skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 66613 Find in a Library
Title: COMMUNITY CORRECTION AND DIVERSION - COSTS AND BENEFITS, SUBSIDY MODES, AND START-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
Journal: CRIME AND DELINQUENCY  Volume:26  Issue:2  Dated:(APRIL 1980)  Pages:226-247
Author(s): J MCSPARRON
Corporate Author: National Council on Crime and Delinquency
United States of America
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 22
Sponsoring Agency: Institute for Scientific Information
Philadelphia, PA 19104
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
Newark, NJ 07102
UMI Dissertation Services
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Sale Source: National Council on Crime and Delinquency
S.I. Newhouse Ctr at Rutgers
15 Washington St., Fourth Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
United States of America

UMI Dissertation Services
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
United States of America

Institute for Scientific Information
University City Science Ctr
3501 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: A UNIFORM BASIS FOR DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REQUIRES AN UNDERSTANDING OF COMMON STRUCTURES AND OBJECTIVES OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS, OF SOME PITFALLS, AND OF SUBSIDIZING MECHANISMS.
Abstract: A KNOWLEDGE OF COMMON AND WORKABLE METHODS OF IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS AND OF MODELS FOR PRETRIAL DIVERSION IS ALSO IMPORTANT. BASIC CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ARE (1) PLACEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORRECTIONS WITHIN A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OTHER THAN THE STATE AND (2) LESS SEGREGATION OF OFFENDERS FROM THE FREE WORLD. ADVANTAGES OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ARE PURPORTED TO BE A GREATER HARMONY WITH OTHER FACETS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ALMOST ALL OF WHICH ARE NOW OPERATED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT (POLICE, ADJUDICATION), COST EFFECTIVENESS, AND HUMANITARIANISM. HOWEVER, ARGUMENTS ESPOUSING THESE BENEFITS CAN BE MISLEADING. THE LOWER COSTS OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST REHABILITATIVE QUALITY, THE UNCANCELED FIXED COSTS OF REMAINING PRISONS, THE LIKELIHOOD OF SAVING OR MERELY POSTPONING EXPENDITURES, AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INCAPACITATION. A STUDY OF A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CENTER IN MINNESOTA, FOR INSTANCE, FOUND THAT COSTS OF SUPERVISING OFFENDERS DIVERTED TO THE COMMUNITY WERE APPROXIMATELY HALF THOSE OF INCARCERATION. HOWEVER, IN MANY CASES (50 PERCENT) THE OFFENDERS EVENTUALLY ENDED UP IN INSTITUTIONS, A SITUATION THAT ABSORBED MOST SAVINGS. FURTHERMORE, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IS A LESS EFFECTIVE MEANS OF INCAPACITATION THAN PRISON AND IS USED BY MANY DISPOSITIONAL DECISIONMAKERS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PROBATION RATHER THAN TO INSTITUTIONALIZATION, THUS INCREASING SOCIAL CONTROL. FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS HAVE OFTEN COME FROM THE STATES. MOST COMMON ALLOCATION METHODS ARE A FLAT AWARD BASED ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S REDUCTION OF STATE'S PRISON POPULATION (EXEMPLIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACT) AND THE EQUALIZATION FORMULA INDIVIDUALLY DESIGNED FOR THE COMMUNITY (EXEMPLIFIED BY CALIFORNIA'S PROBATION SUBSIDY). REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD OF SUBSIDY, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS SHOULD HAVE A NUMBER OF FEATURES: (1) A COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD, (2) A STATEWIDE MASTER PLAN, AND (3) PILOT, PROJECTS. ALL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS, INCLUDING PRETRIAL SERVICES (PRETRIAL RELEASE, RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE, RELEASE UNDER SUPERVISION, DIVERSION, ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION DEVICES), SHOULD HAVE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION, INPUT OF AND COOPERATION AMONG PROSECUTORS, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, PUBLIC DEFENDERS, THE COURTS, POLICE, AND THE PUBLIC, AND MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY IN EXPANDING STATE FUNDS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (DAG)
Index Term(s): Alternatives to institutionalization; Community-based corrections (adult); Corrections effectiveness; Juvenile correctional facilities; Pretrial release
Note: PRICE QUOTED FOR NCCD IS FOR SINGLE ISSUE. AN EARLIER VERSION OF THIS PAPER WAS PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION OF CORRECTION AND THE NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SENTENCING
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=66613

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.