Community Welfare Reform Paper

Community corrections is continually changing and has been for the past one hundred years. From the early to mid-twentieth century onward it has used three major models, the medical model, community model, and the crime control model. The major turning point for the American community corrections system that led to corrections as we know it today was in 1974 when What Works? - Questions and Answers About Prison Reform by Martinson was published. The system changed practically overnight across the nation. The notion of rehabilitating offenders was dismissed and a more punitive “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality took over. Presently the corrections system is still working in the crime control model, but professionals are trying to restructure how we deal with criminal offenders during and after incarceration. The difficulty in the restructuring is finding the balance between punishing criminal offenders proportionate to their crime, but also rehabilitating them to be productive members of society once they are released so that they do not recidivate.

Ex-offenders face challenges at every level when reentering back into society. These handicaps come in many forms that involve the community in the transitioning process. It is critical to involve the neighborhood in establishing a natural guidance in the criminal justice process (Young and Taxman, 2002). Informal agents and the community should establish an inherent connection with the offender through Re-Entry Partnership Initiative (Young and Taxman, 2002). The Re-Entry Partnership Initiative was designed to assist those facing significant barriers due to former confinement or other circumstances as they re-enter the community and the workforce. This sense of accountability and ownership is a powerful advantage. The neighborhood involvement sends a

The prison population in the United States has been growing steadily for more over 30 years, a great portion of this population are returned offenders. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports, each year more than 650,000 offenders are released into communities with at least 5 million of the ex-offenders being under some form of community-based supervision (James, 2010). In an attempt to curtail the rate of recidivism, the Bureau of Prison contracts with Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) to assist inmates approaching release. RRC’s provide safe, structured, supervised environment, as well as employment counseling, job placement and financial management assistance (Prisons, 2017).

A large number of incarcerated people leave the state and federal prisons every year. It becomes a major concern for federal, local, and state government when they reenter into the community. Most of these individuals do not fit into the community and after a short period of time, some of them would have committed new crimes or have violated terms in which they were released and thus re-incarcerated. This issue brings about many

Individuals returning from incarceration each year live in virtually every zip code in the country. Most ex-offenders have every intention of becoming productive, tax paying citizens, and no intention of returning to the penal system. However ex-offenders are largely on their own when returning to our communities. They are often estranged from families and friends, and are increasingly faced with tremendous challenges upon their release. Most are simply unprepared for the challenges they will encounter in the attempt to restore normalcy to their lives – finding a

In order to evaluate the program, a quasi experiment was conducted which comprised of a treatment group, individuals participating in the Going Home project, and a control group, individuals who did not participate in the program. The assumptions were that lower recidivism rates would be observed among individuals who participated in the program. This assumption was based on the program’s objectives in assisting the offender and community with reintegration efforts. Together, the offender and community were given resources that assisted in alleviating transitional issues experienced by offenders. The goal of the project was to refer offenders to resources as they transition into the community; prepare communities for an offender’s return; and increase Department of Corrections staff communication to prepare

Many have argued and debated about a systematical program called welfare. Some perceive it as dead weight to our nation and they question whether the programs offered are helping the community. As taxpayer's, the American populous funds contribute to welfare for others. Due to the large number of people who receive government assistance, it is not that simple to monitor every individual. However, I propose that welfare should be reformed. Society is abusing the access to social welfare and to prevent the downfall sure to come, the government needs to reform the accessibility and ownership of welfare because it betrays its creation; it is creating a dependent nation, and affects taxpayers and people who truly need government assistance.

More than 700,000 offenders are released from state and federal prisons every year with over two-thirds returning to jail within three years of their release. Reentry programs are created to aid offenders that are incarcerated make an effective transition into society once they are released. Reentrance into ones community from a stay in jail or prison is a difficult transition for most offenders, not to mention for their family and even the community. There are many trials for these offender, such as being uneducated, therefore not able to find adequate employment, drug abuse, limited options for housing and mental health issues. (Prisoner Reentry Programs: Ensuring a Safe and Successful Return to the Community. (n.d.).)

There are several ways to effectively handle the reduction in corrections budgets by finding new ways to reduce the prison population. Austin describes reducing the sentences of incarcerated persons, such as implementing good time (2010). Another model Austin discusses is working with parolee’s who violated terms of their parole. There are the offenders who committed new crimes and should serve the sentence for the crime committed, however, the “technical” parole violators should receive a brief sentence in a local jail as long as they are nonviolent offenders (Austin, 2010). Lastly, Austin discusses giving drug and alcohol offenders probation sentences rather than sentencing them to prison (2010). Implementing some of these reforms would

The nation over, group adjustments organizations are attempting to accomplish more with less. Policymakers and corrections authorities look to community corrections to ease overcrowding in detainment facilities and correctional facilities as offender populations develop. Correctional authorities organizations and in addition to appointed government authorities are searching for innovative answers for lessening new crimes and victims, even with the contracting spending plans. Luckily, a considerable amount of literature exists on effective cost cutting practices that are demonstrated to decrease

Community corrections is an alternative to incarceration. By moving the function of corrections back into the community, how can we, both as members of society and members of the criminal justice system, manage and reduce the risk to the community?

Community corrections are vital in ensuring and assuring the safety of the community by rehabilitating the low-risk offenders allowing cycle of re-offending to be broken and the rate of imprisonment to be lowered. Community corrections involve managing an offender’s life in the community through constant supervision and reporting to their corrections officer and, also court ordered unpaid community service and rehabilitation programs to divert their attention to re-offend, rather than throwing them into the prison system for a low-risk crime. The question however is whether the correction services are a success in minimising the re-offending and rehabilitating the offenders once let back into society. In the last 40 years or so, community corrections have become a substantial component of the correctional service system (White and Perrone, 2010). The movement towards community corrections advocates the decarceration of the prisoners and mental health patients and its was influenced by the reconceptualization of social control with the increasing development of community care and control. The main focus is to find a solution to minimise short-term imprisonment and whether alternate corrections have become a success.

The purpose of this research paper is to inform the reader of the benefits of welfare programs. I will introduce the programs, follow along with the results and continue with the public’s response. Using different statistics and surveys I will observe the outcomes of these programs. Hopefully the reader will become more informed and accepting of these programs.

A good definition of social welfare will not only be described as assistance for the needy, but present a broad definition. This is to better explain where social welfare can be found or used. Therefore, social welfare can not only be defined as the wellbeing of all individuals in a society. Social welfare is not the same as the standard of living, but is more concerned with the quality of life that includes factors such as the of the environment, level of crime, extent of drug abuse, availability of essential social services , as well as religious and spiritual aspects of life (Business Dictionary).

Community-based corrections is a cheaper means of punishing offenders in comparison to confining the offenders to jail or prison (Martin, 2003). Placing the offenders in community-based correctional programs reduce the issue of overcrowding in prisons and jails (Lawrence & Hesse, 2010). The primary purposes of community-based corrections are to hold the offenders accountable and protect public safety by monitoring the offenders through alternative programs (National Institute of Justice, 1998). The supervisor over the offender educates the offenders of the consequences of their actions, monitors the offenders, documents and reports non-compliance (Alarid, 2017). One of the theoretical premises of community-based corrections suggests that criminals will consider the costs and benefits and the consequences before violating the rules of the program or committing any new criminal offenses (Alarid, 2017). The specific deterrence theory suggests that if the criminal sanctions are severe enough, the offender will think twice before committing another crime because the consequences outweigh the benefits (Siegel, 2010). The community-based correctional programs discourage the offender from continuing old behavioral patterns through supervision. The goals of community-based correctional programs are rehabilitation, protect public safety, and restore the victims and the community back to the state they were before the crime occurred (Alarid, 2017). The community-based