The Greater Grand Forks Community Service And Restitution Program

Many offenders who are released from prison encounter many obstacles which hinder their progress towards community re-entry. On their own, many fail to secure employment, housing, or complete education or training programs. Without guidance or assistance many offenders return to crime to support themselves. Fortunately there are number of organizations that see the need for services to assist offenders on their path back into the community. One such organization that has proven to be successful is the Safer Foundation.

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.

Between 2009 and 2011, 35 graduates went through the program, with over half of graduates succeeding in going three or more years without new charges (DeKalb County Court House, 2012). DeKalb County’s drug court recidivism rate is approximately 20%, which is 31.7% lower than Illinois’s prison recidivism (DeKalb County Court House, 2012). The work of the DeKalb County Drug Court, and the statistics it holds makes “[the] drug courts [a] proven commodity in the community…” (DeKalb County Court House, 2012). Illinois’s primary drug abuse treatment programs focus on heroin, marijuana, and cocaine (ONDCP, 2010). The DeKalb County Drug Court works to enhance the public safety by combining treatment and intensive judicial supervision in a therapeutic court setting, focusing on non-violent substance abuse offenders to assist the participant in choosing and developing a law abiding drug free way of life (DeKalb County Drug Court, 2012). DeKalb County’s C.L.E.A.N. Program is a diversion and treatment program. Non-violent voluntary substance abuse offenders participate in an intensive treatment program for 14 to 24 months which helps them succeed in becoming and remaining drug free (DeKalb County Drug Court, 2012). C.L.E.A.N. is not a soft-on-crime prevention program. It provides comprehensive supervision and monitoring with strict contact procedures with judicial

Community justice broadly refers to different aspects of crime prevention and justice activities that include the quality of life as a goal for the community. Recent initiatives include community crime prevention, community policing, community defense, community prosecution, community courts, and restorative justice sanctioning systems. Community justice prioritizes different types of offenders to determine the sanctioning for the victims and to ensure the offender is ready to enter back into their community in good standing with no problems. In other words, they do not want them back in the community if they feel they have not learned their lesson or have been rehabilitated. Community justice’s main focus is to promote public safety and like I had said earlier to ensure that the quality of life of the community is in good standing. Community justice includes different ways of interpreting information about police, courts, and corrections that highlights problem-solving techniques. There is a strategy behind community justice such as including restorative justice practices and processes. They also include both adult and juvenile offenders to create a safer community rather than doing things for the offenders or actually to them. Community justice wants to prevent victimization to help establish public safety. It also places a high priority on the wants,

Many would say that offenders are hopeless and if one looks at the rate of recidivism, one would definitely think that our nation’s offenders are indeed hopeless. However, what if there was a way to reduce the rate of recidivism and at the same time rehabilitate offenders in order to make them functioning members of the community? Reentry programs that are implemented correctly cannot only reduce the rate of recidivism but at the same time help to rehabilitate an offender through education, treatment, and therapy. The Second Chance At is a law that went into effect April 29, 2008 (P.L. 110-199) and it allows government agencies to provide services to offenders that will help to reduce the rate of recidivism as well as improve the

Community Based Corrections programs, also known as halfway houses or Residential Reentry facilities, were established as an alternative for prisoners to complete their term of incarceration in a community setting. Residential Reentry facilities provide a structured environment for low, minimum, and high-risk offenders while allowing them to integrate back into society. Specifically, Residential Reentry facilities provide offenders the opportunity to gain employment, establish financial responsibility, and obtain suitable housing. With the overcrowding of prisons, the ability to participate in Community Based Correction programs enables the convicted criminals as well as prison staff to lessen the loads that come with working in a prison as well as improve the lifestyle that comes with incarceration. As with all things in life, there are positive as well as negative outcomes to the participation of these convicted criminals in community-based programs. In viewing the positive and negative outcomes, the end

Other alternative programs are available like the day programs, or check-in programs for drugs or alcohol use, community service, and other methods for building trust by these ‘at-risk’ offenders (Haughtone, 2010, para. 2). Community-based correction programs are the future of the criminal justice system providing for the needs and issues of offenders, without these programs or an opportunity for a second chance, offenders will continue to reoffend returning to jails and prisons in this country and Canada.

The criminal justice system is composed of four categories: law enforcement, legal counsel, courts, and corrections. I am going to focus on one of these subjects and the problems or issues that are within the corrections part of criminal justice usually refers to the events that occur after being sentenced in a court of law. During the past few decades many problems have arisen in this area, solutions have been discussed and put into use over the years as well. However, there are still problems that are being dealt with in today’s corrections.

Saskatchewan Corrections and Public Safety Corrections Division maintain a philosophy of involving the community with supervision

Correctional treatment programs have long been thought not to be effective in lowering the recidivism among criminals; Martinson (1979). Researchers have done countless studies and surveys only to find out that many of these studies and programs work and nearly the same number of programs do not work, depending on what component was or was not a part of the studies. Knowing that all programs does not work for all criminals is a no brainer, however, finding a good mixture of what does work and for what percentage of criminals is a beginning to duplicate that program with a few minor adjustments in the programs.

While sitting in the court proceedings, the observer noticed the abundance of support resources available to offenders if needed. The difference between the success and failure cases is truly how devoted and involved the offender is in rehabilitation. Dye (2015) emphasizes the well-known punishment versus rehabilitation debate with greater award being in the community alternatives to incarceration. These specialty courts affirm a strong sense of community involvement with court supervision as well as foster the ability to heal in

Corrections as a term in criminology involve the treatment, incapacitation, and punishment of criminal wrongdoers who have admitted to the court. The criminal court convicts and condemns those perpetrators who are found guilty of crimes. Upon sentencing, the corrections component of the criminal justice system begins to function. In the United States there are several correctional agencies including; residential facilities, juvenile and adult probation and parole agencies, and so much more. These agencies are established to correct, treat and control post-adjudicatory care to

Most findings indicate that punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and restitution are ineffective ways to reduce crime. It is noted that if the same resource monies could be redirected rehabilitation, the cost to the tax- payer would be reduced over time (Gertz et al, 2005). Rehabilitative programs are the most effective in reaching our ultimate goal of reducing crime and reducing future criminal behavior which is the purpose of incarceration. The problem with rehabilitation is that it is the most difficult to proof effective and even more difficult to persuade policy makers and community members to fund (Pinard, 2010). There are at

Over many years there has been great debate about whether rehabilitation reduces the rate of recidivism in criminal offenders. There has been great controversy over whether anything works to reduce recidivism and great hope that rehabilitation would offer a reduction in those rates. In this paper I will introduce information and views on the reality of whether rehabilitation does indeed reduce recidivism. Proposed is a quasi-experiment, using a group of offenders that received rehabilitation services and an ex post facto group that did not? I intend to prove that rehabilitation services do

One of the most interesting things I learned from doing my research on community corrections in my jurisdiction is how the criminal justice system is committed to being fair and balanced. I have observed in a court arraignment how a judge briefed everyone in the court about proper protocols during the hearings .The judge said he could not start court hearings unless a prosecutor was present, and that he cautions the inmate the right to remain silent, and also discussed to the inmate his rights. Community-based corrections developed as a result of dissatisfaction with institutional confinement and in recognition of the problems encountered by inmates reentering society after prolonged incarceration. Belinda R. McCarthy, Bernard J. McCarthy, Jr,& Matthew C. Leone (4th edu.). (2001) Community-Based Corrections. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group. In writing this paper I will inform and discuss the various programs and rules applied to handle offenders who have violated state laws according to the criminal justice system in NC. I will write about the following subjects in the following order: 1) Parole and probation, 2) Community and drug courts, 3) Pretrial release, 4) Victim aid, and 5) Community service (as a function of service of sentence).