College of the Southwest
Professor Lynn Baade
7 October 2011
Community corrections programs are the step stool in controlling prison functions, but it was not until the 1970’s, community-based programs sprang up across the country (Seiter, pg.106). This was the starting point that the government caught wind of it and its strengths. Along with limitations the programs appeared to offer the solution to many problems and too often solving them all. The programs offered alternatives to incarceration within the prison. Local correctional facilities have been established in cities, countries and states, along with programs that have been known as community corrections programs. These facilities have allowed offenders normal family relationships and rehabilitation services such as counseling, basic living skills, how to apply for jobs along with work training and placement. In the next few paragraphs much well be elaborated on historical models and variety of non-institutional correctional programs leading the way for community corrections. Treatment model
Treatment is identified in the correctional literature as the original mission of community-based sanctions. “According to Fuller, Rothman argues community-based programs bore little resemblance to those envisioned by Progressive era reformers, for several reasons. First, reformers were optimistic regarding the knowledge base of corrections. In addition, agencies were plagued by excessive workloads and scarce resources and were unable to attract employees with the desired educational credentials. Last but not lease, time constraints prevented the implementation of social casework approach (Fuller and Hickey, pg. 92).” This model was used for misdemeanor crimes or minor felony drug and alcoholic offenders who were productive working citizens struggling with drug or alcohol addictions. The clinical model was developed in the 1950s by the positive effect of increasing parole staff.
This model dominated the parole system until the 1970s, emphasizing individualized treatment and reintegration. Majority of all programs provided only superficial investigations of offenders’ backgrounds and minimal supervision. Not until the post-World War II era, all changed by increase of funding and staffing levels allowing the implementation of practices (Fuller and Hickey, pg. 92). “Just Desert” Model
The term “Just Desert” simply means getting what you deserve. This model was short lived because this approach failed to allay public concerns over the risks posed by offenders punished in the community (Fuller and Hickey, pg. 93). This model had no deterrence except for the memory of a previous punishment; therefore, first time offenders had no reason to fear this type of punishment. This model was not concerned with rehabilitation, but was understood as “an eye for an eye” punishment. The demise of the treatment model was linked to (1) declining confidence in the efficacy of treatment, (2) concern regarding the discretion allowed decision makers, and (3) a shift toward a more conservative ideology on the part of the public (Fuller and Hickey, pg. 93).
Offender Control Model
In this model the old and new models of correction in terms of the language, goals, and techniques are distinguished by Feeley and Simon (1992). The old model focused on individual offenders to achieve deserved punished or diagnosis and treatment. The new penology is concerned with risk determination aimed at managing high-risk offender groups (Fuller and Hickey, pg. 93). New practices that are designed to increase the potential for risk assessment and control consist of actuarial-based prediction and electronic monitoring devices. In the new penology system, it operates in a dual system supervision involving a low-risk...