The Future of Community Corrections Is Now

Abstract

The political, economic, and social context in which community corrections functions makes it extremely difficult to achieve successful outcomes. The current fiscal crisis, however, is forcing change as many states can no longer support the cost of our 30-year imprisonment binge. As in the past, community corrections will be expected to pick up the pieces of an overcrowded and expensive prison system. The authors argue that community corrections is capable of taking on this challenge and can be successful if policy makers take action to reduce prison and community supervision populations, ensure that agencies are structured to proactively support evidence-based practice, and recognize corrections as a human services profession. The authors present a number of actions that can be taken to promote a new era of shared responsibility in corrections that is framed within a human rights perspective and driven by an ethic of care.

Keywords

correctional policy community corrections parole human rights ethics

Since the political demise of correctional rehabilitation in the 1970s, community corrections has taken on a schizophrenic existence in trying to achieve legitimacy by both enforcing strict supervision and maintaining the origins of the profession by accomplishing reintegration through rehabilitation and social support. The political and philosophical tension between coercion and treatment, policing and social work, and accountability and support makes community corrections vulnerable to shifting expectations and constant criticism for failing to adequately punish or rehabilitate. These oftentimes competing goals place community corrections in a conundrum about what is expected in monitoring offenders against what is actually needed by offenders and communities. Currently, the burden of success or failure is placed primarily on the efforts of community corrections officers (CCOs) and offenders and rarely on the multiple systems that offenders pass through before arriving on a community correction’s caseload (i.e., public education, social services, courts, prisons).

We argue that it is time to bring community corrections into an era of shared responsibility that resolves the conflict between oversimplistic punitive approaches and the complex process of achieving offender reintegration. It is time to stop dreaming about what the future of community corrections could be and to start taking action, for the future of community corrections is achievable now. We have made tremendous progress since the 1970s in understanding through science and practice what works. It is time to fully embrace and implement what we know about achieving success in community corrections and to continue to proactively inform innovation for the future. Stagnation and business as usual are no longer acceptable options.

Although there are very real challenges confronting community corrections due to an ongoing political emphasis on punitive policies, the contemporary fiscal crises, and the existence of distressed communities, these issues should not be used as an excuse to do nothing. Therefore, just as offenders are held accountable for their behavior and are expected to reform, we have the same expectation for the policy makers and systems charged with supervising and caring for offenders. Reform can be achieved through (a) reducing prison and community supervision populations to manageable levels, (b) ensuring agencies are structured to proactively participate in and support evidence-based practice, and (c) recognizing corrections as a human service profession that supports the professional needs of officers as well as the individual needs of offenders. These changes to the structure and content of community corrections must be considered within a human rights framework, driven by an ethic of care and designed to reduce harm and promote the well-being of all involved.

Achieving Professional Integrity Through Multilevel Reform

To achieve success we need to seriously rethink corrections as it is currently structured at the macro level of policy making, the agency level of implementation, and the individual level of human interaction. It is only through multilevel reforms that significant change will occur and be maintained over time. Responsibility for success needs to be owned by all levels of policy makers—whether residing in the legislature or working directly with offenders in the community. Across these multiple levels, we propose in the three sections to follow the actions that can be taken now to successfully bring community corrections into a new era of shared responsibility.

Macro-Level Change: Addressing Mass Incarceration, Racism, and Institutional Isolation

Macro-level challenges often seem overwhelming and impossible to undertake. We forget, however, that the United States has moved through two major periods of correctional reform in the past 100 years inspired by philosophy, science, and oftentimes political and economic turmoil (Christianson, 1998; Gould, 1981; Rothman, 1980). It is not unreasonable to believe that the current economic crisis that is demanding that we reevaluate our prison spending will spur a willingness to embrace a new paradigm to guide policy and practice. Thus, it is within our capacity to end mass incarceration, act to remedy the biases of our policies and practices, and move beyond working in isolation.

Action 1: Mass incarceration must be rejected by restricting the use of our prisons for our most serious offenders.

Until the 1970s, we utilized our prison space as a finite resource to be used for specific offenders who deserved punishment or who were in need of rehabilitation. Although our intentions may not always have been altruistic in relation to the demographic characteristics of those incarcerated (Christianson, 1998; Rafter, 1985), prison populations remained stable over time, through good times and bad, from 1925 to 1973 (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2010). In the 1980s, we began to utilize our prison space as an infinite resource that could be expanded continuously to meet capacity without regard to monetary expense or human costs.

It was generally argued that through the incapacitation of our most serious and repeat offenders, we could reduce crime (DiIulio, 1987; Wilson, 1983). Justified by this political mantra, we passed legislation that increased the number of people sent to prison and increased the length of sanctions. These legislative changes quickly increased the U.S. prison population beyond institutional capacity and obliterated the long-term stability maintained for decades (Clear & Austin, 2009). In addition, there is little evidence to suggest that harsher penalties were successful in making significant reductions in the crime rate (Clear & Austin, 2009; Petersilia, 2003).

Clear and Austin effectively argue, through what they call the “Iron Law of Prison Populations,” that mass incarceration can only be addressed by reducing how many people go to prison and how long they stay there. Reductions in the prison population can be reached through revising the policies that have led directly to our current corrections population by (a) reexamining how corrections policy is formulated by reserving prison space for high-risk violent offenders¹; (b) eliminating mandatory minimums, especially for nonviolent crimes, and returning discretion to judges; (c) eliminating prison as a sanction for technical violations; (d) eliminating community supervision for low-risk nonviolent offenders; and (e) eliminating most civil penalties attached to criminal convictions (Clear & Austin, 2009; Mele & Miller, 2005; Petersilia, 2003; Travis, 2005).

Action 2: All legislations that will result in a criminal sanction or civil penalty must be evaluated based on their long-term impact on vulnerable populations and their potential to result in biased outcomes over time.

Broader conceptualizations of mass incarceration must also be considered as they relate to the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities, men, and the poor in our corrections population. Currently, in terms of ethnicity, 1 in 45 Whites, 1 in 27 Hispanics, and 1 in 11 Blacks are under some form of state control (Pew Center on the States, 2009, p. 7). Black individuals in general have a 29% lifetime chance of serving at least 1 year in prison, compared to Hispanic males (of any race, 16%) and to White males (5%; Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001, p. 12). Our corrections population reflects the harshest outcomes of living in and surviving concentrated poverty with an overrepresentation of the undereducated and oftentimes functionally illiterate and of those who suffer from poor mental health, physical health, substance abuse, co-occurring disorders, infectious diseases, and learning disabilities (Clear, 2007; Petersilia, 2003; Rank, 2004). Most disturbing is the evidence that strongly suggests that the demographic makeup of our corrections populations is not an unintended or accidental consequence of our corrections policy.

Recent research shows that racial animus appears to have the most consistent effect on America’s punitiveness even when compared to the “escalating crime-distrust model” and the “moral decline model.” As Unnever and Cullen (2010, p. 119) conclude,

When added to the large body of evidence on the effects of racial animus, this finding suggests that a prominent reason for the American public’s punitiveness—including the embrace of mass imprisonment and the death penalty—is the belief that those disproportionately subject to these harsh sanctions are people that they do not like: African American offenders.

As we continue to belabor the debate about whether the disproportionate involvement of minorities in the criminal justice system is due to discrimination or merely reflects disparity in rates of offending, we appear to be excused from addressing the structural inequalities that create very different life experiences and criminal justice outcomes across race, class, and gender (Lutze, 2006; Walker, Spohn, & DeLone, 2007). Either way, whether discrimination or offending disparity, the demographic makeup of our correctional population is unacceptable and needs to be addressed through culturally competent laws, policies, and practices that are judged unacceptable if they are oppressive in their implementation. To continue on with the status quo makes a mockery of our justice system and any attempts to promote trusted reform.

With so many people now under some form of state control (1 in 31; Pew Center on the States, 2009), who are banned from receiving many forms of public assistance and the right to vote, it is time for community corrections to be defined as a human rights issue (Sapers, Mann, Clear, & Lutze, 2011). Human rights’ frameworks move from merely understanding individual-level differences through cultural competency to one that understands inequality as arising from structural forces and power differentials that result in the oppression of less powerful groups in our society (Curry-Stevens & Nissen, 2011). Although human rights violations are generally reserved for other countries, recent concerns have been expressed that our correctional system participates in abusive practices and our incarceration rate is excessive in its use to control vulnerable populations (Amnesty International, 2011). Interestingly, other nations—such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand—have acknowledged the oppressive nature of some legislation on specific populations and have begun to require a review of law and policy from a human rights perspective before implementation (Curry-Stevens & Nissen, 2011; Sapers et al., 2011).

Action 3: Community corrections should engage in collaboration across institutions and proactively redirect prison spending to social services and the private sector located in the communities most affected by mass incarceration.

Related to conceptualizing corrections as a human rights issue is the belief that the problems confronting offenders are too great for criminal justice system agencies alone to manage. Oppressive practices result from an overreliance on criminal justice partnerships (i.e., police, courts, corrections), instead of a more balanced approach that includes collaborations across institutions, such as public health, education, social services and with key stakeholders, such as private businesses and organizations in the communities where offenders live (Drapela & Lutze, 2009; Lehman, 2001; Lutze, Smith, & Lovrich, 2000; Lutze & van Wormer, 2007; Murphy & Lutze, 2009). Therefore, holding offenders accountable, to be effective, must take place in conjunction with rehabilitation and social support. Evidence from evaluations of both punitive programs, such as intensive supervision and boot camp prisons, and rehabilitation-focused programs, such as problem-solving courts, are demonstrating the reality of this contention (Fulton, Latessa, Stichman, & Travis, 1997; Lutze, 2006; Lutze & van Wormer, 2007).

Even though community corrections often shares clients with a multitude of other agencies, these agencies typically work in isolation without structured plans guiding how to share information, provide services, and work together to serve the needs of offenders. Working in isolation risks creating redundancies in service provision, fails to direct limited resources to the offenders most in need, and may even work to sabotage the gains being made by others. In addition, relying solely on criminal justice partners tends to limit the potential responses to deal with problem offenders to be exclusively coercive instead of resolving problems with treatment or support (Murphy & Lutze, 2009). In addition, broader responses to resolve known deficits are often limited because of the narrow focus currently placed on prisons as the primary response to crime and noncompliance.

More important, Clear (2010a) moves beyond collaborative approaches by proposing that we reduce rates of incarceration by reinvesting money currently spent on prisons into the communities where most inmates originate and where the negative effects of incarceration take its greatest toll. Justice reinvestment moves beyond merely investing in government institutions of support such as social services to investing in building community capacity. Building community capacity means investing in new businesses and jobs, new community-based services, and new infrastructure that retains business and human capital in the community. Investing in the community releases money from being trapped within government agencies where it slowly trickles down to the community and instead allows money to originate and multiply within the community at the local level (Clear, 2007, 2010a, 2010b).

It is possible to achieve change in community corrections at the macro level by moving beyond mass incarceration, addressing oppressive crime-control policies, and supporting new paradigms such as interagency collaborations and community reinvestment. In spite of the need for macro-level change, much can also be accomplished at the agency level of implementation. It is important to understand that agencies can be structured to manage the multiple needs of offenders, both in terms of security and treatment and successfully achieving reintegration.

Agency-Level Change: Building Structural Competency and Program Integrity

With the advent of the “get tough” movement and the demise of the rehabilitative ideal to guide corrections, many have argued that the criminal justice system lost its moral center and became focused on the infliction of harm through punishment and incapacitation as opposed to managing offenders with an ethic of care (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982; Cullen, Sundt, & Wozniak, 2001; Lutze, 2006). Many have since argued that it is time to return to a system that is driven by a more humane and treatment-oriented philosophy (Cullen, 2007). More important, Cullen argues, “The challenge is to make the transition from those who deconstruct stupid crime-control proposals to those who construct a credible agenda for correctional policy and practice” (Cullen, 2007, p. 717). Cullen, Myer, and Latessa (2009, p. 116) also argue, “In the end, rehabilitation is not only about improving offenders but also about protecting public safety. . . . Commentators have shown that having good intentions is not the same as producing results” (also see Pisciotta, 1994; Rothman, 1980).

There is now a large body of evidence to move community corrections professionals beyond good intentions and into an era of proven and promising programs that provide treatment, social support, and accountability while producing positive results for offenders and the community. Therefore, we argue that community corrections needs to (a) purposefully administer and structure agencies to effectively implement programs that result in measurable outcomes, (b) implement programs that possess theoretical and structural integrity, and (c) evaluate programs in methodologically sound ways to assure that intended outcomes are being achieved.

Action 4: Organizations must be structured to adhere to standards that are informed by best practices and be held accountable for producing measurable outcomes related to program goals.

Although most of the attention in corrections has been focused on outcomes for offenders, only recently have scholars and practitioners begun to pay attention to the agencies that administer programs and how their structure relates to intended outcomes. Research by Latessa and his colleagues shows that the quality of the agency and effective implementation of its programs matter in producing desired outcomes (Fulton et al., 1997; Latessa, 2008; Latessa & Lovins, 2010; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006). It appears that the guiding philosophy of the organization, even more so than individual officer’s philosophy, influences the performance of officers related to providing greater levels of control or treatment (Clear & Latessa, 1993). In addition to the philosophy that guides an agency, how an agency is structured to achieve its mission and goals is relevant. It is not surprising then that the greater the structural integrity of the agencies that hire qualified staff, implement theoretically informed programs, install program quality assurances to ensure integrity over time, and target appropriate clients for the services offered, the more successful the outcomes for clients. Unfortunately, Lowenkamp, Latessa, and Smith’s study of the structural integrity of agencies related to implementing correctional programs shows that a majority of agencies (68%) were assessed as “unsatisfactory” and 35% were assessed as “satisfactory but needs improvement” (p. 587).

Given what we know about the principles of effective treatment, it is unacceptable to continue to administer community corrections agencies in a manner that ignores theoretical and evidence-based practice. It is time for community corrections to take responsibility for those things over which it has control (Cullen et al., 2009). This will only happen if professionals are held to standards directly related to producing results for offenders in areas most relevant to reducing recidivism. Cullen and colleagues argue that corrections professionals must engage in knowledge construction, knowledge dissemination, and knowledge fidelity.

We agree that community corrections professionals must construct interventions that are capable of reforming offenders and rely less on anecdotal remedies and clinical advice that have not been assessed in relation to intended program- and offender-specific outcomes. Professionals must also actively participate in the transfer of knowledge by bridging the gap between the social science evidence of “what works” and the transfer of that knowledge to those working directly with offenders. In addition, quality assurances must be built into the process to ensure program integrity is sustained over time and evidence-based interventions are not negated by the agency either because of lack of funding or practitioners who may be more comfortable conducting business as usual (Lutze & van Wormer, 2007). It is no longer acceptable to merely manage programs, staff, and offenders and passively “hope for the best.” It is possible to proactively work to achieve success by understanding what works best for different types of offenders.

For community corrections to successfully implement organizational structures, assess offenders for risk and need, and provide programs that work, community corrections will need to be supported by state legislatures, departments of corrections, and key stakeholders in the community. Appropriate levels of funding must be dedicated to community corrections to (a) hire staff with the necessary credentials and skills to structure organizations and manage a professional staff, (b) purchase and implement validated risk/need assessment tools, and (c) invest in evidence-based and promising programs to effectively serve offenders.

Action 5: Community corrections agencies must rely on programs that incorporate the attributes of evidence-based treatment, base new program designs on the principles of effective treatment, and target high-risk/need offenders.

Cullen et al. (2009) propose that corrections actively engage in the implementation of evidence-based programs that are built on known principles of what works to improve the lives of offenders. Research shows that programs that significantly reduce recidivism proactively address the needs of offenders, are theoretically informed, are cognitive-behavioral, last for an appropriate duration, and target high-risk offenders.

For instance, a large body of evidence shows that effective programs take into account the following three key aspects: risk, need, and responsivity (Latessa & Lovins, 2010). Understanding the risk for recidivism that offenders pose to the community, their needs that should be met through treatment and services, and the ability to match offenders to programs is necessary to effect change. Research also reveals that the greatest reductions in recidivism are achieved when intensive services are directed toward high-risk and high-need offenders (Latessa & Lovins, 2010; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006). Directing intensive services to low-risk offenders appears to interrupt prosocial ties to the community, and exposure to more serious offenders may increase their likelihood to reoffend (Lowenkamp, Latessa, and Holsinger, 2006).

There must be an expectation by corrections leaders that staff, and the programs on which they rely, will be successful in their ability to transition, supervise, and treat offenders in the community and that offenders are capable of achieving success. Obstacles to successful implementation of programs that sabotage opportunities for success for both staff and offenders must be removed. Without an expectation of excellence and the implementation of best practices, failure becomes the default that maintains the status quo in which no one is held accountable for failure except for the offender. Once organizations are appropriately structured and supported in their ability to implement evidence-based and promising programs, then attention must also be directed toward the individuals who participate in the human interactions of community corrections.

Micro-Level Change: Returning Community Corrections to a Human Service Profession

At the end of a very long and multiagency process, it is CCOs and offenders who are given the greatest responsibility to create change. They are also the ones most likely to be held accountable for failure even though they follow at the end of a system with many shortcomings. When offenders fail, however, it is community corrections that is held publicly accountable and scrutinized at the agency and individual level of operation.

CCOs are expected to be successful in managing offenders in spite of the political, social, and economic chaos that permeate their work. In addition to macro-and agency-level change, we argue that community corrections be considered as a human service profession that requires relationships to develop between officers and offenders to better manage the process of change over time. For community corrections to be successful, (a) the purpose of CCO’s work must be clearly identified, and (b) the individual stressors created by working within organizations and with offenders must be addressed.

Action 6: Community corrections must be clearly defined as a human services profession that is built upon managing both risk and need with the intent of reintegration versus extraction through arrest and revocation.

Over time, community corrections has moved from an informal mentoring service provided by volunteers to a highly structured, legal, paid profession embedded in a bureaucracy responsible for the surveillance, social support, and treatment of an estimated 5 million offenders. During the past 30 years, community corrections professionals have been placed in a position of competing demands that shifted their focus from reintegration based on a balanced approach of monitoring and treatment to an intense focus on accountability, surveillance, processing, and sanctioning. As a result, offenders and risk are managed through institutional, data-driven processes and practices that connect CCOs to their computers and offices more than to offenders and the community (Lutze et al., 2000). The results appear to be an increase in offenders being returned to prison for technical violations for noncompliance and for new crimes.

A focus on risk without a consideration of offender needs results in reactionary responses such as overreliance on arrest or revocation, compared to proactive interventions that focus on prevention, support, and reintegration. We must remember that, although coercion is a necessary element of supervision, it can be used to do more than extract offenders from the community through arrest and incapacitation. It can also be used to direct offenders’ participation in treatment, work, and other programs that encourage offenders to participate in prosocial behaviors.²

Action 7: Community corrections must be driven by an ethic of care where harm is minimized for both community corrections workers and offenders.

Movement to improve the working environments of community supervision hinges on imagining and developing a criminal justice system that minimizes both offender and employee harm and extends the notion of virtuosity to the work of community corrections. A system that reduces the stress of offenders under supervision will also reduce the stress on employees (Clear, 1995). Criminal justice is a people business. The work of carrying out what has been commonly referred to as “justice” is most often done face-to-face, drawing on the communication and decision-making skills of field officers.

Officers know what needs to be done to assist offenders, but they are often fearful that if they fail to respond to offenders’ noncompliance or minor criminal behavior, they will be held accountable for both the system’s and the offender’s failure (Drapela & Lutze, 2009). CCOs must manage the tension between organizational pressure to implement punitive responses as an immediate remedy and the knowledge that offender change is complex and may be better served by nonpunitive remedies that tend to take more time. This ongoing tension between accountability and support often results in role conflict, concerns about legal liability, and stress (Drapela & Lutze, 2009; Slate, Vogel, & Johnson, 2002; Slate, Wells, & Johnson, 2000, 2003).

Action 8: CCOs must be recognized as human service workers who engage in emotional labor and, therefore, in need of professional support to manage stress and other mental health issues.

Evidence of stress (emotional, mental, and physical) on criminal justice employees is reflected in levels of officer suicide, officer misuse of force, substance abuse, posttraumatic stress disorder, and employee turnover. Although there are a number of studies that examine the ramifications of officer stress among community supervision officers, the vast number of such studies have been of police. The cumulative effects of personal and work stress often result in mental dysfunction and mental health impairments (Slate & Johnson, 2008; Slate, Johnson, & Colbert, 2007; Slate et al., 2002, 2000).

Officers are expected to be stable more so than others, because they are the agents of change in our society. The treatment of officers with mental health impairments is not uncommon in criminal justice. Perhaps most well known are psychiatric assessments of officers involved in interactions when offenders or citizens perish, when fellow police officers are killed, or when there are accusations of misuse of force. Such assessments and the success of subsequent interventions are a “black box.” The efficacy of such treatments and interventions are hidden by fear of legal liability and the shroud of shame and stigma surrounding the treatment of mental health issues in our society (Slate & Johnson, 2008).

Community supervision officers suffer from many of the same stressors that police officers face. They are overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated, and they suffer from working in a hierarchical management system that limits their input to the decision-making process (Dial, Thompson, & Johnson, 2008; Lee, Joo, & Johnson, 2009; Slate et al., 2002, 2000, 2003). It is interesting that CCOs who have better working relationships with supervisors and who provide greater input into what guides their work experience greater job satisfaction, less stress, fewer sick days, and less job turnover (Slate et al., 2000, 2002, 2003). Taking care of the caretakers of our public safety and community wellness is critical to the future of the justice system. The responsibility of providing community supervision organizations with resources to do their job will fall on state and local governments.

Action 9: CCO caseloads must be reduced to manageable levels so that officers and offenders may build humane relationships through face-to-face interactions that inform as well as help achieve balance between surveillance, support, and treatment of offender population.

A shift from expensive prisons to managing more offenders in the community will result in increased caseloads. Many officers report that they do not have time to manage large numbers of offenders, because of cumbersome paper work or the need to enter data in offender management information systems that often serve the agency but not the officer. It is not surprising then that officers often report dread when hearing in the news that an offender has committed a violent crime accompanied by the fear that the offender may be on their caseload (Lutze, Smith, & Lovrich, 2004). It is an unrealistic expectation that CCOs can safely manage large caseloads of offenders in the moderate- to high-risk/need categories and prevent new crimes.

CCOs and offenders cannot be expected to understand or respond to each other’s needs when subjected to caseloads of 50 or more offenders. Although research is mixed concerning whether the size of caseloads matters in reducing recidivism (Worrall, Schram, Hays, & Newman, 2004), it is unreasonable to expect that CCOs can effectively engage offenders in a meaningful way when their time is limited, resources are scarce, and offender needs are high. In spite of these challenges, however, it is important that CCOs take responsibility for providing supervision that possesses integrity and is based on the principles of effective treatment.

Action 10: CCOs should be held professionally accountable for what they have control over and relieved from liability for what they do not when supervising offenders.

Too often, offenders are expected to fail and are held accountable for their failure despite receiving no real guidance or support from the agencies or individuals who are charged with their care and supervision. Although CCOs fear liability and experience stress concerning offenders’ shortcomings (Drapela & Lutze, 2009), many also fail to utilize the tools and programs available to them, act without regard to learning and implementing best practices, and do not follow through to address offender needs known to be correlated with reducing recidivism.

Having said this, it is also important to view community corrections as a human service profession because it will allow greater flexibility in understanding that both CCOs and offenders are merely human and that both will make mistakes. It is impossible for CCOs to control all possible outcomes, even when doing everything right, especially for a high-risk and high-need population of offenders who also are returning to stressed families and communities. Expectations of officers and offenders should be based on an effort to fully engage a supervision plan informed by shared goals, a strategy for change, and rewards for achieving change over time.

Action 11: Officers and offenders should be rewarded for reaching goals and achieving positive outcomes.

Too often, corrections is driven by an all-or-nothing approach steeped in negative reactions that relies on sanctions instead of positive strength-based systems of incentives and rewards. This is unfortunately true for both organization’s responses to officers and officers’ responses to offenders (see Lutze et al., 2004). Officers should be recognized for successfully reintegrating offenders into the community and preventing recidivism through achieving measurable goals such as the number of offenders who are enrolled in treatment, complete treatment, find employment, abstain from drugs, earn education and vocational certificates, and attain other positive outcomes. Offenders too should be rewarded if they achieve these goals (Wodahl, Garland, Culhane, & McCarty, 2011). As community corrections currently stands, rewards are abstract and represented by the absence of a negative outcome such as recidivism versus tangible rewards or incentives to influence positive offender outcomes. The same is true for offenders in that compliance results in the eventual termination of supervision but provides few mechanisms to reward good behavior by reducing the number of contacts, changing the type of contacts, or altering the duration of supervision. It is time that rewards and incentives were introduced to community corrections to improve outcomes (Wodahl et al., 2011).

It is clear that community corrections can be a stressful process for both officers and offenders. The guiding philosophy for community corrections must be framed within an ethic of care. Opportunities must be provided to work within a system that is prepared to provide structure and support as a foundation for both officers and offenders to strive for excellence with a sincere belief that positive outcomes can be achieved.

Conclusion

In consideration of the large numbers of offenders who have been warehoused in the past 50 years, developing a system that nurtures notions of virtuosity and respect for others can seem distant. The future of community corrections, however, is now. We know through science and professional practice how to produce successful outcomes for community corrections, offenders, and their communities. It is time to stop dreaming about what could work and start taking action in regards to what does work.

As trends away from incarceration continue, policy makers must rethink the role of community corrections vis-à-vis the battery of sanctions currently relied upon to maintain order and promote community wellness. This change will come by eliminating mass incarceration as the driving force of our corrections system. It is clear that mass incarceration is fiscally unsustainable and ethically challenged due to the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities and those originating from impoverished communities. Prison populations can only be significantly reduced by sending fewer people to prison and reducing sentence lengths. Prisons should be reserved for our most serious, high-risk offenders, and prisons should not be allowed to relinquish their responsibility to improve the chances of offenders after release. With 93% of inmates being released from prison at some point in the future, prisons are as responsible for the successes and failures of community corrections as are community corrections agencies, officers, and offenders (Petersilia, 2003; Travis, 2005).

It is also clear that the challenges confronted by a majority of offenders during reentry are greater than any one agency can address by working in isolation. Collaboration between the institutions of criminal justice, social services, public health, and education is necessary to achieve lasting change. Beyond collaboration, however, a dire need exists to reinvest in communities to build the economic, social, and cultural capacity for sustainability that can support the reintegration of offenders. It is important to move beyond an understanding of difference to addressing structural inequality and the elimination of oppressive policies and practices.

Success will also result from restructuring agencies to achieve positive outcomes for staff and offenders and by envisioning community corrections as a human service profession guided by an ethic of care. It is no longer tolerable for community corrections agencies to perceive failure as a legitimate and acceptable outcome. Administrative leaders within agencies must be guided by what works in providing programs with integrity for officers and offenders to rely on when needed. More important, the tension between coercion and treatment is manageable when expectations are centered on both offender risk and need with the intent of achieving successful reintegration. It is possible to hold offenders accountable and to engage in rehabilitation when offender change is viewed as a dynamic process that takes place over time instead of as a static, all-or-nothing condition.

Finally, community corrections is a human service profession that uniquely gives individual officers the full power of the state to sanction offenders who are noncompliant and at the same time to arrange for and provide direct services to address individual needs. It is the power to coerce and to treat that makes community corrections such an important process to get right. Supervising the process of change is complex and difficult for agencies, officers, and offenders, and taking risks is inherent in the work. Too often the successful risks that officers and offenders take on behalf of each other fade quietly into oblivion and the failures often become local, regional, or national news. It is time, on behalf of CCOs, offenders, and the broader community, that community corrections be held to reasonable expectations, that its participants be supported in what is needed to pursue success and that leaders create opportunities for citizens to understand that communities are made safer by embracing an ethic of care. We know how to accomplish success in community corrections. Therefore, the future of corrections is now. Let’s stop dreaming and take action.

Footnotes

An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS), held in Toronto, Ontario, March 2011. This article is the outcome of a roundtable discussion including each of the authors, Mary Stohr, and the audience of the ACJS, which was held in San Diego, CA, February 2010.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Amnesty International. (2011). Immigration detention in the United States. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://www.amnestyusa.org/immigration-detention/page.do?id=1641031.

Christianson

(1998). With liberty for some: 500 years of imprisonment in America. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Clear

T. R.

(1995). Harm in American penology: Offenders, victims and their communities. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Clear

T. R.

(2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Clear

T. R.

(2010a). A private sector, incentives-based model for justice reinvestment. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.

Clear

T. R.

(2010b). Policy and evidence: The challenge to the American Society of Criminology. Criminology, 48, 1-26.

Clear

T. R.

Austin

J. R.

(2009). Reducing mass incarceration: Implications of the iron law of prison populations. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 3, 901-918.

Clear

T. R.

Latessa

E. J.

(1993). Probation officer roles in intensive supervision: Surveillance versus treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10, 441-462.

Cullen

F. T.

(2007). Make rehabilitation corrections’ guiding paradigm. Criminology and Public Policy, 6, 717-728.

10.

Cullen

F. T.

Gilbert

K. E.

(1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

11.

Cullen

F. T.

Myer

A. J.

Latessa

E. J.

(2009). Eight lessons from Moneyball: The high cost of ingnoring evidence-based corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4, 197-213.

12.

Cullen

F. T.

Sundt

J. L.

Wozniak

J. F.

(2001). Virtuous prison: Toward a restorative rehabilitation. In Pontell

H. N.

Shichor

(Eds.), Contemporary issues in crime and criminal justice: Essays in honor of Gilbert Geis (pp. 265-286). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13.

Curry-Stevens

Nissen

(2011). Reclaiming futures considers an anti-oppressive frame to enhance effectiveness in decreasing disparities. Unpublished manuscript, Portland State University, Portland, OR.

14.

Dial

K. C.

Thompson

Johnson

W. W.

(2008). The effect of “care” from immediate supervisors on correctional employees. Corrections Compendium, 33(2), 26-34.

15.

DiIulio

J. J.

(1987). Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional management. New York: The Free Press.

16.

Drapela

L. A.

Lutze

F. E.

(2009). Innovation in community corrections and probation officers’ fears of being sued: Implementing neighborhood-based supervision in Spokane, Washington. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 364-383.

17.

Fulton

Latessa

Stichman

Travis

(1997). The state of ISP: Research and policy implications. Federal Probation, 61(4), 65-75.

18.

Gendreau

Smith

Theriault

(2009). Chaos theory and correctional treatment: Common sense, correctional quackery, and the law of the fartcatchers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 384-396.

19.

Gould

S. J.

(1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.

20.

Latessa

E. J.

(2008). What science says about designing effective prisoner reentry programs (Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars No. 26). Madison, WI: Policy Institute for Family Impact Seiminars.

21.

Latessa

E. J.

Lovins

(2010). The role of offender risk assessment: A policy maker guide. Victims and Offenders, 5, 203-219.

22.

Lee

W. J.

Joo

H. J.

Johnson

W. W.

(2009). Turnover intention, job satisfaction, internal stress and participatory management among federal probation officers. Federal Probation, 73, 33-40.

23.

Lehman

J. D.

(2001). Reinventing community corrections in Washington State. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(3), 41-45.

24.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

Holsinger

A. M.

(2006). The risk principle in action: What we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52, 77-93.

25.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

Smith

(2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective interventions. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 575-594.

26.

Lutze

F. E.

(2006). Boot camp prisons and corrections policy: Moving from militarism to an ethic of care. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 389-400.

27.

Lutze

F. E.

Smith

R. P.

Lovrich

(2000). Premises for attaining more effective offender accountability through community involvement: Washington State’s new approach. Corrections Management Quarterly, 4(4), 1-9.

28.

Lutze

F. E.

Smith

P. P.

Lovrich

N. P.

(2004). Final report. A practitioner-initiated research partnership: An evaluation of neighborhood-based supervision in Spokane, Washington. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

29.

Lutze

F. E.

van Wormer

(2007). The nexus between drug and alcohol treatment program integrity and drug court effectiveness: Policy recommendations for pursuing success. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 226-245.

30.

Mele

Miller

T. A.

(Eds.). (2005). Civil penalties, social consequences. New York: Routledge.

31.

Murphy

Lutze

(2009). Police-probation partnerships: Professional identity and the sharing of coercive power. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 65-76.

32.

Petersilia

(2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.

33.

Pew Center on the States. (2009). One in 31: The long reach of American corrections. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.

34.

Pisciotta

(1994). Benevolent repression: Social control and the American reformatory prison movement. New York: New York University Press.

35.

Rafter

(1985). Partial justice: Women in state prisons, 1800-1935. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

36.

Rank

M. R.

(2004). One nation, underprivileged: Why American poverty affects us all. New York: Oxford University Press.

37.

Rothman

(1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Boston: Little, Brown.

38.

Sapers

Mann

Clear

Lutze

(2011). Human rights and community corrections: Canadian and U.S. perspectives. A roundtable discussion at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Toronto, Ontario.

39.

Slate

Johnson

W. W.

(2008). Criminalization of mental illness: Crisis and opportunity for the justice system. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

40.

Slate

Johnson

W. W.

Colbert

(2007). Police stress: A structural model. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 22, 102-112.

41.

Slate

Vogel

R. E.

Johnson

W. W.

(2002). To quit or not to quit: Perceptions of participation in correctional decision making and the impact of organizational stress. Corrections Mangement Quarterly, 5(2), 68-78.

42.

Slate

Wells

Johnson

W. W.

(2000). Probation officer stress: Is there an organizational solution? Federal Probation, 64(1), 56-60.

43.

Slate

Wells

Johnson

W. W.

(2003). Opening the manager’s door: Probation officer stress and perceptions of participation in workplace decision-making. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 519-541.

44.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. (2010). Number and rate (per 100,000 resident population in each group) of sentenced prisoners under jurisdiction of State and Federal correctional authorities on December 31. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t62822008.pdf

45.

Travis

(2005). But they all come home: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

46.

Travis

Solomon

A. L.

Waul

(2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

47.

Unnever

J. D.

Cullen

F. T.

(2010). The social sources of Americans’ punitiveness: A test of three competing models. Criminology, 48, 99-129.

48.

Walker

Spohn

DeLone

(2007). The color of justice: Race, ethnicity, and crime in America (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

49.

Wilson

J. Q.

(1983). Thinking about crime (2nd ed.). New York: Vantage.

50.

Wodahl

E. J.

Garland

Culhane

S. E.

McCarty

W. P.

(2011). Utilizing behavioral interventions to improve supervision outcomes in community-based corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 386-405.

51.

Worrall

J. L.

Schram

Hays

Newman

(2004). An analysis of the relationship between probation caseloads and property crime rates in California Counties. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 231-241.