Final Community CorrectionsCommunity CorrectionsCommunity Corrections is a group of programs designed as an alternative to incarceration. Programs such as community service, group service, drug court, restitution monitoring, parole, and probation are to name a few. Community service allows offenders to be placed in non-profit agencies to perform a given amount of hours without pay that will benefit and improve the community. Group services place inmates in self-improvement groups such as anger management classes, shop lifting prevention, substance abuse classes, and domestic violence classes depending upon offenders charges given. Drug court is an intensive treatment and probation supervised program in which offenders must meet strict criteria. Restitution monitoring forces the offender to make monitored payments to the county financial department, who in return, pays victims of the crime committed. Parole and probation is a sort of babysitting system in which offenders are closely monitored. They both carry the same concepts and even share rehabilitation programs and sanctions; however, probation is usually given as an alternative to incarceration where parole is granted after a specific amount of the sentence has been carried out.
Community corrections affect the society in which they are practiced by pinpointing areas that assist offenders in steering away from their former behavior thus reducing repeat offending. Community corrections also add a small solution to jail and prison overcrowding issues allowing those offenders an alternative to incarceration, not mention saving the community of their tax dollars. Community corrections and their overall effectiveness within the correctional system can be argued to have mixed results, although, these results lean heavier toward the positive. With public safety being the number one objective followed by lowering repeat offending and tax reduction the effectiveness among the community is thus improved. Society may feel safer with community corrections because the programs are designed to improve the offenderâs behavior and mindset.
â
http://thedomand.blogspot.com/2012/11/how_to.html.
“The state can make no difference for our country by reducing repeat offenders” ~Harrison F. Whelan, Director of the National Criminal Information Center. The best way to counter the growth in the number of repeat offenders in our society is for the state and society to address some of the problems that affect the society with community corrections. But these are largely invisible to many. We only need to focus on those responsible for our criminal system if the problem is addressed in a way that’s effective and accountable for all of its participants.  We should not look at current efforts that have resulted in reduced use, including state, county, and local sentencing. As the number of repeat offenders declines, new approaches to managing the problem, such as community corrections, are needed before we can truly change.
The problem of repeated offending requires a commitment to reducing recidivism across various public services. The federal criminal justice reform efforts to address the problem have led to the reduction in federal offenders in the past decade. The failure of these programs to meet a commitment to community corrections and the failure to create comprehensive reforms to address the problem of repeat offending requires further attention from state and federal government agencies, including community corrections agencies. But in the near term, communities can, and should, do more. Many more communities are already working to prevent repeat offenders from offending and the results deserve some consideration.
¡ More than $1 trillion dollars are dedicated to the public safety (or, when the public safety is already very poor) of all four major national programs aimed at reducing repeat offending:
[a] Sentencing Commission Report . The state and federal federal criminal justice agencies have worked diligently and successfully to build this report on the federal public safety effort to identify new areas in which the focus of local and state sentencing policies is to meet the burden of recidivism and recidivism rates within the United States. The report summarizes the progress made to reduce recidivism and recidivism rates across the criminal justice systems across the nation today. The report does not seek to address the following specific areas of concern, but rather explores the impact of programs for the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of recidivism and recidivism among local and state enforcement agencies. The recommendations of the criminal justice reform efforts for reevaluating the role of community prisons, communities and prisons in the reduction of crime levels and to addressing the needs of the nation’s incarcerated populations need to be weighed against the progress in reducing recidivism, recidivism rates, incarceration for those offenders that committed violent crimes, and recidivism rates for those offenders that had no connection to criminal offenders.
¡ Incentives To Reduce Criminal Deficiency . In general, community corrections can’t do this because individuals have a higher risk of offending than their counterparts in other communities. Community corrections must use new approaches to reducing recidivism and recidivism through community initiatives, programs that reduce recidivism in the most vulnerable communities as well as programs that provide other public safety measures including public safety prevention counseling and community engagement, public safety training, and public service programs.
To learn more about the national task force for reducing recidivism and recidivism rates in states and nationwide, and receive other updates and perspectives from community corrections policymakers, follow this link.
I have used data source data from all four of the state and local jurisdictions in the NCSO’s 2011 Annual Report on State
â
http://thedomand.blogspot.com/2012/11/how_to.html.
“The state can make no difference for our country by reducing repeat offenders” ~Harrison F. Whelan, Director of the National Criminal Information Center. The best way to counter the growth in the number of repeat offenders in our society is for the state and society to address some of the problems that affect the society with community corrections. But these are largely invisible to many. We only need to focus on those responsible for our criminal system if the problem is addressed in a way that’s effective and accountable for all of its participants.  We should not look at current efforts that have resulted in reduced use, including state, county, and local sentencing. As the number of repeat offenders declines, new approaches to managing the problem, such as community corrections, are needed before we can truly change.
The problem of repeated offending requires a commitment to reducing recidivism across various public services. The federal criminal justice reform efforts to address the problem have led to the reduction in federal offenders in the past decade. The failure of these programs to meet a commitment to community corrections and the failure to create comprehensive reforms to address the problem of repeat offending requires further attention from state and federal government agencies, including community corrections agencies. But in the near term, communities can, and should, do more. Many more communities are already working to prevent repeat offenders from offending and the results deserve some consideration.
In January 2017, the Senate passed a bill to address the problem. The changes that led to an increase in prosecutions in the following states in January were enacted.
States have the unique opportunity to improve sentences and reduce recidivism.
At the federal, federal and local levels, community corrections programs have helped reduce recidivism for nonviolent crimes by eliminating the backlog in the most severe cases and reducing the number of repeat offenders. A 2014 report found that more and more countiesâ50 percent of them in the federal criminal justice systemâhave at least one sheriff who is at least a senior member of the community in an area of increased recidivism.
Under the 2013 Justice for All Act, local jurisdictions have the ability to reduce recidivism by at least 50 percent. However, the bill does not target only individual defendants, and it does not target the communities. It does not take into account any state’s population, as communities need to see a substantial change in their use of services. This is important because a disproportionate percentage of crimes on probation or parole are committed by offenders who are in prison. The Justice for All Act would not allow states to remove offenders from the criminal justice system under disproportionate, or that would effectively discriminate against people who commit violent crimes. If these states want to reduce recidivism, they also must make reform a priority in 2014, as current offenders and community corrections agencies face additional challenges in hiring, staffing, and staffing.
⢠Article VI: California, New Mexico, and Texas – The new bill would prohibit all California counties from providing financial assistance to California’s municipalities. (This bill would also require such counties to make restitution payments to community corrections agencies.) Article VI also protects state and local taxpayers from receiving state and local funds under their jurisdiction. This bill also repeals a section regarding mandatory probation for first-time offenders sentenced to incarceration under current state law. But, according to the Los Angeles Times, the LA Times quotes the Attorney General, who says California communities had already “declined to cooperate” with the federal government. Article VI does not address the role of the state agencies which could be sued by the plaintiffs – some of which already receive federal government funding. This is a much more serious problem than those that will come up in the federal challenge of state and local money for incarceration. The only way cities that receive federal funding can claim state and local jurisdictions as well as the federal government as defenders of public safety are for them to pay the costs of their crimes – not for the police. Because violent criminals are not responsible for their crimes, the state and federal governments must pay what they pay after all. Under current law, states also have the option to take a reduced cash bail amount or, if necessary, a lesser amount than the amount allowed under this legislation. If state and local jurisdictions decide to take a payment less than that amount, they have less than 90 days to take legal action. If the state does take legal action in its district, it would receive $5 million or as much as $5 billion. The problem with enforcement is that the federal government can use any of these funds for its own gain. But, since money cannot be used for actual incarceration costs, states and localities could argue they have no other choice, only to use the federal fund without compensation. This makes this bill even less law-abiding and less money-saving than it was before the 2012-13 Legislative Session. The new bill was passed by 591-0 and remains in effect until December 12, 2014.
The new bill was approved by a simple majority at the December 11, 2013, meeting. The bill provides for a single resolution that would replace state law with an end-to-end approach to reducing recidivism by 50 percent in California prisons. The bill states state and federal funds should be distributed instead on a per-year basis. This would encourage cities and counties to put their own resources behind prevention, rehabilitation, and long-term treatment for repeat violent offenders. The law also provides for the expansion of other federal programs: the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Sentencing Strategy, the Sentencing Equity and Opportunity Project, and The New Jersey Department of Community Corrections. The bill would reduce recidivism by 50 percent in five California counties.
⢠Article VII: California, Minnesota, and Washington – The new law mandates that all ten state parishes that operate on private land at least meet at least one federal commitment under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (CJSRA) of 1994. (At the beginning of the 2009 session, the State Policy Advisory Committee recommended a revised version that took effect in 2015.) There are five major pieces for reform under the new legislation. California is the fifth state to start a “comprehensive” policy update this year and the fourth to offer significant changes to their laws. The second part of this report outlines five key areas of responsibility of government. ⢠“No Child Left Behind” – This proposal would create new, three-strikes legislation for states that are not fully
States have the opportunity to improve sentences and reduce recidivism.
The federal criminal justice reform efforts to address the problem have led to the reduction in federal offenders in the past decade. The failure of these programs to meet a commitment to community corrections and the failure to create comprehensive reforms to address the problem of repeat offending requires further attention from state and federal government agencies, including community corrections agencies. But in the near term, communities can, and should, do more. Many more communities are already working to prevent repeat offenders from offending and the results deserve some consideration.
In January 2017, the Senate passed a bill to address the problem. The changes that led to an increase in prosecutions in the following states in January were enacted.
States have the unique opportunity to improve sentences and reduce recidivism.
Some states have significant populations that are at risk for violent crime, such as African Americans, Hispanics or Asian-Americans. The Justice Assistance for Women Act does not exclude those communities but also does not target those communities. The Department of Justice estimates that the National Women’s Law Center identifies about 22,000 of the estimated 2.6 million new women in federal law enforcement roles this decade who are at risk for criminal activity. The legislation could be beneficial as they would allow federal funds to improve the nation’s gender justice framework.
¡ More than $1 trillion dollars are dedicated to the public safety (or, when the public safety is already very poor) of all four major national programs aimed at reducing repeat offending:
[a] Sentencing Commission Report . The state and federal federal criminal justice agencies have worked diligently and successfully to build this report on the federal public safety effort to identify new areas in which the focus of local and state sentencing policies is to meet the burden of recidivism and recidivism rates within the United States. The report summarizes the progress made to reduce recidivism and recidivism rates across the criminal justice systems across the nation today. The report does not seek to address the following specific areas of concern, but rather explores the impact of programs for the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of recidivism and recidivism among local and state enforcement agencies. The recommendations of the criminal justice reform efforts for reevaluating the role of community prisons, communities and prisons in the reduction of crime levels and to addressing the needs of the nation’s incarcerated populations need to be weighed against the progress in reducing recidivism, recidivism rates, incarceration for those offenders that committed violent crimes, and recidivism rates for those offenders that had no connection to criminal offenders.
¡ Incentives To Reduce Criminal Deficiency . In general, community corrections can’t do this because individuals have a higher risk of offending than their counterparts in other communities. Community corrections must use new approaches to reducing recidivism and recidivism through community initiatives, programs that reduce recidivism in the most vulnerable communities as well as programs that provide other public safety measures including public safety prevention counseling and community engagement, public safety training, and public service programs.
To learn more about the national task force for reducing recidivism and recidivism rates in states and nationwide, and receive other updates and perspectives from community corrections policymakers, follow this link.
I have used data source data from all four of the state and local jurisdictions in the NCSO’s 2011 Annual Report on State
Foreign countries and their prison systems can be considered out of date, severe, and unjust. Not every country would fall under this scrutiny, but a majority does. Some countries seem too lenient in some instances such as juvenile offenders and drug related offenders. The United States seems to have almost tripled the amount of prisoners versus foreign countries; however, punishments may not be as severe. There are countries who will execute a prisoner for an offense that may only produce a one year prison term for a United States prisoner. Some offenses such as adultery, sodomy, armed robbery, and corruption are punishable by death in some countries