| What is Community Corrections |
|
|
 |
|
|
| Community corrections is a function of state government operated in partnership with local, county-operated community corrections agencies. At the request of the county, the Department of Corrections also operates several field offices directly. Community corrections activities include supervision, community-based sanctions, and services directed at offenders who have committed felony crimes and have been placed under supervision by the courts (probation) or the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (parole/post -prison supervision). |
In Oregon, there are approximately 35,000 felons under supervision in the community compared with 13,500 felons in prison. The majority of felons managed in the community are not convicted of a new felony after supervision. Conviction for a new felony within three years of beginning supervision (probation or post-prison supervision) is the definition of recidivism in Oregon. Over 70 percent of those on supervision do not recidivate.
Community corrections provides a cost-effective means to hold offenders accountable while at the same time addressing the causes of criminal behavior and reducing the risk of future criminal behavior. Each aspect of community corrections - supervision, sanctions, and services - is important to this approach. County community corrections departments develop sanctions such as electronic surveillance, community work crews, day reporting centers, residential work centers, and intensive supervision programs. Development of other services such as alcohol/drug treatment, sex offender treatment, employment, and mental health services are important for long-term behavior change.
Besides the various sanctions and services, the probation/parole officer can respond quickly to violation behavior of offenders through a system called Structured Sanctions. This system allows the officer to hold the offender accountable for behavior in a consistent manner through imposition of a swift sanction commensurate with that behavior.
Oregon’s Administrative Sanctions Program
Oregon’s structured sanctions program was enacted into law in 1993. This law gave PO’s the authority to apply immediate consequences to offenders on probation when they violated conditions of supervision. This practice was already established by policy for offenders on parole and post-prison supervision, the Board having the authority to create an administrative sanctions process for offenders under their jurisdiction. Structured sanctions are named after the sanctioning grid in place to structure decision-making about the appropriate response to a particular offender for a particular violation, thus providing for consistency from PO to PO and from county to county.
Goals of structured sanctions:
- To make community supervision more effective in protecting the public by responding to supervision violations swiftly and with certainty
- To reduce the number of violators who require revocation by responding to violating behavior before it reaches a level of seriousness requiring incarceration and by making sure all appropriate intermediate community alternatives are used before revocation
- To insure that similar violators who commit similar violations are similarly punished
- To reduce the cost to the public associated with judicially conducted probation violation hearings and effect future cost reductions in judicial/court time, indigent defense, district attorney time, probation/parole officer time
- To set priorities for the use of criminal justice resources and provide more consistent use of intermediate punishments
How it works:
- An offender fails to follow a condition of supervision, such as missing appointments, failing to enroll in treatment, drug use, failing to follow directives, absconding from supervision
- The probation/parole officer has the authority to impose a swift and sure sanction without going to court or to the Board of Parole/PPS
- The length of the sanction is determined by a grid that takes into account the risk level of the offender, his or her crime of conviction, and the seriousness of the violation
- Sanctions include jail time, but can also include a range of intermediate sanctions such as residential treatment, work release, house arrest, and community service
Results of using structured sanctions:
- Time between violation behavior and response was reduced by 38 days (NCCD,1995)
- Offenders in the structured sanctions program were 23% more likely to have violations detected and to be held accountable (NCCD,1995)
- Probation offenders subject to structured sanctions had a lower felony convictions rate (7.8% vs. 13.9%) and were less likely to be convicted and sentenced for new offenses than a similar control group (NCCD, 1995)
- A study of an intermediate sanctions program in Coos and Jackson counties showed a 56% reduction in drug use using repeated short jail stays following positive urine screens
Guiding Principles of Structured Sanctions
-
Response to violations of supervision must be swift and sure.
- Responses shall be fair and just.
- Response to violations shall be commensurate to the seriousness of the behavior while considering risk to public safety.
- Similar responses for similar types of offenders that commit similar types of violations.
- Responses shall consider evidence based practices:
- Custodial sanctions alone are not effective in lowering recidivism
- Shorter custodial sanctions are no less effective in lowering recidivism
- Custodial sanctions should have a rehabilitative component included
- Non-custodial sanctions are often times as effective as custodial sanctions
- Treatment and rehabilitative resources combined with surveillance and enforcement, are most effective in reducing recidivism
- Sanctions/interventions shall be imposed with consideration given to effective capacity of local correctional facilities and local resource availability.
- Sanctions/interventions shall be imposed at the lowest appropriate level of authority.
- The least restrictive sanction/intervention required to gain compliance shall be imposed.
- Supervising Parole and Probation officers are most appropriate level of authority to determine sanction/intervention response to offender behavior.
- Appropriate use of administrative sanctions/interventions will make supervision more effective and will enhance public safety, resulting in fewer offenders being returned for revocation of supervision.
- A range of sanctions/interventions including, but not limited to jail, should be available and when appropriate should be exhausted before recommending offenders for revocation on non-criminal violations of supervision.
- Sanctions/interventions should be progressive in nature, taking into account the seriousness of the violation and threat to public safety.
|
|
|
|
