In looking at four major issues in community-based corrections and the problems associated with them it is evident that basic legal and financial restraints as well as the involvement of both the local community and government are necessary factors to consider. These factors include a clear definition and statement of goals for the program, clear selection of a target population, the procurement and management of funding and other resources, and the overall engagement that can be elicited from the local communities. These factors demonstrate basic elements that profoundly influence the success or failure of these programs. In assessing these issues, the problems associated with them, and providing effective solutions, a more comprehensive understanding of the influences that policy has on community-based corrections can be achieved.
One of the major issues in community-based corrections is the establishment of clearly defined program goals. This is necessary in order to develop a framework by which actions can be considered and assessed based on a larger context. In doing so, those working in corrections have a guide that can help them to consider the underlying values that they should be focused on. This helps to promote a solidified way of thinking and promotes the representation of the organizational values of community-based corrections as a whole. “The ability of community-based corrections to provide rehabilitation, punishment, reintegration, and counseling services has been an issue among both researchers and administrators” (Johnson, et al., 1994, p. 79). Establishing clearly defined goals can become an issue when considering the moral outlook of specific values and the need to consider the long-term impact of specific ideas.
Selection of target population is another major issue that faces community-based corrections. It is important to have a clearly defined target population due to the need to reach the most amount of people quickly and effectively. Establishing methods for understanding the basic requirements for service is important as it promotes the propagation of a higher level of good for those within the community. Furthermore, there is a basic aspect of community-based corrections that needs to contemplate the focus of the program goals and the preconceptions of those that are being serviced. Research suggests that if these targeted groups are “too narrow, there will be populations who could benefit from the program but will be unserved” and on the other hand “if the classification is too broad, the program will intrude upon inappropriate populations” (Larivee & O'Leary, 1990, p. 10). This can become an issue when considering the limitations that these programs have in being able to help everybody within a community. The group that a specific program is intended to serve should be considered in this regard.
Soliciting and maintaining funding is another important issue when approaching community-based corrections. The resources available to communities are limited and should therefore be allocated in an efficient and effective manner. Doing so will help to achieve a more comprehensive way in which the various goals of the community organizations implementing these policies can be attained. This is important in considering the basic necessities that are required by the interests involved in community-based assessment. The issue arises, however, when attempting to establish ways to maintain this funding in an increasingly competitive landscape of public service. Resources are therefore an essential part of the success of such programs. “The policies affecting prisoners and the kinds of programs available to them both in and out of prison depend on a variety of factors, including the availability of funding for social programs within states and communities and the number of private nonprofit and religious organizations operating in a given community” (James, 2015, p. 11).
Finally, community engagement and involvement is an important issue that faces community-based corrections. It is necessary to mobilize communities around the various support structures that are created by these organizations in order for them to be effective. The conditions upon which communities are able to be focused on these problems are subject to a multitude of variables. These challenges can be insurmountable to those within the community that wish to help those facing these problems. Issues, however, arise when attempting to maximize the efforts of local communities through various campaigns of involvement. This can potentially lead to any efforts towards community-based corrections to have been in vain. “The community’s participation in crime prevention represents the public’s acceptance of its shared responsibility with the official sector for crime prevention” (Liwag, 2004, p. 97).
Establishing clearly defined program goals can be a major problem for community-based corrections. In order to be successful, these programs must have specific goals outlined, which can help those within the organization provide the most effective service and allows any funding that the organization has to be utilized in the most effective way. When goals are not clearly defined basic weaknesses arise within the organizations that prevent them from operating in an effective manner. Poorly defined goals can lead to not only a lack of transparency, but also questions regarding the legality and implications of justice for the actions that are taken by those seeking community-based corrections. “In light of these perceptions of community corrections, there appears to be a discrepancy over the goals or purposes of community-based correctional programs for offenders” (Johnson, et al., 1994, p. 80).
Selection of target population presents another clear problem that should be considered. In order to effectively service a population it is necessary to establish clearly defined individuals that are considered to be the primary focus of the campaign. In doing so, their conditions can be more accurately assessed and recovery can be initiated. Problems in assigning target populations, however, involve not only the ethical considerations of picking and choosing who needs help more than others but also the development of specific programs that can help them on an individual level. “In facing these pressures, one must be prepared to explain the rationale for choosing a target population in the context of the goals and objectives of the concept” (Larivee & O'Leary, 1990, p. 10). This presents a major problem in relation to resources and the justification for consideration specific populations with certain issues over others underlies a deeper question regarding the purpose of such programs.
Soliciting and maintaining funding presents another set of problems that must be considered in community-based corrections. Funding is an essential aspect of any type of organizational pursuit. The requirements for the logistical needs of organizational management demonstrate a basic need for funding. One major problem with funding is in attaining the funds themselves. Furthermore, it is necessary to apply managerial practices that ensure that they are allocated in the most effective way possible. Finally, maintaining both sustained funding and spending practices can be difficult without a concrete consideration of the underlying processes by which the organization functions. A major problem with this is that “programs that are currently funded may not provide funding for offender reentry purposes every fiscal year” (James, 2015, p. 17). This makes it difficult to maintain a coherent framework by which community-based programs are able to function.
Finally, the issue of community engagement and involvement presents a variety of problems when pursuing community-based correctional practice. Due to the fact that this type of social program is based on the participation of the community, there is a fundamental need for cooperation between the communities that offenders live in and the state that is implementing these programs. Problems can arise when communities are unwilling to participate, making it difficult for offenders to reintegrate due to the underlying fears and misconceptions of the populations that they are a part of. This presents a further challenge when consideration of the rights of both the communities and the offenders are taken into account. The basic legal and ethical ramifications of forced integration demonstrate important moral concerns for these social practices. These problems occur primarily because “the community is the center for legal, socio-economic and cultural changes and developments” (Liwag, 2004, p. 102).
In establishing clearly defined program goals it is necessary to, first of all, be informed about the underlying risks and conditions associated with implementing specific policies. This can help to determine the most effective course of action. Furthermore, consideration for the principles and values of society is important. This can help to effectively determine those practices that are considered to be important by the public. Finally, establishing a legislative basis for the implementation of policies and goals, they can be aligned with the legal frameworks that have been politically established. Rehabilitation legislation is mandated. It is therefore necessary to consider the “legal codes for all fifty states to determine the legally prescribed goals as mandated by state legislators” (Johnson et al., 1994).
In attempting to resolve issues associated with the selection of target population it is necessary to understand the goals that have been set out by the organization and society. These can help to demonstrate the criteria by which these individuals can be selected. Furthermore, it is necessary to determine those populations that seem to have a chance of being helped. It is difficult to argue for the reconditioning of those that have committed heinous crimes. Finally, it is necessary to establish a basis for determining those minor crimes which are most susceptible to returning to criminal behavior. Programs targeting specific groups, therefore, “must sufficiently describe this new high-risk target population, and explain how parole will manage it within the agency’s operational structure” (Larivee & O'Leary, 1990, p. 11).
In resolving issues associated with soliciting and maintaining funding it is necessary to have an understanding of the goals of the program. This can help to promote the efficient spending of resources. Furthermore, understanding the target population will help to establish the criteria by which this funding should be allocated. Finally, assessing and contributing to the development of programs can help to ensure that they are effective in continuously helping those that are considered to be at-risk. In any case, it is evident that “knowing that a program has worked in the past is of use to policy makers as they consider where to allocate funding and other resources” (James, 2015, p. 16).
Finally, looking at community engagement and involvement, it is evident that issues can be resolved through the implementation of a variety of marketing strategies. In promoting the positive benefits of these programs a higher level of trust can be made. Furthermore, by ensuring that these programs are developed efficiently, those that are concerned with budget constraints can be alleviated. Finally, through implementing programs that enhance the social atmosphere itself, involvement can be prioritized. In order to increase the public's acceptance of such programs, it is necessary to “enhance the involvement of its clients in more community service work, that is, in activities that enable them to make amends to society, such as tree planting, cleanliness and beautification projects” (Liwag, 2004, p. 105).
These methods would be effective in promoting the success of community-based corrections. Understanding the importance of the community and promoting service programs that enhance the local environment are essential ways in which these systems can be promulgated. Furthermore, the establishment of Legal means to promote these programs can help in their implementation. In essence, understanding how well programs work and advocating for their positive aspects are essential for increasing the effectiveness of community-based corrections.
References
James, N. (2015). Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community, and Recidivism. Congressional Research Service. 37.
Johnson, W.W., Dunaway, R.G., Burton, V.S., Marqualt, J.W., Cuvelier, S.J. (1994). The goals of community-based corrections: An analysis of state legal codes. American Journal of Criminal Justice. Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 79-93.
Larivee, J.J. & O'Leary. (1990). Managing The Development Of Community Corrections. U.S. Department of Justice.
Liwag, R.J. (2004). Community Involvement in the Rehabilitation and Treatment of Criminal Offenders. 97-116.
