If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. p ell."y.-I1I­ COMMUNITY · Jt- -). ~J i CORRECTIONS ACT ____ L.f-...,__ Assistan , , - 1 --. " --.' F ~ ""'~; ; - "",II IT - 11111 , T ,II 1/' - ,- , Itt' I "H" ,...... Ie. _" n" 1/1 l 11 11 " I /l"JlTI /11 - , I ,n lffl ll1r ,Hill I _ HI 11' ,lI ,,' , Ii,1,.'1 I - - I . , '. 1 ~ i .-- .:...~ f ! ~ i :,.-, .\ ",'1 .<~'- . \ I .. _ " '/' • .. • ~, , ,.. .1 , \~ aQMMUNITY~RRECTIONS ACT Technical Assis~nce Manual ii :1 l/ il byy! II II Patrick D. McManus !I Lynn Zeller Barclay :i :1 \ 'I Ii ,I ! \) ! !I if ;j !/ I , ) ) 94494 u.s. Department~ National Institute of Justice od d exactly as received from the This document ha~ bee~ ~epr, u,ce 'ts of view or opinions stated person or organlzatton onglOat;r~~ It. :u~~ors and do not necessarily In this document arei thol~,e 0 or peOlicies of the National Institute of represent the offic l a pos Ion !I Justice. I Published by Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material In ml- .J The American Correctional Association [I ~1~~aC~~~~&~£8nal II 4321 Hartwick Road, L-208 !'I Association College Park, Maryland 20740 ,.'.:j to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). I i~ Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ \ I~.:1 sion of the copyright owner. ~ ,.i~ \ i 'I '. This project was supported by Grant #ES-2 awarded by the National In­ stitute of Corrections, United States Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in thi~ publication are those of the American Correc­ tional Association and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice. Grant Recipient,~ The American Correctional Association Task Force on Community Corrections Legislation Members of the Task Force PREFACE Bobbie L. Huskey, Chair Bruce McManus Indiana Minnesota Les Belleque Larry Solomon The American Correctional Association is the oldest and most represen­ Oregon Washington, DC tative organization of corrections professionals in the country. Our iden­ tification began with prisons and prison issues in 1870 because of the Ronald Hayes Anthony P. Travisono need for professionalism in prison management following the Civil War. As California Maryland our membership became interdisciplinary and correctional manpower ex­ panded beyond the prison, the Association's interests broadened con­ Roger Werholtz siderably. We support a balanced approach that includes community cor­ Kamas rections as an integral component of a comprehensive correctional policy. In 1978 the Association promulgated a policy statement regarding this im­ portant aspect of corrections (Appendix I). The American Correctional Association This booklet provides information and assistance to those interested in community corrections, particularly those who develop or implement cor­ H.G. "Gus" Moeller Anthony P. Travisono rectional policy. Legislators, judges, local elected officials, prosecutors, President Executive Director defense attorneys and, of course, people working in the field of correc­ Terrell Don Hutto Edward J. McMillan, CPA tions might find it especially useful. President-Elect Assistant Director, Finance But others who are not directly connected with lithe system" will find Amos E. Reed Marge L. Restivo this booklet informative as well because corrections affects everyone, if in Past President Assistant Director, Conventiom, no other way than through the tax dollars required to support the field. Su Cunningham Advertising and Publicatiom Community corrections has become something of a buzzword, with dif­ Vice Presidfmt William J. Taylor ferent meanings for different people. (This booklet does not attempt to :i Helen G. Carrothers Assistant Director, Membership, cover everything that might be broadly defined as community corrections, !l" Training and Contracts but rather focuses only on community corrections legislation defined as: 11 Treasurer A statewide mechanism through which funds are granted to local units of government to plan, develop and deliver correctional sanctions and services at the ISBN 0-942974-59-X local level. © The American Correctional Association The overall purpose of this mechanism Is to provide local sentencing \ options in lieu of imptisonment in state institutions. 1 ., Part I describes the dilemma facing American corrections in the 1980s and beyond. It sketches the context in which community corrections legislation is most often considered and debated. Part II is an in-depth examination of several states that have community corrections legislation meeting the definition above. The essential elements of such legislation are highlighted. In Part III, these same states are examined to see how well they have achieved their goals thus far and what results were either unintended or unforeseen. Part IV addresses what community corrections legislation can and can­ not be expected to accomplish. Building on the experience of other states, this section provides a guide to drafting and implementing these laws and pitfalls to be avoided.) This booklet on community corrections legislation is not meant to offer INTRODUCTION a cure-all approach that will work in every state. But community correc­ tions legislation may be a part of some states' solution to the increasingly costly and ominous overcrowding of jails and prisons across the country. An average reader can finish this booklet in 30 minutes. We hope you In 1981, one of the Association's major concerns centered around will take the time. burgeoning inmate populations in most state correctional systems. One solution was a community corrections policy stressing that if the concept of community corrections was accepted, we could lessen our reliance on institutional confinement. This concern was not new to the Association; however, we needed to develop an implementation process for the policy. Bobbie Huskey, former manager of community diversion for the Virginia Department of Corrections and currently the Executive Director of PACT, Anthony P. Travisono Inc., in Michigan, was asked by Past President Amos E. Reed and President Executive Director H.G. "Gus" Moeller to spearhead a task force to determine the best American Correctional Association approach for marketing "Community Corrections Act" legislation. Task force members were chosen immediately and writers selected to develop an implementation booklet. The enclosed booklet represents the first phase of the task force's ef­ forts. The Association's members strongly believe in the concept of com­ munity corrections and appreciate the diligent work of the tasl< force members and writers. The Association is also grateful to the National In­ stitute of Corrections (NIC) for its financial assistance In developing this im­ portant booklet. This booklet is written for corrections professionals and all state , I legislatures. It is not an academic treatise on community corrections. I I Rather, it is an action-oriented handbook of sound correctional strategy for developing effective community corrections programs. 2 3 --~~ __ "L ___ _ CONTENTS Preface 1 Introduction 3 Part I The Problem Overcrmoding • Cost • Crime 6 Control Policy vs. Correctional Policy • The F?.du.re ~ Part II compont":t;;o~~~~nity Corrections 10 Legislati ~ cic ground 'd. Esserzt'ial Ele- ments • State 8u.m/fnaries • A Sample Carrzmun~trr~GM:a,{~,ftlan" J.~ ,It·-\! Part III What Have Been the ResyJts? Oregon 20 • lvli'1A/€DQ ~!J1liir~'t~C\i\t§lClvsZ:on Part IV Implementation Issues Is This an Idea That 24 Makes Sense jor Us? • Where Do We Start? • HowDo We Choose our "TargetPop- ulatiaYl,"? • How Much Will It Cost? • How To Divide the Pot: A Question oj Equity • What A bout Disincentives: The CIw..rgeback Is- sue • Haw Do We Bring About the NecessanJ Coordination and Cooperation? • ~Vho Ought to Run the Local Systems? Summary 35 DOs and DON'Ts 36 Appendix I Policy Statement on Community Corrections 37 \ 4 5 ~ 4, , ! But legislatures have only rarely provided the facilities and resources necessary to accommodate the increased populations. In most cases wardens and directors of corrections have been forced to simply stuff more bodies into already crowded prisons. Traveling around the country one sees inmates housed in tents, sleeping in corridors and gymnasiums, and crammed two and three to a tiny cell barely adequate to handle one. But lack of space to house inmates is only a part of the problem. Jobs and other programs to occupy the inmates' time are woefully lacking, a situation that can only worsen as populations swell. As any warden will testify, too many inmates with little to do and crowded together in cramped quarters is an extremely dangerous combination. PART I The courts have not been unaware of the deplorable conditions in many of our prisons and have felt compelled to intervene. Thirty-eight states are currently under court order to improve prison conditions, not just because they are bad, but because they cannot even meet the minimal re­ quirements gUaranteed by the Constitution. THE PROBLEM In ordering compliance with constitutional minima the courts have cited a variety of conditions, but running through nearly all of these decisions has been the common theme of overcrowding. Why have things been allowed to get so bad? Why do we find ourselves with dangerously overcrowded prisons, unable to safely and humanely house and occupy inmates? A major part of the answer is cost. Prisons are extremely expensive both to build and to operate. The issue of cost, then, Overcrowding is an important part of the context for discussing community corrections legislation. The current state of affairs in most U.S. jails and prisons is a troublesome one. It supplies the context for debate about Cost community corrections .Iegislation. There are currently more How much do prisons cost? A lot. Far more, in fact, than most people i ever dreamed. The cost of a new prison used to be thought of primarily as I men and women in America's jails and prisons than ever the capital expenditure required for construction. Not that prison con­ before.