Effectiveness, Risks, and Improvements of Community Corrections

Throughout history, the criminal justice system has been involved in the correction of individuals that have been found to undertake in wrongdoing. One of the most common correctional approaches involves having the individuals incarcerated and having them separated from the community as a form of punishment. However, in the recent past, community corrections which involves releasing the offender back to the community under supervision has gained wide popularity. Prisons have resulted in the population of prisons growing and offenders have had a high recidivism rate showing that they do not benefit from the programs. Community corrections have thus become a theme that has been emphasized in the recent past. This review analyzes the effectiveness, risks, and improvements that can be made to community corrections. 

Community based corrections can be defined as programs where people are placed under supervision after having been convicted or when they are facing conviction. Some offenders can enter the programs before being placed in prisons and others serve part of their sentences in prison before entering the program. The two main forms of community based corrections are probation and parole. Probation can be defined as a sentence which is imposed by the court but does not require confinement but could have the offender’s actions restrained (Latessa & Smith, 2015). On the other hand, parole refers to the placement of an offender in a confinement before the expiry of their sentence as a response to good behavior (Latessa & Smith, 2015). Both probation and parole could involve supervision by law enforcement officers. 

Effectiveness 

One of the popular ways to identify the effectiveness of correctional programs is through an analysis of their recidivism rate. Recidivism is thus the primary goal of all correctional programs (Ostermann, Salerno, & Hyatt,2015). Community correction have been found to have a long-term effectiveness in reducing the recidivism rate. The results by Ostermann (2015) suggests that approximately after 3 years of follow-up time, those released to community supervision were less involved in new crimes compared to those that were released without any forms of supervision. Wan et al., (2016) analyzed two groups of offenders by comparing those that had undergone supervision and those that had not and found that parole supervision reduces the risks of re-offending. The implementation of the swift and certain (SAC) policy that was used in the Washington state was also found to lead to outcomes that were generally positive such as reduced recidivism and a reduced propensity to commit violations with time. 

Community supervisions have also been regarded as a cost-effective alternative to the use of jails. The Chinese government has been at the forefront of making use of community corrections programs. China has faced an increase in its prison populations leading to the government seeking for other alternatives. Community corrections was used by the Chinese government as a cost-effective approach (Spencer, 2014). Wodahl, Boman and Garland (2015) also identified that the use of jail sanctions did not outperform community sanctions. Instead, community-based sanctions and supervisions were found to be a better approach. Drake (2018) further observed that three out of four of the supervision strategies are usually effective in reducing the recidivism rate and can produce a long-term financial benefit which outweighs all the costs with a significant certainty degree. 

Risks 

One of the risks of community corrections is that it may not be effective in some neighborhoods and thus increase recidivism. Chamberlain and Wallace (2016) observed that concentrated reentry of offenders increased recidivism and parolees that were in neighborhoods that were unstable were highly likely to recidivate. Chamberlain et al., (2018) further observed that parolees that have a negative relationship with their parole officer have a higher rate of recidivism. The recidivism of offenders that were placed on federal community supervision was thus analyzed between 2005 and 2010 by Markman et al. (2016). The authors established that the recidivism was 23 percent for those directly sentenced to probation, 77% for those who were released following prison sentence. 35% of the offenders were rearrested after 3 years while the remaining 43% were rearrested after 5 years of being placed under community supervision. This was close to the federal prisoners that had a recidivism rate of 44.7%. The recidivism rate could indicate that community corrections are also largely ineffective. 

Offenders that are released in the community that may not have undergone a complete reformation and could put the public at risk. Men can be especially at a greater risk of engaging in violence at reoffending (Britt et al., 2019). This can put the community at risk as it can result in community violence exposure which could impact the community negatively (Rosenblatt et al. 2019). Offenders released as parolees can also encounter several challenges with readjusting to the community. They can also return to communities that are impoverished and filled with high-crimes putting the community at more risks (Robson et al., 2019). A convicted murder that re-offends after they have been released can create intense fear in the community and the entire criminal justice system becomes ridiculed (Breetzke et al., 2019). The placement of offenders back to the community can thus create a significant risk of recidivism which will cause violence and impact the community negatively. 

Law enforcement officers and correctional officers are usually at the center of facilitating the probation and parole. In case of a poor interaction between the correctional officer and the offender, it can result in putting the life of the correctional officer at risk and create tensions between the two parties (Kerrison, 2018). The ability of offenders to engage in violent offenses against law enforcement was found to be based on their criminality and background (Aaltonen, 2017; McKendy & Ricciardelli, 2019). A similar observation was made by Farrell and Pease (2017) who noted that repeat offenses and offenses against law enforcement did not just occur by a random chance. It was highly linked to the environment and the community such as the neighborhood where an individual was placed. r 

Offenders that are released into the community may not get adequate punishment and this can create problems for the victims, their families, and the entire community. The introduction of jails was meant to ensure that individuals that engage in crimes would get an equal amount of punishment by being denied their basic freedom of movement. However, community correction provides such a freedom and victims, families, and communities may not get closure as a result of the offense. Community-based punishments have thus been found by many to be less punitive compared to jail incarcerations (Wodahl, Garland, & Schweitzer, 2019). Restitution payments can be applied so as to ensure that the victims actually get punished for their actions. However, the use of restitution payments may also be difficult since the offender could lack an adequate financial resources (“Council of State Governments Justice Ctr, & United States of America”, 2018). This shows that the process of punishing offenders through the use of community-based interventions does not really punish offenders and this can contribute to higher recidivism. 

Target Interventions 

Community corrections can be improved by having the corrections officer ensuring that there is a successful community supervision. Wright and Gifford (2017) observe that the training of correction officers can create promising results for offenders. The parole officer is the agent of the parolee/parole relationship and this can impact the reintegration process of the offender (Shah, 2015). The use of mentoring programs by correctional officers can improve the relationship between the two parties. It was established that mentoring programs which adhered to the use of evidence-based practice were able to produce the largest reduction in the rate of recidivism among youth that had been mentored and those that had not been mentored (“University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, & United States of America”, 2017). Cherney (2018) also observed that topics related to training of staff that interact with offenders can have a positive impact on the process of supervision. The individuals that are central to ensuring the success of community corrections are thus correction officers that should be involved in a keen supervision. 

The use of incentives in community supervisions has been found to be effective in improving community supervision. Wodahl, Garland, & Mowen (2017) suggested that compliance credits that were applied to offenders and a following $50 fee waiver, a reduced reporting requirement or a gift card worth $50 could be used as incentives. Technology can also be applied as an assistive tool to assist in the effectiveness of community-based corrections. Russo et al. (2019) identified that technology can be leveraged to train officers on the basic skills of supervising offenders. It can also be used for location-monitoring which can serve to help improve accountability and thus facilitate a positive behavioral change. Technology in itself is thus a critical resource that can enhance the effectiveness of community corrections. 

Another strategy that can be applied to ensure effectiveness of the treatment approach is through having different approaches to the community supervision of high-risk and low-risk parolees. Devall et al. (2017) identified that Sanctions Probation Program is an alternative to the use of incarceration and it ensures that the participants have a lower recidivism rate by going through a very close supervision. The intensive supervision was also studied by Hyatt and Barnes (2017) who examined hundreds of parolees. The individuals went through an intensive supervision probation by experiencing multiple home visits, frequent drug screenings, and additional contacts from the office. The study established that there was no significant difference in offending. One of the reasons that could be used to indicate why it was an ineffective approach is through considering the analysis of Cohen, Cook, and Lowenkamp (2016) who observed that low-risk offenders should undergo a minimum amount of time of supervision. This was based on research which had indicated that low-risk offenders with high supervision services could increase their recidivism. However, for high-risk offenders, increasing their supervision reduced their recidivism. 

Conclusion 

The use of community corrections was thus established to have a varying degree of outcomes. It was established that it could lead to reduced recidivism but in other instances could result in an increase in the rate of recidivism. The increase in recidivism could occur where the individual is placed in an unstable neighborhood and does not have adequate supervision. This could put members of the community at risk for increased violence. Many people also view community corrections as a more lenient form of correction. The findings show the need to promote evidence-based practice in order to improve the effectiveness of community corrections. An improved relationship with the correction officer is required in order to facilitate an effective community correction. The level of supervision may also vary depending on whether the individual is classified as a high-risk or low-risk offender. While community corrections were found to have their flaws, the use of a correct approach can thus be effective and may also be used to realize cost-effective advantages. 

References 

Aaltonen, M. (2017). To whom do prior offenders pose a risk? Victim–offender similarity in police-reported violent crime.  Crime & Delinquency ,  63 (11), 1410-1433. 

Breetzke, G. D., Polaschek, D. L., & Curtis-Ham, S. (2019). Does crime count? Investigating the association between neighbourhood-level crime and recidivism in high-risk parolees.  Applied geography ,  102 , 20-27. 

Britt, J. Y., Patton, C. L., Remaker, D. N., Prell, L., & Vitacco, M. J. (2019). Predicting violence risk and recidivism in female parolees: A state-wide sample.  International journal of law and psychiatry ,  66 , 101471. 

Chamberlain, A. W., Gricius, M., Wallace, D. M., Borjas, D., & Ware, V. M. (2018). Parolee–parole officer rapport: Does it impact recidivism?.  International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology ,  62 (11), 3581-3602. 

Chamberlain, A. W., & Wallace, D. (2016). Mass reentry, neighborhood context and recidivism: Examining how the distribution of parolees within and across neighborhoods impacts recidivism.  Justice Quarterly ,  33 (5), 912-941. 

Cherney, A. (2018). The release and community supervision of radicalised offenders: issues and challenges that can influence reintegration.  Terrorism and Political Violence , 1-19. 

Cohen, T. H., Cook, D., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2016). The supervision of low-risk federal offenders: How the low-risk policy has changed federal supervision practices with compromising community safety.  Fed. Probation ,  80 , 3. 

Council of State Governments Justice Ctr, & United States of America. (2018). Financial Support for Victims of Crime: A Quick Guide for Corrections and Community Supervision Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=274350 

DeVall, K. E., Lanier, C., Hartmann, D. J., Williamson, S. H., & Askew, L. N. (2017). Intensive supervision programs and recidivism: How Michigan successfully targets high-risk offenders.  The Prison Journal ,  97 (5), 585-608. 

Drake, E. K. (2018). The monetary benefits and costs of community supervision.  Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice ,  34 (1), 47-68. 

Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (2017). Preventing repeat and near repeat crime concentrations.  Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety ,  2 . 

Hamilton, Z., Campbell, C. M., van Wormer, J., Kigerl, A., & Posey, B. (2016). Impact of swift and certain sanctions: Evaluation of Washington State's policy for offenders on community supervision.  Criminology & Public Policy ,  15 (4), 1009-1072. 

Hyatt, J. M., & Barnes, G. C. (2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers.  Crime & Delinquency ,  63 (1), 3-38. 

Kerrison, E. M. (2018). Risky business, risk assessment, and other heteronormative misnomers in women’s community corrections and reentry planning.  Punishment & Society ,  20 (1), 134-151. 

Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2015).  Corrections in the community . Routledge. 

Markman, J. A., Durose, M. R., Rantala, R. R., & Tiedt, A. D. (2016). Recidivism of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010.  Bureau of Justice Statistics , 1-16. 

McKendy, L., & Ricciardelli, R. (2019). Women offenders under community supervision: Comparing the profiles of returners and non-returners to federal prison.  Frontiers in Psychiatry ,  10 , 875. 

Ostermann, M. (2015). How do former inmates perform in the community? A survival analysis of rearrests, reconvictions, and technical parole violations.  Crime & Delinquency ,  61 (2), 163-187. 

Ostermann, M., Salerno, L. M., & Hyatt, J. M. (2015). How different operationalizations of recidivism impact conclusions of effectiveness of parole supervision.  Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency ,  52 (6), 771-796. 

Robson, S., Yesberg, J. A., Wilson, M. S., & Polaschek, D. L. (2019). A fresh start or the devil you know? Examining relationships between release location choices, community experiences, and recidivism for high-risk parolees.  International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology , 0306624X19877589. 

Rosenblatt, M. S., Joseph, K. T., Dechert, T., Duncan, T. K., D'Andrea, K. J., Stewart, R. M., & Cooper, Z. R. (2019). American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Prevention Committee topical update: Impact of community violence exposure, intimate partner violence, hospital-based violence intervention, building community coalitions and injury prevention program evaluation.  Journal of trauma and acute care surgery ,  87 (2), 456-462. 

Russo, J., Woods, D., Drake, G. B., & Jackson, B. A. (2019). Leveraging Technology to Enhance Community Supervision: Identifying Needs to Address Current and Emerging Concerns. 

Shah, R. (2015). Expanding the community: An exploratory analysis of an American parole office’s location and its impact on parolees.  British Journal of Criminology ,  55 (2), 321-340. 

Spencer D. Li (2014) Toward a Cost-effective Correctional System: New Developments in Community-based Corrections in China,  Victims & Offenders , 9:1, 120-125, DOI:  10.1080/15564886.2013.860936 

University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, & United States of America. (2017). Mentoring Best Practices Research: Effectiveness of Juvenile Mentoring for Youth on Parole and Probation in Ohio. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 

Wan, W. Y., Poynton, S., & Weatherburn, D. (2016). Does parole supervision reduce the risk of re-offending?.  Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology ,  49 (4), 497-511. 

Wodahl, E. J., Boman IV, J. H., & Garland, B. E. (2015). Responding to probation and parole violations: Are jail sanctions more effective than community-based graduated sanctions?.  Journal of Criminal Justice ,  43 (3), 242-250. 

Wodahl, E. J., Garland, B. E., & Mowen, T. J. (2017). Understanding the perceived value of incentives in community supervision.  Corrections ,  2 (3), 165-188. 

Wodahl, E. J., Garland, B. E., & Schweitzer, K. (2019). Are Jail Sanctions More Punitive Than Community-Based Punishments? An Examination Into the Perceived Severity of Alternative Sanctions in Community Supervision.  Criminal Justice Policy Review , 0887403419870848. 

Wright, K. A., & Gifford, F. E. (2017). Legal cynicism, antisocial attitudes, and recidivism: Implications for a procedurally just community corrections.  Victims & Offenders ,  12 (4), 624-642.