don’t reinvent the wheel! with this technical assistance ... · programs is less than prisons...

DON’T REINVENT THE WHEEL! With this technical assistance manualyou’ll reduce the amount of time and research involved in creating acommunity corrections act.

This complete resource raises the many complex strategic and tacticalissues involved in designing, implementing, and maintaining a communitycorrections act.

Your community corrections programs will be more successful when youunderstand:

the motivations for adopting community corrections actswhat these acts have accomplished in other stateshow to improve the administration of programs and avoid gaps in

serviceshow to stimulate innovative solutions to problemsways to garner community supportguidelines for negotiating funding responsibility

Also included is:A listing of community corrections legislation in the United States

describing the purpose, organizational structure, administration,funding formula, application process, and application process foreachTables comparing resource factors, administrative requirements bystate and locality, and populations served

ESSENTIAL READING FOR INDIVIDUALS, STATES, OR LOCALITIESINVOLVED IN, OR SOON TO BE INVOLVED IN, COMMUNITY-BASEDCORRECTIONS. AN EXCELLENT RESOURCE FOR CRIMINALJUSTICE STUDENTS.

American Correctional Association8025 Laurel Lakes CourtLaurel, MD 20707-5075

Community CorrectionsActs for State and

by Mary K. Shilton

CommunityCorrections Acts for

State and LocalPartnerships

by Mary K. Shilton

This project was supported by Grant #91C1203 awarded by the National In-stitute of Corrections. U.S. Department of Justice. The information and opinionsexpressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Acknowledgments

Copyright 1992 by the American Correctional AssociationAll rights reserved.

Helen G. Corrothers, PresidentJames A. Gondles, Jr., Executive DirectorPatricia L. Poupore, Director of Communications

and PublicationsElizabeth Watts, Publications Managing EditorLinda R. Acorn, Associate Editor

Cover graphic by Marty Pociask

“Compendium of Community Corrections Legislation in. theUnited States” prepared by Sandy Pearce and John Madler,North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

The reproduction, distribution, or inclusion in other publica-tions ofmaterials in this book is prohibited without prior writtenpermission from the American Correctional Association.

ISBN 0-929310-74-8

This publication may be ordered from:

Printed in the United States of America by Mercury Press,Rockville, Md.

This booklet is the result of a cooperative effort to provide anupdate on the development of community corrections legisla-tion. It could not have been accomplished without the help ofDon Murray of the National Association of Counties, whoprovided information about the role of counties as partners incommunity corrections. Mark Cunniff of the National Associa-tion of Criminal Justice Planners offered guidance about sen-tencing trends and coordination for successful communitycorrections. Anthony Travisono and James Gondles, Jr., of theAmerican Correctional Association have guided the projectthroughout its development. Nolan Jones of the National Gover-nors Association is to be thanked for his support and input aboutstate contributions to community corrections. Jon Felde of theNational Conference of State Legislators has assisted in provid-ing information on state legislation. George Keiser and DavidDillingham of the National Institute of Corrections are to bethanked for their assistance in guiding research for this booklet.

A number of correctional professionals have also spenthours reviewing this book. Among them are: Bobbie L. Huskeyof the American Correctional Association; John O’Sullivan, Hen-nepin County, Minnesota; Robert Cushman, Santa Clara County,California; David Rooney, Dakota County, Minnesota; DennisSchrantz, Office of Community Corrections, Michigan; MargotLindsay, National Center for Citizen Participation in the Ad-ministration of Justice, Boston, Massachusetts; and Bruce Mc-Manus, Minnesota Department of Corrections. Sandy Pearceand John Madler of the North Carolina Sentencing Commissiondeserve credit for their support and assistance in exchanginginformation for this project. The author would also like to extenda special acknowledgment to Patrick D. McManus and LynnZeller Barclay, authors of the previously published CommunityCorrections Act Technical Assistance Manual, for their exten-sive contributions to the subject. The American Correctional

American Correctional Association8025 Laurel Lakes Court

Laurel, Maryland 20707-5075

Association expresses its appreciation to the National Instituteof Corrections for its financial support of this technical assis-tance project.

(301)206-5059 Mary K Shilton

iii

FOREWORD v

Foreword

It has been almost twenty years since Minnesota passed the firstcommunity corrections act in 1973. Even before passage of theMinnesota Act, correctional experts and politicians debated themerits of its precursor, the California Probation Subsidy Act.The California Act represented the first serious attempt toinfluence local action in corrections through state subsidization.The advantages and the shortcomings of community correctionslegislation in the United States have been widely publicized. Yetthere have been few efforts to compare the essential charac-teristics of these laws.

What are community corrections acts? The American Cor-rectional Association Task Force on Community CorrectionsLegislation defined a community corrections act as: "a statewidemechanism included in legislation whereby funds are grantedto local units of government and community agencies to developand deliver front-end alternative sanctions in lieu of incarcera-tion” (Huskey 1984). This definition has been broadened inmany states to now include sanctions in lieu of jail. Unlessotherwise indicated in the text, the term “community correc-tions” is used in this monograph to refer to programs in com-munity corrections act states. There are a number of other statesthat have not passed comprehensive community corrections actsbut have undertaken community corrections programs throughexecutive action and existing agencies.

Community corrections acts have come of age in the 1990s.A model community corrections act is under consideration bythe American Bar Association. The number of states adoptinglegislation is steadily increasing. Why this interest in a complexstate law designed to affect a variety of agencies and tasks?Community corrections offers a mechanism for breaking themindless cycle of locking up more and more people in jails andprisons without first applying intermediate punishments. Asidefrom potential social values ofcommunity corrections programs,economic values are often cited as well. If crime and sentencingfactors are held constant, some argue that states can reducecorrections spending because the cost of community corrections

i v

programs is less than prisons (National Committee on Com-munity Corrections 1991). At a time when the United States’incarceration rate is among the highest in the world, states andlocal governments must carefully reassess their options andweigh the consequences.

The American Correctional Association has a long-stand-ing commitment to improving corrections in this country; itbegan with prison reform issues in 1870. Its membership hassteadily grown from prison administrators to an interdiscipli-nary group that includes members from each part of state andlocal correctional systems. The American Correctional Associa-tion has supported the development of community correctionsprograms for states and localities as part of a balanced approachto corrections. It has assisted in the development of professionaleducation and standards for this discipline.

This booklet, which is directed to the attention of citizenadvocates and decision makers concerned with the administra-tion of justice, has been written to provide a comparison of howstates and localities have implemented community correctionsacts and programs. It is an update to ACA’s 1983 publication onthe subject and offers a comprehensive look at the lessonslearned in the past decade.

This booklet points out the common and divergent charac-teristics of community corrections legislation in an attempt topresent a range of options for states and localities. It does notdescribe community-based programs in states that have notadopted Community Corrections Acts.

Chapter I lists chronic problems confronting correctionalsystems and summarizes the impact of crime and sentencingpatterns on incarcerative institutions and probation. Itdescribes corrections acts as a response to pressures that in-fluence the administration of state and local correctionalprograms in the United States.

Chapter II presents an analysis of common elements ofstate laws. The concept of community corrections is broad andcan accommodate multiple goals and functions. States enactingsuch legislation have included various requirements in thelegislation in order to influence correctional policy. As examplesof this diversity, the common requirements of community cor-rections acts are outlined.

vi COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS

Chapter III summarizes what is required to implement anact. It lists typical steps to be taken in making the act work.

Chapter IV highlights the accomplishments of communitycorrections legislation. It presents an overview of the dynamichistory of the acts and their benefits. Some barriers to successfulprograms are also noted.

Chapter V underscores the dynamic quality of communitycorrections acts. Maintaining the vitality of the legislation re-quires states and localities to continue to work together on anumber of difficult issues.

An accompanying “Compendium of Community Correc-tions Legislation in the United States” reviews each participat-ing state, highlighting the purposes, leadership, organizationalstructure, and administrative mechanism. This compendiumoffers specific information about the variations that exist incommunity corrections acts.

This booklet is not intended to offer a single model ofcommunity corrections for solving correctional problems. It sug-gests potential areas for state and local cooperative efforts toimprove the administration of correctional programs in theUnited States.

James A. Gondles, Jr.Executive DirectorAmerican Correctional Association

Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

I. The Motivation and a LegislativeResponse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Designing the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

III. Implementing the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

IV. The Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

V. Maintaining the Act’s Vitality . . . . . . . . 42

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix A Compendium of CommunityCorrections Legislation in theUnited States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

v i i

Introduction

State correctional systems in the United States are uniqueamong nations in their complexity and fragmented functions.Why should states want to pass community corrections legisla-tion to further decentralize statewide corrections?

1. Most correctional functions are best performed in thearea where the offender resides.

2. Community corrections acts offer a better way of han-dling responsibility for correctional programs throughincentives for intergovernmental cooperation, publiceducation, and local management of a range of sanc-tions.

3. Community corrections acts provide localities with anopportunity to engage citizens in the debate over cor-rectional goals and in the allocation of scarceresources.

Community corrections acts emerged in the early 1970s asa reform movement directed toward rehabilitative programs.Since that time, at least eighteen states have passed communitycorrections acts. The motivations driving adoption of these actsare still relevant because these laws are flexible in meetingchanged mandates.

What have community corrections acts accomplished?What community corrections acts do best is provide a forum toexamine correctional policy, stimulate innovative solutions toproblems, improve the administration of programs, and gamercommunity support for them. Community corrections acts haveimproved professional standards. Some states credit them withproviding a network for examining sentencing reforms. The listof measured benefits to the public, victims, offenders, andgovernments is growing.

States vary widely in how they have developed communitycorrections acts. This book highlights similarities and differen-ces between state community corrections acts. Variations reflectdifferent correctional philosophies, intergovernmental rela-tions, resources, and politics of the states.

v i i i

INTRODUCTION ix

Despite wide differences, there is one common denominator:community corrections legislation shifts state funds and respon-sibility for correctional services from the states to localities,recognizing that localities can best manage policy and resourcesat the community level. The process of transferring funds andresponsibilities to local governments requires a cooperativeapproach to management of correctional services. Cooperationcannot be achieved without a careful assessment of both stateand local needs and a negotiated agreement between the par-ties. Local jurisdictions become involved in targeting resourcesto meet priorities. States become committed to assistinglocalities.

How can community corrections legislation help states andcounties improve correctional services in the future? Com-munity corrections acts have the potential to empower andmobilize communities to solve nagging problems of increasingnumbers of nonviolent offenders. They provide a framework forsystematically focusing correctional policy and resources, andthey help improve systems planning and eliminate gaps inservices. Once a community corrections act is operational, infor-mation can be gathered about the outcomes of correctionalprograms to better inform decision makers and the public. Thus,there are many reasons to consider developing and maintainingthis legislation for solving problems within state correctionalsystems.

An earlier monograph, the Community Corrections ActTechnical Assistance Manual, by Patrick D. McManus and LynnZeller Barclay, published by the American Correctional Associa-tion, provided the basis for this effort. The structure of thismonograph closely follows the earlier publication with onemajor exception. Corrections in the United States is largely ashared responsibility of local and state governments. Com-munity corrections acts are directed toward this joint respon-sibility. This booklet emphasizes the potential communityinterest in such laws.

The Motivationand a

Legislative Response

A Continuing Crisis In CorrectionsCorrections in the 1990s is confronted by a host of complexproblems that have stretched interagency relations to the break-ing point. During the previous decade, the nation’s prisonpopulation increased by almost 134 percent. As a result, in 1990there were more than 1.2 million persons in U.S. prisons andjails. More than 670,000 persons were in state prisons. Another408,000 were in local jails. This figure was exceeded by thenumber of persons on probation or parole during 1990. Therewere more than 2.5 million adults on probation in 1989, and400,000 on parole (BJS 1990a).

These statistics resulted from unprecedented increases inthe number of offenders entering the system. There were 4.1million adults under correctional custody or supervision at theend of 1989 in the United States (BJS 1990a), one in everyforty-six adults in this country. This represents since 1980 apopulation increase of 126 percent for probation, 107 percent forparole, and 114 percent for jails and prisons. Crowded jails,prisons, and probation and parole caseloads have increasedcosts and hampered corrections’ ability to provide intendedservices. In 1991 more than $16 billion was spent on correctionalservices at all levels of government. In nearly every state,counties are responsible for providing adequate jail funding, andstates are responsible for prisons. Funding responsibility forprobation and parole services vary (slightly over half are nowstate-funded and just under half are locally funded).

I

2 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS THE MOTIVATION AND A LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE 3

Correctional expenditures have become the second largestspending item in state and local budgets due to increased needsfor housing. For every dollar spent on construction, the es-timated operating costs are sixteen times the costs of construc-tion over the life of the facility. Despite a nationwide effort tobuild and staff more prisons and jails, states and counties havenot been able to keep up with the demand. Most prisons and jailsare over capacity.

In 1990 at least 28 percent of all local jurisdictions wereunder court order to limit the number of persons confined. Moststate and federal prisons were operating in excess of their ratedcapacity (BJS 1991a).

Lack of space is only part of the problem. Unsafe orinhumane conditions exist in many prisons and jails. It isestimated that thirty-seven states are under court order forfailing to provide adequate conditions. When courts set stand-ards for prison and jail conditions, they frequently note the roleplayed by crowding. There is growing awareness that scarceprison and jail space should be reserved for violent and careeroffenders. There is also an increasing recognition that jails andprisons are not the only places where people can be punished.Noninstitutional programs are more appropriate in certain in-stances.

The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela-tions (ACIR) recommended that state and local partnerships bedirected to solve the jail crisis (1984). The high cost of prisonsand jails and the public’s reluctance to spend more for them isone reason for a closer look at what community corrections actscan do to respond to crime. The high cost of incarceration limitswhat can be spent on the balance of correctional programs. In1987 it was estimated that the cost of building a mediumsecurity prison was more than $61,000 per bed. Constructioncosts for jails were only slightly less than for prisons (Lauen1990).

The most significant costs of an increasing rate of incar-ceration are the cumulative operating costs for prisons and jails.Operating costs vary with number of beds and security levels.According to one 1989 study, annual operating costs of prisonsranged from a low of $19,575 per bed to a high of $41,284 perbed. In addition to operational costs, there also are the oppor-tunity costs of not funding other state or local projects.

Some argue that community corrections is a more cost-ef-fective option. It costs $46.54 per day to house a federal inmateand an average of $54.79 per day to house a state inmate. Thesecosts are compared with an average of $31.47 per day forhalfway houses and $6.41 per day for home confinement withelectronic monitoring (Way 1990). In Georgia, the cost of homeconfinement has been completely funded by offenders fromsupervision fees (Petersilia 1986).

Prisons and jails have been built in every state during the1980s and should continue to be used to hold serious offenderswho pose a threat to public safety. Although new facilities havebeen added, old ones are seldom closed. Population increasesmake it difficult to accommodate the capacity demand forprisons andjails. Two years after completion, new jails are oftenfilled to capacity. Within five years they are 30 percent overcapacity.

Increasingly, states and localities are motivated to adoptcommunity corrections acts because of persistent jail and prisoncrowding problems. Community corrections acts are one part ofa multifaceted strategy for helping address the prison and jailcrowding crisis in a systematic way. One obvious method ofalleviating the demand for construction is to reduce the numberof people sent to jails and prisons. Community corrections statespay localities to provide a range of programs at reduced cost tothe state. Such programs save institutional bed space for thoseinmates who constitute a threat to public safety or who requiremore intensive supervision than can be provided in noninstitu-tional programs.

Inadequate FundingEfforts to handle the prison and jail crowding crisis are

hampered by the rising costs of incarceration and supervisionin the community, diminishing state and local revenues tosupport expanded programs, and interjurisdictional and inter-agency competition for scarce dollars.

Local governments take pride in their public safety, courts,and corrections services. However, in recent years capital ex-penditure projects have been limited. In 1991, the NationalAssociation of Counties (NACo) published results of a surveyrevealing the impact of budget shortfalls on counties (Zeldowand Gramp 1991). A majority of counties with populations over


1 million (52 percent) reported deficits. Counties with popula-tions from 100,000 to 500,000 revealed a 39 percent rate ofanticipated shortfalls. Many counties have cut back on capitalexpenditures such as jail construction and have made staffreductions across the board.

This situation is partly caused by the fact that federalassistance to counties declined by 73 percent from 1980 to 1986,requiring counties to provide additional monies for services forhealth care, crime, and drug problems. Nearly two-thirds of thecounties increased their tax rates within the last three years.Six out of ten counties were not allowed to raise their propertytaxes, and many others reported state limits on sources of feesand taxes. NACo referred to these factors as a “structural fiscalgap.” This gap has become one of the fundamental problems ofrunning local government.

Fragmented Correctional SystemsThe correctional crisis is an intergovernmental crisis that

requires an intergovernmental response. The correctional sys-tem in the United States is not unified. It is divided into state,local, and federal services. Within each of these governmentallevels are different functions and agencies. For example, proba-tion may be administered by separate agencies housed withinstate and/or local governments and connected to the courts,corrections, or a separate agency.

More serious problems occur where multiple-agency ser-vices are needed for special needs populations such as theelderly, the infirm, or addicted offenders. For example, drug-ad-dicted offenders or the mentally ill are often served by depart-ments of mental health and substance abuse without input orcoordination from corrections. Joint problem solving, local in-itiative, and interagency cooperation are required to provideeffective services.

More than half the states have not yet designed a com-prehensive strategy directed toward solving intergovernmentaland interagency problems in corrections. Without a comprehen-sive strategy, fragmentation of the criminal justice system andcompeting state and local interests will continue to impede thedevelopment of effective correctional programs in communities.

The HistoryCommunity corrections legislation combines state sub

sidies and categorical grants to localities through a cooperativestate/local administrative network. A subsidy is a transfer ofmoney from the state to a locality. A categorical grant is an awardof money to a local jurisdiction for a specified purpose. Com-munity corrections acts are broader in scope than correctionalsubsidy programs or categorical grants. The additional elementsinclude an administrative structure, comprehensive policy goals,program mandates, and the authority to carry them out.

Community corrections legislation attempts to relieveprison crowding, better manage correctional resources, andassure public safety by reintegrating offenders in the com-munity. Many community corrections acts were designed tosupport programs stimulated by the Law Enforcement Assis-tance Administration during the 1970s. The first statewidelegislation was adopted in California in 1966 as a probationsubsidy. The need for community corrections reform was recog-nized in the Corrections Task Force of the President’s Commis-sion on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice in1967. In 1973 Minnesota passed the first community correctionsact.

The appeal for more humane, rehabilitative, and appropriatesanctions for nonviolent offenders gained momentum in the early1970s as citizens, criminal justice professionals, and lawmakersrecognized the need for offenders to have access to programs wherethey work and reside. Early programs emphasized treatment,work release, diversion, and decriminalization of certain offenses.Coalitions were formed that successfully lobbied for state legisla-tion subsidizing community-based corrections.

During the 1980s, with a steady increase in the basenumber of incarcerated persons, the national mood towardoffenders shifted away from rehabilitation toward punishment.The dynamics of community corrections reflected these trendsas judges, elected officials, and citizens articulated a “get toughattitude.” There were assertions that “nothing works” inrehabilitation. Community corrections programs began to em-phasize punishment and offender accountability. Although lesspunitive programs remained part of the continuum of communitycorrections services, new programs addressed risk management,sanctions, drug testing, intensive probation, home confinement,

l l l l


sanctions for nonviolent offenders. Criminal justice services arecoordinated among agencies represented on local communitycorrections boards. Planning assists in allocating more resour-ces for difficult cases. (Resources can be either funding or othergovernmental services or facilities that can be brought to bearon the problem). Economies of scale and elimination of serviceduplication are benefits of improved planning.

Community corrections offers a structure for developing awider range of intermediate sanctions for probationers involvedin renewed criminal activity. These sanctions keep offendersunder supervision in the community who would otherwise go toprison or jail. Supervising more offenders under probation in thecommunity saves bed space, cuts costs, and meets offenderneeds.

The process for introducing intermediate sanctions toreduce reliance on prison has been extensively studied by theCenter for Effective Public Policy. This effort has yielded adescription of a policy-driven, data-informed process. To suc-cessfully implement intermediate sanctions, the following stepsshould be taken (McGarry 1990):

l provide an exact statement of why the jurisdictionneeds intermediate sanctionsarticulate clear goals for sanctions

l create a range of sanctions driven by these goalscollect and use information about the local correctionalsystem

These steps have been further developed in a report by theMichigan Office of Community Corrections to outline the proce-dures necessary to accomplish them (1991). For example, thereport recommends matching goals to populations by consider-ing offender characteristics. Offenders are classified by whetherthey need prevention, early intervention, or diversion services.Characteristics of offenders are then used to develop eligibilitycriteria for program entry. Once the goals and eligible popula-tion are defined, services are developed to match needs. This isfollowed by an implementation strategy including:

who will be responsible for determining policieswhat events must occur for the population to receiveservices

l to whom the services will be providedl when and in what order events will occur in processing

the cases (pretrial, postconviction, or probation)what the reasons are for this process and how they are met

The Michigan report notes that the complexity of im-plementing community corrections programs is one reason somehave failed. Attention must be paid to the implementationprocess to build workable programs.

The following programs range from least intrusive to mostintrusive sanctions:

Probation Services (generally rehabilitative) (least in-trusive)

no conditionsprobation with conditions and supervisionprobation with treatment programsprobation with education programsintensive probation with contacts“split” sentencing with regular probation (short-term in-

carceration followed by probation)intensive probation with drug/alcohol screeningintensive probation with split sentencing

Penalties, Restitution, and Fines (in conjunction withregular or intensive probation) (moderately intrusive)

victim restitutioncommunity serviceuser feesday fines

Monitoringhome confinementelectronic monitoringdrug/alcohol screeningday reporting centers with risk-control components

Residential Facilities (most intrusive)work/education release centershalfway housesshock incarcerationjail and prison release centers

14 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS

Community corrections acts provide a structure formonitoring program effectiveness and public safety. Aggregaterisk analysis is a tool for classifying offenders, but it can beextended to secure compliance with sentences. Risk analysis isused to monitor offenders and to ensure conditions of release aremet (O’Leary and Clear 1984).

Localities suffer the consequences of crime and eventuallymust take back most offenders with the hope that they willbecome productive, law-abiding citizens. Risk management is-sues are of mutual concern to correctional administrators andcommunities.

Community corrections acts provide an opportunity forpublic education and participation in correctional programs.Many citizens are not acquainted with the goals and functionsof corrections. Public support for better funding of correctionalprograms is limited because offenders are perceived as lessdeserving than other groups. The result is often a reluctance todevelop new community programs and adequately fund existingones.

Professionals working in community corrections statesreport benefits from a network of service providers. Communitycorrections professionals have emerged as leaders in major stateand national correctional organizations.

II.Designing the Act

The PurposesCommunity corrections acts are designed to transfer resourcesand funding to local governments to plan and implementdecentralized corrections programs to better manage correction-al resources. Increasingly the acts are intended to help relievejail or prison crowding. The primary purpose is to create anadministrative mechanism to support planning and coordina-tion of locally operated corrections programs. By creating sucha structure, community corrections acts institutionalize com-prehensive planning and funding of corrections programs on astatewide basis. State laws are remarkably similar in goals butdiffer widely in implementation.

Coals are broad enough to permit localities to select op-tions based on needs. Table D summarizes explicit statutorypurposes set forth in community corrections acts. Among themare the following:

offender accountabilityreducing institutional commitmentsdeveloping offender supervision programscreating rehabilitative servicesbroadening sentencing optionsplanning and coordinating programsassuring public safetypromoting cost effectivenessencouraging local involvement

All community corrections acts refer to program develop-ment in a community setting. Some states without communitycorrections acts have also adopted this goal through statewide

18 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS DESIGNING THE ACT 1 9

In its 1984 study of jails, the Advisory Commission onIntergovernmental Relations called on all states to adopt sen-tencing guidelines for both felony and serious misdemeanoroffenders. Such guidelines should be based on legislativelypredetermined population levels at the state and local levels.

All community corrections acts operate under the assump-tion that public safety is a primary objective. Six states havepublic safety standards or reporting requirements incorporatedwithin the legislation; most include references to public safety.

In designing community corrections legislation, states con-sider what public safety requirements they should meet. Publicsafety concerns address the following questions:

1. Should there be an effort to monitor and evaluateprogram safety?

2. To whom will this information be reported?3. What authority will be vested in the agency with

respect to public safety issues?4. Will states or localities develop public safety standards?5. What risk factors are most important to control in

meeting public safety needs?6. Are there adequate interjurisdictional and interagency

efforts to track cases and share information?

Design of community corrections acts includes provisionsfor supporting the coordination and monitoring of programs tobe funded under the act. Recognizing the need for planning andinteragency cooperation is a significant part of most communitycorrections acts. States that do not have community correctionsacts often lack a vehicle to sustain long-term program develop-ment and evaluation.

Nearly half of the statutes mention cost effectiveness ofprograms. The issue of cost effectiveness depends on manyfactors that are difficult to quantify. It is generally agreed thatmost community corrections programs cost less per capita thanincarceration; however, few programs have been evaluated toascertain that the intended target group is being addressed.This area needs more research to fully document the effect ofcommunity corrections programs.

The Minnesota evaluation of community corrections indi-cates that additional costs can occur. Local detention, if used aspart of a community corrections program, can increase costs, as

can local planning and administration. There is also a concernthat community corrections will target a group of offenders whowould have received unsupervised probation. These factors,together with use of community corrections programs for thosewho would have been assigned to probation, tend to increasecosts unless carefully monitored.

The design of community corrections legislation en-courages local involvement in establishing correctionalprograms. The extent to which this purpose is developeddepends in part on the politics, traditions, and values of thestate. More than half the states explicitly recognize this pur-pose. Nearly all authorize local units of government to appointcommunity corrections advisory boards and recognize the needfor citizen participation in program development.

Local involvement is important for comprehensive plan-ning for community corrections programs. Once there is localinvolvement, community leaders, judges, and state and localcorrectional professionals can identify common problems to beaddressed by the program. When counties realize the extent oftheir stake in developing solutions to correctional problems,they will be motivated to develop locally based programs.

The Scope

Community corrections acts vary in scope. They can bebroad and address the entire spectrum of correctional servicesfrom pretrial to parole. A few states, such as Oregon, Michigan,and Minnesota, have sweeping community corrections acts.Others limit the scope to a defined group of offenders, outside ofother state agency correctional programs.

Program scope can be specified in the statute or left to thecognizant agency and localities to articulate. Most legislatureshave enumerated a range of intended programs to guide thecognizant agency. Options range in scope among the followingbroad categories:

l pretrial supervision and diversionl probation and conditional release in the community

intermediate sanctions and sentencing alternativesl detention in the communityl parole supervision

22 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS DESIGNING THE ACT 23

Chargeback mechanisms focused on the rate of confinement ofinmates to state institutions, as well as the services actuallyprovided in the locality. Chargeback mechanisms represent anearly effort to enforce the purposes of the legislation.

The chargeback issue points to a lingering concern abouthow to design community corrections programs that achieve setgoals. Chargebacks are controversial. Some contend they areeffective in reducing commitments. On the other hand, localitiesargue that commitment rates reflect crime rates and judicialsentencing patterns-two factors localities cannot control.Chargebacks impede local participation because counties do notwant to become embroiled in funding disputes.

Chargebacks have been completely rejected for adultprograms. Minnesota and Indiana still use them for juvenileprograms as an enforcement mechanism to ensure that com-munity corrections acts have the desired impact. In most cases,they have been replaced with program monitoring and evalua-tion requirements geared toward effectiveness. (See Table C.)

Planning requirements. One of the unique features ofcommunity corrections acts is a system of local and state plan-ning to set priorities (Tables C and D). Local planning require-ments are included to identify needs and programs to be givenpriority for funding and technical assistance. Most states re-quire local planning. There is less attention to statewide plan-ning requirements in most acts. Statewide boards are notrequired in many states.

The planning or application process varies widely. Withthe advent of computerized information and classification sys-tems, participating localities can provide detailed statisticaldata to state agencies. They can offer information on thedemographics and risk characteristics of offenders in jails andentering the state corrections system. This detailed local infor-mation compiled by states provides an aggregate description ofstatewide corrections. It can be used, in addition to programmonitoring and evaluation, for resource allocation, appropria-tion justification, and policy guidance. Recent state laws suchas Montana’s require that aggregate information be reported tostate oversight bodies or the legislature.

Allocation mechanisms. Many statutes specify an an-

nual allocation process. Others refer to a formula for calculatingsubsidy amounts as a way to divide the allocation among par-ticipants. Table C lists funding mechanisms. Most states con-sider local needs and available resources in calculating how thesubsidy will be awarded to participants. The number of par-ticipating counties in some states is limited by allocation levels.In others, the funding formula is a source of tension betweenpopulated jurisdictions and rural areas. The allocation amountand distribution formula remain very difficult areas in com-munity corrections administration.

Local participation. Local participation is primarilyvoluntary, although Kansas and Iowa mandate it. In stateswhere local participation is voluntary, the state provides incen-tives for participation. Incentives must be substantial enoughto outweigh the participation costs. In nonmandatory jurisdic-tions, recruiting and retaining counties hinge on negotiatedagreements.

Participation can be phased, such as in Oregon, which hasthree optional participation levels. Localities can choose toprovide their own probation and parole services or let the stateperform this service. This graduated level of participation helpssolve some of the problems between rural and metropolitanjurisdictions regarding subsidy levels and required services.

Funding restrictions. Restrictions on use of subsidyfunds limit how localities can spend their monies. Limitationsare an attempt to target funding for priority programs andassure compliance. In most states community corrections actfunds have not been applied to build or renovate jails or deten-tion centers. (See Table C.) In other states the funds cannotsupplant existing local monies. Many states require localities tocontinue to fund correctional programs at existing levels (main-tenance of effort) to receive additional community correctionsfunding. These limitations are designed to stimulate new orinnovative programs for counties.

Counties argue that limitations discourage local participa-tion and are sometimes inconsistent with a partnershipstrategy. Spendinglimitations withholddecision-makingpowerfrom the counties. Power to control local correctional decisions


is one of the most important incentives for county participation(Orrick 1988).

Michigan and Virginia have opted to let participating unitsfund programs to improve services for jail-bound inmates. Al-though many other states permit misdemeanants to be includedin programs, most have not yet made a priority for jailedpopulations. The Michigan strategy is unique and deservescredit. It is based on an assessment that many persons nowdetained in jail are not dangerous and can be effectively sen-tenced to community programs. By removing nondangerouspersons from jails, Michigan will attempt to save existing jailspace for more serious offenders now sent to prison. Thisstrategy recognizes the effects of a growing misdemeanantpopulation on correctional systems and the potential of jails forholding less serious felons.

III

Implementing the Act

Forging a ConsensusThe work of community corrections depends on the nature of theproblems to be solved and how they are approached by theproponents. The first step is to develop consensus about themission of community corrections. Developing consensus and abroad base of support leads to improved outcomes for com-munity corrections.

In a study of the forces behind the unification ofcommunitycorrections, Nelson, Cushman, and Harlow found that un-resolved problems within communities were a central drivingforce for change (1980). However, because of divergent views onhow to solve these nagging problems, the problems themselvescan present barriers to change. Educating citizens about thepossibilities for improving a situation becomes essential forimplementing community corrections.

Despite the enormous contribution of this analysis, moreis needed to understand how the forces at work in setting upcommunity corrections programs can be harnessed to achievespecific objectives. Information is needed on how correctionalproblems are identified and whether there is strong support forcommunity corrections within a locality. Education about cor-rections programs can affect these forces.

Locally Defining the MissionStates that involve localities in the goal-setting process

establish a mechanism for managing competing pressures oncorrections. As noted in a publication by the National Con-ference of State Legislators, states and localities burdened byfinancial costs of supervising offenders lack the ability to renderdispassionate decisions (Rosenthal 1989). Cost considerations

26

28 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS IMPLEMENTING AN ACT 21

are important but should not be the prime force in correctionaldecision making.

Citizens and counties should take the initiative in shapingcommunity corrections from the grassroots level. The structureand management of programs stimulates local involvement.County and city priorities can be included in the list of statutorypurposes for community corrections.

A community development approach has been suggestedas a model for community corrections (Eynon 1989). This ap-proach relies on organizing interested leaders to undertakeprograms to directly benefit the community. Once informationon community needs becomes available, volunteers persuadelocal and state officials to undertake new programs. The im-petus for community corrections comes from grassroots or-ganizations, which start up programs using the department ofcorrections as a resource. Most state acts have not relied on agrassroots approach, but those that have done so experience lessdifficulty developing program roots.

The state can balance its objectives by setting fundingpriorities and negotiating shared objectives with localities.Mutual concerns must be significant enough to give both partiesan incentive to form an ongoing partnership. Identifying mutualgoals permits the development of a contractual relationshipbetween a state and participating localities.

Linking the Mission to aTarget Population

One of the objectives of community corrections acts isidentifying the group of offenders to be served by its programs.Table E compares state target populations. Many states limitthe program to nonviolent offenders or persons without a priorcriminal history. An increasing number of states have amendedtheir acts or guidelines to include jailed populations as well asprison-bound offenders. Some further limit intended populationby listing priorities or programs to be funded.

Although most acts specify a target group of persons in-tended for community corrections programs, this is only thebeginning of the process for selecting a population to be served.Sometimes the state targets a high-risk population to moreeffectively reduce inmates. The higher the risk taken, thegreater the potential reduction in prison population. This must

be balanced against local goals, Localities may limit groups ofoffenders to be retained in their areas. Montana and Coloradoempower localities to make their own decision on who will beaccepted. This tension between state and localities is resolvedby carefully analyzing risk characteristics of the proposed groupand providing adequate offender monitoring.

A continuing question for community corrections iswhether misdemeanants should be targeted for the program.Some argue that they are unnecessarily jailed because they arenot dangerous and can be more appropriately punished incommunity supervision programs. Others note they are neverprison-bound and in many jurisdictions have already beendiverted from jails. Statistical profiles of jail populations areuseful in resolving these issues. An analysis of prison and jailpopulations should refer to the following information:

number of offenders incarcerated in jail or prisoncharacteristics of incarcerated populations, includingthe number and percent of inmates who committednonviolent offenses or are classified as high-risklength of the average sentence for violent crimeslength of the average sentence for nonviolent crimesnumber and percent of inmates confined for parolerevocationsnumber and percent confined for probation revocationaverage number of years revoked offenders servewhether revoked offenders violated a probation condi-tion or were revoked due to an arrest or subsequentconvictionjurisdictional variations in prisons and jail confine-ment ratesjail and prison capacities and current populations, aswell as planned expansionsan analysis of jail populations by felons/mis-demeanants, pretrial, posttrial, and state inmatesbeing held while awaiting prison or sentence

After conducting a population analysis, a second step is tospecify the types of offenders to be removed from jails andprisons. This involves a policy assessment regarding whichinmates pose little threat to public safety when supervised in

28 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTSIMPLEMENTING AN ACT 29

the community. This requires evaluating the characteristics ofa given target group of offenders from other groups. For ex-ample, a group that is bound for probation may be first-timeoffenders charged with a single nonviolent offense and a historyof full employment. On the other hand, prison-bound offendersmay have a prior record, and may have committed more seriousor multiple offenses. It can then be determined which types ofservices are appropriate. This process should be supported withdata on the characteristics of various populations, their needs,and whether they can be targeted for prevention, early interven-tion. or diversion services. Judges and other public officialsshould be involved in making de&ions about who can be safelyreleased.

Once some agreement is reached regarding who poseslittlethreat to safety, state agencies and localities need to developrisk management guidelines. These provide another method ofmanaging risk for sentenced offenders in the community.

Other related target population issues are then resolved,such as whether jails or prison populations are given fundingpriority and whether legislation should address the need forassistance to both. Counties need to show substantial benefitsfrom community corrections to justify participation. At the sametime localities are seeking assistance, states are pressed todecrease prison populations. Without a reciprocal arrangementbetween a state and locality, either entity could be perceived bythe other as “dumping” sentenced offenders.

One way to avoid complaints of “dumping” offenders is todevelop a plan for intervention at each stage of the process,including pretrial diversion, sentencing, and postrelease super-vision. For jailed populations, pretrial diversion programs offersubstantial savings in case-processing and detention costs.

There is no set way to assign administrative respon-sibilities. The decisions will be based largely on local tradition,resources, and state laws. Whether it is a simple fundingmechanism for local programs or a complex interagency net-work, the structure should be designed to achieve cooperationand consensus. Consensus takes time because actors mustreview proposals and develop policy in a group setting to ensurea wider sense of ownership of the program.

States such as Minnesota have reconciled sentencing lawswith community corrections acts by passing sentencingguidelines legislation. Sentencing guidelines are one optiondesigned to make sentencing practices compatible with statecommunity corrections legislation. They re-examine availablebed space and give priority to the most serious offenders.

Developing an Interagency StructureImplementing an act requires consideration of the follow-

ing issues regarding interagency involvement and structure:

involvement of general purpose governments and theirselected representatives at the state and local levelsdesignation of a responsible state administrative agen-cyspecification of agency placement within or outside thedepartment of correctionsstatement of the duties of the administrative agencyindication of the relationship between community cor-rections and related agencies such as probation andparolespecification of information and reporting require-ments for the designated state agency or local agenciesrecognition of the responsibilities of state and localadvisory boardsselection of a state agency to receive and disbursefunds

Re-examining SentencingCommunity corrections acts must be compatible with ex-

isting state sentencing laws. Some states have determinate ormandatory sentencing limiting the potential of increased sen-tencing options for a substantial number of offenders. For ex-ample, in New York state, a felon who is convicted of a secondfelony must be sent to prison. This sentencing requirementwould limit community corrections to first-time felons in thatstate.

In every state except Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvaniaprimary responsibility for administering the program is housedin the department of corrections. Although this approach hasworked well in many jurisdictions, it does have some disad-vantages. Michigan has determined that its agency will be


independent from the state corrections department. Unless ithas a strong commitment to community corrections, a statedepartment of corrections is more likely to give budgetarypriority to institutional needs when funding shortfalls occur. Onthe other hand, placing community corrections outside of thestate corrections department has the disadvantage of lack ofcoordination or possible competition with corrections.

Gaining Interagency Cooperationand Planning

Evaluations of successful community corrections programsreveal they work best when there is interagency involvement. Forthis reason most state acts require or encourage local advisoryboards. Connecticut and New Mexico are exceptions to this re-quirement, as shown in Table B. The functions of local advisoryboards vary widely by state. In some states boards are required tosubmit a plan for systemwide community corrections. In otherstates, local boards submit a less detailed application and areresponsible for setting policies on which offenders will be retainedin community corrections programs. In some states local boardshave authority for program development in conjunction with thecounty. In others programs must fall within a list of state prioritiesin order to receive funding.

Some states also have statewide community correctionsadvisory boards as listed in Table A State advisory boardsprovide a general forum for correctional policy. They representa balanced approach to community corrections and are repre-sentative of local interests as well as professional criminaljustice interests. Judges, citizens, sheriffs, county repre-sentatives, and other service providers are generally appointedto these boards.

The authority of the responsible state agency ranges fromhighly involved to minimally involved in local programdecisions. In some states, such as Kansas or Virginia, theresponsible agency can refuse to fund programs that are notconsistent with their priorities. In other states the allocation isgiven to the counties, and they decide what programs to fund.In Oregon, state oversight varies with participation levelselected by a county.

Members of local community corrections boards includerepresentatives of local government, law enforcement, correc-

tions, prosecution, defense, the judiciary, and citizen groups.They bring with them their own views of what programs areneeded in their communities. Boards require staff to researchinformation needed for decisions. Local boards link parts of thejustice system and the community.

Strengthening Local ResponsibilityThe state agency and participating localities achieve a

balance in sharing responsibility. State concerns about localaccountability and program outcomes will be satisfied by datacollection and program monitoring. The state will need to reachconsensus with localities on what results are to be expected andhow data will be collected and interpreted. Localities should beinvolved in developing agreement on program accountability,goals, and outcomes.

Table F indicates how localities view benefits of participa-tion. Benefits to units of government usually include greatercontrol over programs for offenders. Counties need help develop-ing programs to relieve jail crowding, offer drug treatment, andadminister intermediate sanctions. Counties welcome the op-portunity for better planning, coordinated management, andinformation systems as part of community corrections.

Part of the tension between states and localities revolvesaround two issues: who is accountable for results, and by whosegoals the results are measured. These tensions can be overcomeby detailed negotiations to establish common goals, acceptablemeasurements, and verifiable results. Negotiations should in-clude the following concerns:

1. Are resources adequate?2. Will program standards require additional expense?3. Do counties have a say in developing programs, stand-

ards, and administrative requirements?4. Will local responsibilities offer the potential for solving

significant local problems in corrections?

Negotiations take time but can result in significant cost savings.If negotiations fail, mediation can be used to settle difficultissues.


Table FLocal Benefits and Costs for Participation

Providing Adequate ResourcesCommunity corrections acts vary in impact on state and

local budgets. Community corrections acts that rely heavily onpunishments such as confinement and residential facilities tendto be more expensive than programs using nonresidential op-tions. As the amount of contacts, supervision, or services in-creases per offender, so does the cost of the program. Thefinancial impact will depend on the cost of supervision and thelevel of punishment to be required for appropriate sentencing.If crime and sentencing factors are held constant, some arguethat states can reduce corrections spending because the cost ofcommunity programs is less than prisons (National Committeeon Community Corrections 1991). Before states can realizesavings, they must divert a large enough population to defer buildinga prison or to reduce the need to maintain an existing prison.

In contrast to potential state savings, community correc-tions acts are less likely to save counties money because

counties’ additional responsibilities for services are seldom fullyreimbursed by the state. There are increased administrativecosts charged to localities, and increased use of jail sentences,through use of split sentencing, can occur in conjunction with acommunity corrections program. This sentencing to local jailsinstead of prison can increase local costs of participation. Ac-cording to a study in Minnesota by the Department of Correc-tions and the Minnesota Association of Counties, at the outsetof the program in 1979 the state supplied $13.7 million and thecounties contributed $23.3 million toward community correc-tions. By 1990 the county contributions increased to $71.9 million,while the state contributions increased only to $20.9 million. Inshort, over a ten-year period, the county contributions equaledmore than three times the state share, underscoring the impor-tance of county government in the overall program.

Many community corrections act counties have elected toparticipate and invest more county dollars because of local supportfor programs. These counties prefer to provide supervision ratherthan have offenders eventually released into the community un-assisted and unsupervised. Offenders are encouraged to earnwages, pay taxes and fines, and support their families. Althoughstate reimbursement to the counties must be substantial if theprogram is to succeed, factors such as local pride and creativityalso play a large role in county decisions to participate.

Providing a Fair FormulaThere is no easy way to divide available funds, but simplicity

and fairness should be stressed. State agencies lack the resourcesto meet all funding requests. State funding mechanisms tend touse offender-based data including needs and risk factors as wellas systems and workload data to determine funding allocations.Some of these data elements can be audited.

One source of tension states must often resolve is how theycan meet the needs of their metropolitan and suburban jurisdic-tions while also providing assistance to rural areas. The follow-ing points should be considered:

1. Subsidy allocations should be fair and based on need.Urban jurisdictions with high crime or incarcerationrates and limited resources should be given adequateassistance.


2. Local payments should be adequate to accomplish im-portant but limited goals.

3. Some factors that can be used to develop formulas are:prison/jail admissions, felony sentences, parole andprobation populations, cost of living, population, per-cent of population between ages eighteen and twenty-six, tax basis, and other indications of need or risk.

4. The formula should be based on verifiable and com-parable data from all jurisdictions.

5. The funding allocation should keep pace with inflationand population shifts. A cost-of-living adjustmentshould be provided.

Gradually Expanding ServicesImplementing a community corrections program requires

giving consideration as to whether services will be available ateach step in the corrections process. Not all services need to bewithin the community corrections system. Some may beprovided by other independent but related agencies. If theseindependent services exist, they need to be coordinated withcommunity corrections.

The range of services forms a continuum. The continuumextends from those requiring the least amount of supervision tothose requiring confinement in a work release or detentioncenter. They include the following:

l pretrial diversion, citation release, and pretrial inter-ventionintermediate sanctions such as intensive supervisionprobation, community service, restitution, and finesmonitoring, home confinement, and day reportingcenters

l detention centers, shock incarceration, temporaryparole/probation revocation centers, split sentencing,preparole release, substance abuse, mental health,reintegration programs, work release, and educationrelease

Each locality can select from programs on this continuumor develop new and innovative programs. Flexibility in programdevelopment is an essential part of community corrections acts.

IV.

The Results

AccomplishmentsAlthough every community corrections act state has publishedreports, Oregon, Minnesota, Virginia, and Kansas have issuedthe most extensive evaluations. The Oregon and Minnesotaevaluations concluded that community corrections acts werebeneficial and that improvements could be made through bothlegislative and administrative actions.

A series of evaluations in Minnesota covered: quality ofservices, efficiency, effectiveness, sentencing impact, planning,and administration (Minnesota Department of Corrections1981). The Minnesota evaluations found no adverse impact onpublic safety. There were substantial improvements in planningand administration. Although per capita costs of offender ser-vices were reduced under community corrections in Minnesota,overall program costs were higher due to increased administra-tive costs. The benefits to sentencing practices were less thanexpected in Minnesota. Consequently, sentencing guidelineswere developed to further structure sentencing discretion. In-teragency cooperation, planning, and resource management inMinnesota were improved under the legislation. New serviceswere developed in some jurisdictions.

A Governor’s Task Force on Correctional Planningreviewed the Oregon experience and affirmed the validity of theoriginal purposes of the legislation and substantiated benefitsto participating jurisdictions (1988). The Oregon program wasfound to be effective but needed improvement in targeting stateprison populations. The report recommended eliminating thechargeback, revising the block grant to more accurately reflectworkload and costs, and adopting parole and sentencingguidelines. Since 1988, Oregon has modified its program to

35

36 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS THE RESULTS 31

resolve a number of these problems. In 1989 Oregon adoptedsentencing guidelines to further modify sentencing practices.

An evaluation of Kansas’ community corrections act in1987 indicated the program was moderately effective in retain-ing persons who would otherwise have been sentenced to prison.Recidivism was similar to those who were incarcerated. Whencompared with the cost of incarceration, the Kansas communitycorrections program revealed lower cost.

Examples of benefits in three states were summarized ina description of community corrections published by the JusticeFellowship (1988). The Justice Fellowship outlined the benefitsnoted in evaluations from Indiana (Gehm and Coates 1986),Virginia (Joint Legislative Audit Review Commission 1985),and Kansas Kansas Department of Corrections 1986, 1987).

The following are some of the more tangible benefits ofexisting community corrections acts:

Victims1. Victims were paid restitution by offenders. More than

$88,000 was paid in Virginia between 1981 and 1984.Victim restitution in Kansas exceeded $361,000 in1987.

2. Victim-offender reconciliation programs were part ofcommunity corrections programs in Indiana. In oneIndiana county more than two-thirds of the cases werereferred to this program.

Offenders1. Kansas community corrections participants achieved a

95 percent employment rate in 1987.2. Virginia offenders paid child support for their families

while saving more than $21,000 in welfare payments.3. Indiana offenders were offered education and employ-

ment services such as GED classes.

Community1. A wide range of sanctions were developed in Kansas to

meetjurisdictional needs. These ranged from increasedsupervision to job-readiness training.

2. Community service performed by Virginia offenderswas worth more than $428,000. In Kansas, offenders

performed more than 21,000 hours of community ser-vice for governments and nonprofit agencies.

3. Supervision fees collected by Virginia totalled nearly$55,000. Kansas collected more than $250,000 in feesin 1987 to support administrative costs.

4. Kansas programs provided victim witness services tomore than 6,100 victims of crime.

5. Supervision in community corrections programs meetspublic safety needs. Virginia and Minnesota reportedthat public safety was not endangered by the programs.

Government1. Cost-effective supervision was provided in Kansas,

where the annual cost per offender was less than$1,500, compared with more than $10,000 per offenderin prison.

2. In Virginia, diversion of 142 offenders saved the statemore than $325,000 in supervision fees.

3. In Kansas it was estimated that more than $30 millionin prison and construction costs was saved by diverting830 adults from prison.

4. The Virginia legislative study found improved planningamong criminal justice system components throughthe community corrections program.

5. Economic losses due to offender unemployment andfamily disintegration were substantially reduced. InVirginia, offenders earned nearly $1.5 million in wagesbetween 1981 and 1984. The benefits for continuedemployment and tax revenues were estimated to beeven higher in Kansas.

Community corrections has increased professionalizationof correctional services as local, state, and national organiza-tions have developed training and guidelines for the programs.Among these are pretrial services, halfway houses, residentialprograms, community service, offender restitution programs,and probation and parole agencies. Community corrections actshave made it possible for service providers to define theirprofessional goals and enhance their performance in communitycorrections act states. In some states professional training andconferences have been funded by community corrections actgrants.

38 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS THE RESULTS 39

Why is professional growth an important accomplishmentof community corrections acts? Community corrections, actsallow decision making to be locally based with input fromcorrectional professionals. Correctional professionals willmanage the system and provide services once it is implemented.The work of community corrections professionals is specialized,technical, and complex.

A recent survey in Delaware indicated that more thantwo-thirds of the state’s residents were in favor of alternativepunishments (Doble 1991). Most people favored middle-levelsanctions involving work over regular probation or prison.Reports from community corrections act states note the benefitsof local involvement in introducing intermediate punishmentprograms into a community. Many citizens understand thepurpose of these programs and favor a wider range of inter-mediate punishments.

ObstaclesDuring the past twenty years, community corrections

legislation has encountered a number of obstacles. These bar-riers are caused by a combination of the following factors:

l forces at work in the jurisdictions and countiesl administrative or interagency problemsl legal problems related to the legislation or sentencing

lawsl resource allocation or availability

Once the source of the impediment is identified, a coalitionforms between relevant actors to remove the barrier. throughappropriate action. Such coalitions include state and localdecision makers, citizen groups, criminal justice professionals,and judges. Some of the barriers that have been noted includethe following factors:

Funding ProblemsBecause of state budget shortfalls, community corrections

legislation in some states has encountered difficulty in securingadequate appropriations. Other states report cutting back onprograms or declining to fund new initiatives. More than half of

states surveyed in 1991 by the American Probation and ParoleAssociation had experienced cutbacks in services (Reeves 1991).

There is a lag time of several years for implementation oflocal programs that are not already fully operational. Start-updelays can cause funding problems. New agencies with no trackrecord for efficiency have a difficult time justifying theirbudgets. This can be remedied by a commitment in the statuteto phased start-up funding for a new agency over a five-yearperiod.

Few Studies of Results and OutcomesAfter more than twenty years of community corrections,

only a few states have published systematic evaluations describ-ing what they have accomplished. The dearth of informationabout what works can be overcome by a concentrated effort toimprove the quality of information about these programs.

Community corrections agencies need systems and casedata to provide aggregate information on needs and cost tomonitor their own functions. State legislatures, oversight agen-cies, and county boards are keenly interested in following thecosts and learning the impact of such programs. There shouldbe systematic reporting of services provided and problems en-countered. Information can be used to develop minimal stand-ards, to project whether there is a need for increased expenditures,and to determine whether the funding is targeting the intendedgroup of offenders. Minimum standards for case managementprovide guidelines on the adequacy of correctional funding.

Unintended Sentencing ResultsAlthough most community corrections acts have aimed to

divert nonviolent offenders from prisons, this goal has beenapplied to a limited number of cases. Some state laws do notdefine the offender group to be targeted, leaving state agenciesto grapple with this issue. If offender groups are not defined bystatute, then study, rule making, education, and persuasion arenecessary to carry out the program’s intent (Pearce and Madler1991).

Some programs operate outside of probation and are smalldue to limited funding or clients. There is a reluctance to developprograms to deal with more difficult offenders presenting cor-

40 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS THERESULTS 4 1

rectional treatment needs such as drug-abuse or mental illness.Programs cannot possibly offset increased felony sentencingrates or enhanced punishments due to changes in state laws.

Offenders can be sentenced to jail as part of a communitycorrections sentence, causing jails to become crowded. Effortscan be made to prevent this result through judicial leadershipand participation, sentencing guidelines, or administrative in-centives. Community corrections programs increasingly havebeen used to serve jailed offenders as well as prison-boundoffenders. Misdemeanants are not excluded in many statutes,although only a few states have concentrated on jail crowdingissues. Michigan has taken the lead in making this a priority.

A third barrier occurs where more persons are sentencedto community corrections programs from a group who wouldhave received unrestricted probation. This “widening of the net?may be due to the need for a wider range of options withinprobation, such as more intensive supervision. States such asOregon and Minnesota have recognized this need and includeprobation as part of community corrections act programs.

Community corrections is not a solution to all sentencing andcrowding problems. It introduces options for sentencing, but theseneed to be applied by judges. Community corrections requires judi-cial leadership and input for effective implementation. Judges areimportant members of advisory boards. If community correctionsprograms do not adequately reach an intended group of offenders,other mechanisms to reduce sentencing disparities should be con-sidered such as capacity-driven sentencing guidelines.

Allocation Formula DisputesFunding allocation criteria should be simple and verifi-

able. Allocation formulas should meet the basic needs of eachparticipating jurisdiction. They provide funding based on needsfor areas with high-risk populations. Workload and administra-tive costs are among the factors considered. If community cor-rections programs are intended to serve jail-bound as well asprison-bound groups, then jailed populations become part of theallocation formula.

A funding process should be open and well-documented toavoid controversy. Participating local units of government gainaccess to funding applications from other jurisdictions as wellas basic information on what programs were funded.

Designating a State AgencyFinding an agency to house community corrections within

a state can be a difficult task. The agency needs sufficientautonomy to do its job, yet it must be able to secure the coopera-tion of the department of corrections. Most agencies are withinstate departments of corrections. In Michigan, the legislatureelected to make the office an independent agency autonomousfrom the department of corrections.

Program staff and stability are important to progress.Some states, such as Colorado, have had changes in designationof a state oversight agency to house community corrections.Whether the responsibility is assigned to the department ofcorrections, a criminal justice planning agency, or a separatedepartment, implementors need to be certain related stateagencies support the program.

Opposition to Administrative RequirementsCounties elect not to participate in community corrections

programs if administrative requirements prove costly or dif-ficult. For example, state data collection efforts fail if theyrequire excessive amounts of information or data that is toocostly to be retrieved. Efforts should be made to phase inreporting requirements over a long period of time. If countiesare compensated for the additional costs to be incurred, they willbe more willing to participate in the program. If they can meetadministrative requirements, they will have more reason toparticipate.

Citizen ResistanceA new program placed in a neighborhood can face strong

community resistance. Community corrections advisory boardsprovide a forum for considering details of the proposed program.Factual presentations augment an open decision-makingprocess involving local officials, citizens, and neighborhoodgroups. Not all communities require public hearings, but suchhearings offer a way to involve relevant groups and resolveconcerns. Community control and support from civic leaders areimportant factors in overcoming resistance.

MAINTAINING THE ACT'S VITALITY 43

V.Maintaining the Act’s

Vitality

Monitoring Program EffectivenessAlthough community corrections acts have been in existence formore than twenty years, many questions about their effectsremain. Some observers note that these acts’ real potentialremains undeveloped. The following are some still unansweredquestions:

1. How do we know what works?2. Will the legislation need to be revised periodically?3. What methodology should be developed to support state

and local efforts?4. How can the state maintain its interests while en-

couraging local involvement?5. How can information systems be used to better manage

community corrections?6. What are the prospects for improved professional ser-

vices?7. How can we continue to engage local support?

Many of these questions can be answered through the use ofcomparative data describing case outcomes and administrativecosts.

Most states do not have data collection and analysis sys-tems for cross-jurisdictional comparisons. Evaluations of com-munity corrections have been generally favorable, but few havedescribed case outcomes. Little documentation exists regardingincreased economic productivity of offenders in community cor-rections, Likewise, there is little long-term data on what cir-cumstances of supervision are more likely to reduce criminal

activity. Are some correctional treatment modalities more effec-tive for certain types of offenders? These are but a few of thequestions needing careful research.

Revising Legislation to Fit NeedsThe lack of systematic information about program success

makes improving community corrections legislation difficult.Despite the absence of empirical information about programimpact, states have frequently revised their statutes. Revisionshave included the following:

l decreasing reliance on chargebacks as incentives forcompliance

l changing target populations to include jailed of-fenders, misdemeanants, or juveniles

l changing county participation from voluntary to man-datory

l

introducing wording to encourage local involvementdesignating a state agency to oversee the program

In addition to revising the legislation, community correc-tions acts need to be monitored for outcomes consistent withgoals. Few states require reporting back on statewide outcomesand progress toward goals.

Updating State and Local AgreementsThe success of community corrections depends on reciprocal

state and local agreements, which must keep pace with rapidlyoccurring changes in corrections. This contractual relationshipextends to each phase of the implementation process--from infor-mation collection to monitoring requirements.

The negotiated agreement includes not only programdevelopment responsibility and priorities, but also feedback onwhether the act accomplishes its goals. Decision makers, correc-tional officials, and the public need to know safety-record andcost information. The state and the counties jointly develop thecapacity to gather information required for monitoringprograms under the act. This shared task depends on the abilityof localities to take on an increasing workload of monitoring,reporting, and evaluating.

42

44 COMMVNITYCORRECTlONSACTS

Limit Funding Restrictions toNecessary Functions

Most community corrections acts contain restrictions onhow localities can use the funds. Typical restrictions include jailrenovation or building, nonsupplantation of funds, and main-tenance of effort. State agencies go well beyond these limitationsin developing application requirements, reporting require-ments, program standards, and priorities.

Table B lists statutory variations in funding restrictions,and Table C lists local aid requirements. There are substantialvariations in maintenance of effort, local match, and construc-tion. Chargebacks are now limited to two state juvenileprograms. Many of these restrictions have been routinely re-quired for state criminal justice grants and are a holdover fromsimilar restrictions under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act.Continued restrictions show a state reluctance to let localitiescontrol programs. Although some controls are necessary, statesshould exercise restraint in controlling programs designed toencourage local involvement.

Although restrictions are intended to ensure the act meetsits goals, they may have the reverse effect. For example, acounty under court order for inappropriate jail conditions willnot be able to afford to participate in a community correctionsprogram that will take county funds away from improving jailconditions.

State standards and guidelines are developed to assure theprogram does what was intended; however, guidelines may alsorestrict county authority to revise programs or meet additionalneeds. Given competing considerations, a balance between statemonitoring and county discretion can be reached. This is mosteasily done if counties are given a role in formulating theguidelines through a statewide task force or through a peer-review process using other counties and correctional ad-ministrators. Such task forces are at work in Michigan, Oregon,and other states.

Using Data for Improved ResultsCommunity corrections systems are designed for flexibility

in identifying new needs and providing solutions. Routine infor-


mation is gathered to guide policy decisions at all levels of theprogram.

Programs must be designed to capture basic information,such as case characteristics, demographics, risk, and com-pliance rates. There also should be cost and systems informationto analyze programs. Once this information is available, pro-gram personnel, local decision makers, and state correctionsadministrators will have a common reference for monitoring theprograms.

Although data collection efforts may be uniform amongjurisdictions, there will always be differing points of view incollecting and interpreting the data. State and local task forcescan establish guidelines in this area. Data collection and userequires cooperation and consensus. Auditing data and confirm-ing its validity are important tasks. Unless there is consensuson interpreting data, its use will be looked upon with suspicion.Therefore, mechanisms must exist for resolving conflicts relatedto interpretation and use. This should become part of an ongoingcommunity corrections effort.

Data collection can become the first step in a multijuris-dictional task to understand the outcomes of community correc-tions programs. The intent is not to collect a mass of aggregatedata, but to retrieve information that can be used in guidingstate and local policy decisions. In order to accomplish this, thedata collection effort must be perceived as fair and reliable. Thedata should be easily and quickly retrievable. Aggregate data isdirectly related to statewide goals. Large numbers of variablesshould not be collected routinely; this can be expensive and willslow the process (Knapp 1991). Localities and the state agencymust agree on the protocol for data collection and reportingrequirements. After the data is collected, it should be auditedfor consistency. A task force or working group provides anongoing structure for discussing the implications of the data forlocalities. If information indicates a program is not working, itshould be reviewed immediately at the local level.

Engaging Local SupportOne of the well-documented obstacles for implementing

community corrections programs has been neighborhood resis-tance to program locations. Halfway houses and residentialcenters have been expensive to develop due to lengthy negotia-


tions and difficult zoning requirements. Those who have studiedthis phenomenon emphasize the need to work with communityleaders to provide information at each stage of the process.

Community corrections programs are more easily set upwith the participation of local advisors and sponsors. Thesesponsors help inform the public about the safety of localprograms. They become advocates for new programs to meetlocal needs. They participate in discussions about neighborhoodconcerns and help establish guidelines for what types of casescan be accepted in local programs. There must be a mechanismfor hearing their concerns and a commitment to providinginformation on the safety of the program. Public meetings andinformation should target the following:

what punishments are considered and why they arepunishmentswhat risk management procedures will be usedwhether the risk management program will be effec-tivehow these programs will affect tax rates or local ser-viceswhat methods of monitoring programs will be used,and what the evaluation methods will bewho will decide whether a program will continuehow implementors plan to handle public concernsthroughout the life of the program (Lindsay 1989)

Maintaining Local BoardsLocal advisory boards provide a forum for engaging public

support. There are two types of boards: those that are respon-sible for planning or developing an application under a com-munity corrections act, and those that are advisory to publicofficials such as a chiefprobation officer or a state agency. Boardmembers are elected officials and citizen representatives as wellas judges and correctional professionals. Local boards operatingunder most community corrections acts are required to reportto a county or regional entity. Their work focuses on upgradingtheirjurisdiction’s ability to provide correctional supervision fornonviolent offenders outside of prison or jail by developing arange of sanctions.


Local boards perform a range of functions, including pro-gram development and planning, public education, programmonitoring, setting eligibility standards, and coordinating ser-vice delivery. They provide a commitment of funding and/orother resources to the effort. They can garner assistance fromother systems, such as mental health services. Advisory groupsprovide for renewed citizen interest and support in communitycorrections programs.

The Life Cycle of Community Correctionsand Rejuvenation

Community corrections programs tend to have a “life cycle”with a predictable series of dynamics. A review of the history ofearly legislation in California, Minnesota, and Oregon revealsthat there have been dynamic changes in these programs, someof which can be attributed to the dynamics of correctionalreform.

Once a community corrections act is in place, citizen advo-cates and reform-minded decision makers tend to defer to cor-rectional administrators, planners, and program directors.Planners and correctional professionals influence the “middleage” of community corrections more than the reformers whostimulated the original legislation. Community correctionslegislation in mid-life tends to become limited by its own effortsto stabilize and institutionalize local correctional services. Thisis quite understandable given the complex task assigned tocommunity corrections and the limited resources.

States with community corrections acts assure the vitalityof the act with continued funding, an engaged citizenry, andcommitted counties. How can community corrections maintainits initial thrust to decentralize and improve citizen involve-ment? Two points are critical. First, systematic informationmust be provided to the public and decision makers based onreal data and results. Second, local citizen boards must haveaccess to this information for making policy recommendationsto corrections professionals and counties. These boards form alink to citizens about local concerns, a forum for discussing newstrategies, and a linkage with community values. Unless thisprocess of public education continues to take place, communitycorrections will fail to accomplish one of its goals-providinglocally based support.

48 COMMVNITYCORRECTlONSACTS

ConclusionThe impetus for most community corrections acts stems

from a legislative policy commitment to develop alternativesentencing options and to deinstitutionalize nondangerous in-carcerated persons. This intent is incorporated in the languageof the statutes governing community corrections. The realpromise for community corrections acts is to provide betterinteragency cooperation, citizen education, and community management of correctional programs for sentenced offenders. Thehistory of community corrections demonstrates its potential asa problem-solving tool of the 1990s.

Community corrections acts have a different impact oneach state. Evaluations indicate the effectiveness of programsfunded by community corrections acts. However, with the in-creasing problems confronting corrections, the driving need toprovide adequate correctional services becomes a dominantfactor in implementing programs. Improving community correc-tions acts depends on a close analysis of sentenced populationsand their needs. Establishing a continuing connection with thecommunity is an important factor for success. State legislationwill be useful to the extent that it enables states and localitiesto become partners in corrections. These partnerships must bebased on a better understanding of offender needs and services.

Bibliography

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1984.Jails: Intergovernmental dimensions of a local problem.Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. November 1990. Probation andparole 1989. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Jus-tice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. December 1990. Felony sentencesin state courts, 1988. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. June 1991. Jail inmates, 1990.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1991. National update.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. April 1991. Profile of jail inmates,1989. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Cunniff, Mark A, and Mary K. Shilton. 1991. Variations onfelonyprobation. Washington, D.C.: The National Associa-tion of Criminal Justice Planners.

Doble, John. 1991. Punishing criminals: The people of Delawareconsider the options. Public Agenda Foundation.

Eynon, Thomas G. 1989. Building community support. Correc-tions Today (April).

Gehm, John, and Robert B. Coates. 1986. The Indiana com-munity corrections act process, practice, and implications.In: PACT Institute of Justice.

Governor’s Task Force on Corrections Planning. 1988. Astrategic corrections plan for Oregon: Restoring thebalance. Final report of the Oregon jail overcrowdingproject. Salem, Ore.

Huskey, Bobbie L. 1984. Community corrections acts helppromote community based leaning. Corrections Today(February).

Joint Legislative Audit Review Commission. 1985. The com-munity diversion incentive program of the Virginia Depart-ment of Corrections. Richmond, Va.: Commonwealth ofVirginia.

49

50 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS BIBLIOGRAPHY 5 1

Justice Fellowship. September 1988. Justice fellowship pro-gram description, community corrections act.

Kansas Department of Corrections. 1987. Kansas Departmentof Corrections annual report on community corrections.

Kansas Department of Corrections, Community ServicesDivision. 1986. Community corrections progress report.(July).

Knapp, Kay. August 1991. Unpublished presentation. Centerfor Rational Public Policy.

Lauen, Roger J. 1990. Community-managed corrections. Secondedition. Laurel, Md.: American Correctional Association.

Lindsay, Margot C. 1989. Journal of the National Prison Project(Fall).

McGarry, Peggy. 1990. Improving the use of intermediate sanc-tions. Community Corrections Quarterly. (Spring).

Michigan Office of Community Corrections. December 1991.The management of diversion programs in the Michigancorrections system:A call for rationality.

Minnesota Department of Corrections. January 1981. Min-nesota community corrections act evaluation. St. Paul,Minn.

National Committee on Community Corrections. 1991. Positionpaper. Washington, D.C.

Nelson, E.K, Jr., Robert Cushman, and Nora Harlow. 1980.Program models: Unification of community corrections.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice.

O’Leary, Vincent, and Todd Clear. 1984. Directions for com-munity corrections in the 1990s. Washington, D.C.: Nation-al Institute of Corrections.

Orrick, Kelly. 1988. What is in it for the counties? County News.Pearce, Sandy, and John Madler. 1991. A compendium of com-

munity corrections legislation in the United States. NorthCarolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission.

Petersilia, Joan. 1986. Exploring the option of house arrest.Federal Probation. (June).

Reeves, Rhonda. 1991. Down, but not out. Perspectives (Fall).Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1989. Opportunities in community

corrections. National Conference of State Legislators.

Way, Gory T. 1990. Punishment without bars: Community cor-rections in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Senior thesis.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University.

Zeldow, Frederic, and Kathleen Gramp. August 1991. Countygovernment budget shortfall report. Washington, D.C.: Na-tional Association of Counties.

Appendix

A Compendium ofCommunity Corrections

Legislation in theUnited States

Prepared by:Sandy Pearce, Associate DirectorJohn Madler, Research AssociateNorth Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory

Commission

November 1991

Alabama Community Punishment andCorrections Act

Purpose: In 1991, Alabama passed a voluntary Com-munity Punishment and Corrections Act (CPCA). The purposeof the act is to provide alternatives to incarceration (jail andprison) in the community for nonviolent offenders. However, dueto the state’s financial condition, no funds were appropriated toimplement the act.

Impetus/Leadership: The impetus for enacting the Com-munity Punishment and Corrections Act was prison crowding.Leadership for enacting the CPCA came from the executivebranch, specifically the Secretary of the Department of Correc-tions. The bill was originally introduced in 1990, but it failed togain support in the legislature. Defense attorneys were con-cerned about liability clauses in the bill, and it died in commit-tee. However, administration officials worked hard to build aconsensus for supporting the bill, and it passed in 1991 with the

53

5 4

support of the County Commissioners Association, district at-torneys, and defense attorneys.

Organizational Structure: In Alabama, the Depart-ment of Corrections administers adult institutions, work releasecenters, the Supervised Intensive Restitution Program, and jailinspections. The State Board of Pardons and Paroles grantsparoles and provides a statewide system of adult felony proba-tion and parole services. The Administrative Office of the Courtsadministers misdemeanor probation and parole services.

Administration.- Alabama passed the CommunityPunishment and Corrections Act in July 1991, and it becameeffective 1 October 1991. The Department of Corrections hasresponsibility for administering the act; however, no funds wereprovided to administer or implement the act. State staff providetechnical assistance to counties to apply for funds, to review andaward contracts for grants, to monitor program performance,and to develop program standards.

Fundable Programs: Community Punishment and Cor-rections Act funds may be used to develop or expand the rangeof community punishments and services at the local level.Fundable programs include: day reporting, home detention,.restitution programs, community service supervision, short-term residential treatment, individualized services that provideevaluation and treatment for special needs offenders, and sub-stance abuse programs. Violent offenders are excluded fromparticipation in CPCA programs.

Application Process: The Department of Corrections isrequired to develop and implement an application process forCPCA funds. In order to qualify for funds, judicial circuits orcounties must form local community punishment and correc-tions planning boards and submit local plans. The state cancontract with counties or with nonprofit entities to provideservices prescribed by local plans.

Funding Formula/State Appropriations: No fundingformula is specified in the legislation. In 1991, no funds were

A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 55

appropriated to implement the Community Punishment andCorrections Act.

Arizona Community Punishment ProgramPurpose: In 1988, Arizona passed the Community Punish-

ment Program; however, they did not appropriate any funds forit during the first year. The original purpose of the program wasto provide services to enhance probation. The legislature hassince changed the primary emphasis to prison and jail diversion.

Any person for whom a presentence report is ordered orany person placed on supervised probation or intensive proba-tion by a participating superior court is eligible to receiveservices offered in a community punishment program.

Impetus/Leadership: Representatives of the local com-munity, Justice Fellowship, and some of the state’s judgesprovided the impetus for the Community Punishment Program.Their goal was to discuss ways to develop and expand com-munity-based treatment for adults on probation. More recentlythe legislature has taken the lead by mandating annual diver-sion goals.

Organizational Structure: The Department of Correc-tions administers adult institutions and parole services. TheBoard of Pardons and Paroles, which paroles adults, is anindependent agency reporting to the governor. The Administra-tive Office of the Courts (AOC) administers adult and juvenileprobation services and the Community Punishment Program.The AOC administers probation services through county proba-tion offices.

Administration: The Administrative Office of the Courtsadministers the Community Punishment Program through itsAdult Services Division. The division is responsible for ad-ministering the state funds and for prescribing the procedures,guidelines, forms, standards, and requirements. The guidelinesare promulgated through judicial order rather than legislation.The division also monitors local programs through inspectionsand audits.

The central office consists of a small staff that approvesplans submitted by the counties, makes appropriation requests

56 COMMVNWY CORRECTIONS ACTS A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 67

of the legislature, and distributes the funds to the county offices.The superior courts develop annual plans and funding requests,and contract with the local service providers. The court may, butis not required to, appoint a community punishment advisorycommittee to assess needs and make recommendations. Theadministrative budget is approximately $150,000 per fiscalyear.

Fundable Programs: Community Punishment Programfunds can be used for a variety of programs depending on theneeds of the community. Examples include treatment programsfor sex offenders and for the chronically mentally ill, communityresidential programs, substance abuse counselors on the proba-tion staff, drug intervention programs, substituting communityservice hours for jail days, work furlough programs, andelectronic monitoring using visual telephones. The emphasis ofeach program, however, is to be on treatment or jail reduction.

Application Process: Superior courts, sometimes withrecommendations from a community punishment advisory com-mittee, develop annual program plans with funding requests.The plan should include defined goals and objectives for theprogram, data to be collected and retained for evaluation andreview of the program, and program component priorities incase of insufficient funds. These plans are submitted to thecentral office. The central office reviews the plans and gives finalapproval, and makes the appropriation request. Participation isvoluntary, and as of November 1991, six of fifteen countiesparticipated.

Funding Formula/State Appropriation: Arizona doesnot currently use a funding formula. The intention is to allowcounties to diversify services as needed in the community. Theonly restriction is that the program plan must meet divisionapproval. The state appropriates $2.5 million annually for theCommunity Punishment Program, $10 million for intensiveprobation, and $10 million for regular probation.

Colorado Community Corrections ActPurpose: In 1974, Colorado passed the Community Cor-

rections Act; however, no funds were appropriated that year.

The initial purpose of the act was to expand options for thecourts and the criminal justice system to divert certain prison-bound offenders. The legislature has added the prevention of theexpansion of the prison population as a purpose.

Originally the act targeted nonviolent felony offendersconvicted of certain classes of offenses, which are primarilyproperty offenses. Several years after the establishment of theact, the legislature added to the targeted population the transi-tion of inmates prior to release to parole or as a condition ofparole.

Impetus/Leadership: State legislators and locallyelected officials provided the leadership for getting the Com-munity Corrections Act passed. They were concerned with ex-panding the diversion options for the criminal justice systemwithin the community, with managing populations that wouldotherwise be placed in secure facilities, and with increasing localcontrol over correctional programs. The criminal justice systemwas very cooperative and welcomed the new options.

Organizational Structure: The Department of Correc-tions administers adult corrections. The Board of Parole is anindependent agency which grants parole to adults, but theDivision of Community Services in the Department of Correc-tions administers parole supervision. The Judicial Departmentadministers adult and juvenile probation services. The Depart-ment of Public Safety (DPS) administers the Community Cor-rections Act programs.

Administration: The DPS administers the CommunityCorrections Act programs. The staff at the state level consistsof six people. They contract with local boards to provide services,deal with the legislature and the governor, promulgate stand-ards, perform audits in conjunction with local officials, andmaintain a statewide database on all clients for evaluationpurposes.

The local community corrections boards develop the ser-vice plans to submit to DPS, and they retain the final right toaccept or reject offenders whom they feel they cannot properlyserve.

58 CObfMUNlTYCORRECTlONSACTS A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 59

Fundable Programs: Community Corrections Act fundsmay be used to fund almost any type of program; however, theDPS does have a list of minimum services the county is requiredto provide with CCA funds. These services may be residential,but they must provide drug testing, substance abuse and mentalhealth treatment options, employment assistance, and familyand financial counseling. Counties may also spend a portion ofthe funds for programs in jails. The boards are permitted to keepup to 5 percent of the state funds for administrative costs.

Application Process: To be eligible for Community Cor-rections Act funds, the county commissioners must create acommunity corrections board. The board may be advisory orfunctional, at the discretion of the county authorities. The boarddevelops a plan for providing local services. The board submitsthe plan to the DPS, which has final approval over every plan.The department then contracts with the board to provide theservices. The board contracts locally for the services.

Funding Formula/State Appropriation: Funding isbased on an analysis of the caseload in the county. The legisla-ture appropriates money to two funds: one for programs forinmates and one for programs for probationers. The Departmentof Public Safety then distributes the money from each fund tothe counties based on the results of the analysis. Funds aredistributed at the beginning of each quarter to the communitycorrections boards for them to disperse as necessary.

The Colorado legislature appropriates $21 million annual-ly for the Community Corrections Act programs.

Connecticut Community CorrectionsServices Act

Purpose: In 1980, Connecticut passed the CommunityCorrections Services Act. The purpose of the act is to providenoninstitutional community-based service programs for prisonand jail inmates upon their release. The act targets paroledinmates only.

Impetus/Leadership: In 1971, a network ofprivate sectorcriminal justice providers existed in Connecticut. The Depart-ment of Correction selected them because they already had

stability and stature, and developed them into an organizedconstituency to educate the public and the legislature oncriminal justice system issues. They hoped to turn these issuesinto public policy issues to be discussed openly and rationally,rather than continuing to deal with them emotionally. Theefforts of these private sector providers, with the support of theDepartment of Correction, resulted in the passing of the Com-munity Corrections Services Act.

Organizational Structure: The Connecticut correction-al system contains the Department of Correction, which ad-ministers adult institutions; the Department of Children andYouth Services, which administers juvenile institutions andaftercare services; and the Judicial Department, FamilyDivision, which administers juvenile probation. The Depart-ment of Correction is divided into the Division of InstitutionServices, the Division of Community Services, the Division ofInmate Classification Services, the Division of Parole, and theOffice of Adult Probation. The Parole Board is an autonomousagency with its members appointed by the governor, There is aPrison and Jail Overcrowding Commission which makes policyrecommendations. As of 1 January 1991, the legislature createdan Office of Alternative Sanctions in the Judicial Department.This office will gradually assume the pretrial and probationprograms currently under the DOC. The entire system, includ-ing jails, is state-administered and state-funded.

Administration: The Division of Community Serviceswithin the Department of Correction administers the Com-munity Corrections Services Act. The department is solelyresponsible for negotiating the independent contracts with theprivate sector providers, and monitoring and evaluating theprograms and their impact.

Fundable Programs: Community Corrections Servicesfunds can be used to cover the entire continuum of early releaseprograms for offenders, both residential and nonresidential. Theemphasis is on preparing the offender to reenter society, includ-ing such aspects as job placement, treatment, counseling, andhousing.

60 COMMUNlTYCORRECTlONSACTS

Application Process: The state is divided into com-munity corrections service areas, which correspond to healthsystems agency regions. The Department of Correction developsand revises annually a comprehensive state community correc-tion plan for the delivery of services in the service areas. Thecommunity provides input, but there is no formal local advisoryboard.

Funding Formula/State Appropriation: Currently,the Department of Correction does not use a funding formula.The Department pays the money up-front annually on morethan fifty private independent contracts. During this fiscal year,the department intends to examine the current contracts todetermine how much it is paying for what services and therebydevelop a formula for establishing the level of funds for eachservice area and for each service contract. This formula shouldinclude: (1) private sector match; (2) client population ratio; (3)nonclient criteria; (4) residential facility criteria; and (5) non-residential facility criteria.

In fiscal year 1990, the legislature appropriated $15 mil-lion for Community Corrections Services and $7 million forAlternative Sanctions.

Impact Evaluations: No one has performed a thoroughevaluation, but limited studies have shown that the more inten-sive, primarily residential programs have been more beneficialto the parolees than the less intensive ones.

Florida Community Corrections ActPurpose: In July 1991, Florida passed a voluntary Com-

munity Corrections Partnership Act (CCPA). The purpose of theact is to divert nonviolent offenders from the state prison systemby punishing these offenders with community-based sanctions.The intent is to reserve the state prison system for offenderswho are deemed most dangerous to the community. For countiesthat participate in the partnership, an additional purpose is toreduce the number of nonviolent misdemeanants committed tothe county detention system. Counties are to use act resourcesfor intermediate sanctions for prison-bound or jail-bound of-fenders.


Impetus/Leadership: The executive branch provided theimpetus for the Community Corrections Partnership Act-specifically the governor’s office. It took two years to pass theact. Staff from the governor’s office worked closely with theSheriffs’ Association and the Association of County Commis-sioners to gain support for the bill in the legislature. The Stateof Florida had been committed to community-based sanctionsfor several years and the CCPA was an expansion of thatphilosophy.

Organizational Structure: The Florida Department ofCorrections provides a decentralized correctional system foradult offenders. Institutional and felony probation and paroleservices are administered on a regional basis. Regional directorsare responsible to the Secretary of the department. In additionto regular felony probation and parole supervision, the Depart-ment of Corrections administers a community control program(house arrest), intensive drug offender probation, a statewidepretrial intervention (release) program, and restitution centers.

The Department of Corrections is also responsible formonitoring local jails for adherence to state standards. TheProbation and Parole Commission, an autonomous agency, isresponsible for making decisions concerning the release ofadults on parole.

Persons tried as adults for felony offenses and sentencedto one or more years are committed to the custody of theDepartment of Corrections. Persons tried and sentenced to lessthan one year serve their time in the county jail. Counties alsoadminister probation services for misdemeanants.

Administration: The CCPA grant program is ad-ministered by Probation and Parole Services in the Departmentof Corrections. The Assistant Secretary for Programs managesimplementation of the act. The act did not authorize additionaladministrative funds or new staff. The primary role of staff isto review and process community correctional plans and providetechnical assistance in the development of plans. The depart-ment is responsible for developing and monitoring minimumstandards, policies, and administrative rules for the statewideimplementation of the act. The department must report annual-ly to the governor and the legislature on the effectiveness of

62 COMMUNITYCORRECTIONSACTS A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 63

participating counties in diverting nonviolent offenders fromthe state prison system.

Fundable Programs: Counties or groups of counties mayrequest CCPA funds for:

enhancement of county probation programs for jail-bound misdemeanants

l nonsecure residential drug treatment beds (360statewide)construction and operation of a ninety-bed secure drugtreatment facilityconstruction and operation of a 256-bed work camp forprison-bound offenders (50 percent) and jail-boundoffenders (50 percent)

The target group for residential facilities funded withCCPA monies is offenders who violate probation, parole, orcommunity control (house arrest).

Application Process: Counties or groups of counties maycompete to enter into a contract with the Department of Correc-tions for community corrections funds. In order to enter into acontract, a county must establish a correctional planning com-mittee and must designate a county officer or agency to beresponsible for administering community corrections fundsreceived from the state. The county correctional planning com-mittee must develop and implement a comprehensive five-yearplan that includes descriptions of existing felony communitycorrections programs including restitution centers, a descrip-tion of the new intermediate sanction to be provided, specificgoals and objectives for reducing the number of commitments tothe state prison system, evidence that net-widening will notoccur, population descriptions of county-administered correc-tions programs for misdemeanants including detentionfacilities, descriptions of substance abuse treatment programsfor offenders, an assessment of the need for additionalprograms, a projection of needs for the construction of countydetention facilities and for diversionary programs, annual per-formance measures, and strategies for educating the public. Therequests for contracts are to be reviewed by departmental staff,

and final decisions are to be made by the Secretary of theDepartment of Corrections.

Funding Formula/State Appropriation: The legisla-ture made specific appropriations for each type of program to beprovided under the CCPA There is no generic county fundingformula. The legislature shifted $4.2 million from the Depart-ment of Corrections’ community facilities budget to the non-secure residential drug treatment effort (360 beds statewide at$32/day per diem). The legislature appropriated $2.9 million fora ninety-bed secure drug treatment facility and a 256-bed workcamp to be operated by the same county or group of counties.The legislature appropriated $150,000 to enhance county-ad-ministered probation services by providing additional inter-mediate sanctions.

Indiana Community Corrections ActPurpose: In 1979, Indiana passed the Community Correc-

tions Act. The purpose of the act is to divert offenders fromincarceration at the state level and to encourage counties todevelop a coordinated local system. The act targets the leastserious felony offenders, misdemeanants, and juveniles.

Impetus/Leadership: In 1972, the General Assemblypassed the Probation Subsidy Law, which required the state tosubsidize 50 percent of the operating costs of the local probationprograms. This program was never funded. In 1979, the PenalCode Commission, the Indiana Lawyers’ Commission, andseveral private agencies joined together to lobby for a com-munity corrections act. They promoted it to the General As-sembly as a way of reducing the prison population by keepingappropriate offenders within the community, and as a humanealternative to incarceration. Once the act was passed, theDepartment of Correction joined the lobbying for funding.

Organizational Structure: The Indiana Department ofCorrection has three divisions: Administration, Operations, andPrograms and Community Services. The Parole Section is lo-cated in the Programs and Community Services Division, whileprobation is a county function.

64 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 66

Administration: The Community Corrections Act is ad-ministered by the Division of Programs and Community Ser-vices of the Department of Correction. There are two full-timeemployees in the central office in charge of community correc-tions programs. Currently, they perform some field visits forpurposes of observation and evaluation, provide consultationand technical assistance to counties in the development ofcommunity corrections plans, and review and approve applica-tions for state grants. Personnel from other sections perform theother functions, such as fiscal audits. The staff plans to developprocesses for auditing procedures and establishing minimumstandards.

Fundable Programs: Community Corrections Act fundsmay be used to fund residential programs, work releaseprograms, electronic house arrest programs, community servicerestitution programs, victim-offender reconciliation programs,jail services programs, jail work crews, juvenile detention alter-native programs, and any other programs approved by thedepartment.

Application Process: Participation in the CommunityCorrections Act is voluntary. The process begins with the countyexecutive resolving to establish a community corrections ad-visory board. A group of counties may also combine to establishone board. The advisory board formulates the community cor-rections plan and the application for financial aid. A communitycorrections plan must include a description of each program forwhich financial aid is sought; the purpose, objective, ad-ministrative structure, staffing, and duration of the program;and the amount of community involvement and client participa-tion in the program. Administrative regulations require that theplan include current expenditures for local corrections, es-timated use of probation, the number of “executed commit-ments" to the DOC within the past calendar year, and the“impact relationship” between the project and current correc-tional needs in the jurisdiction. The county executive mustapprove the plan. The Division of Programs and CommunityServices reviews and approves the plans and applications anddisburses the state funds.

Funding Formula/State Appropriation: Indianadeveloped a very complex funding formula based on population,population between the ages of ten and thirty-four, and netvalue of taxable property divided by total population. Althoughthe department has simplified the calculations, the formulaappears to be loosely followed. The department places the em-phasis on the quality of the proposal and the needs of the county.The funds are distributed to the contracting agency 25 percentup front, with the balance being given in monthly reimburse-ments through the county.

A participating county is “charged back” 75 percent of theaverage daily cost of confining a person when an eligible of-fender is confined in a state correctional facility.

The Indiana General Assembly appropriated $15 millionthis biennium for community corrections programs.

Iowa Community Corrections ProgramsPurpose: In 1973, Iowa passed legislation to create locally

controlled community corrections programs. In 1977, the legis-lature adopted an organizational structure that mandated par-ticipation in the programs through judicial district organizations.The purpose of the community-based corrections system in Iowais to provide nonincarceration sentencing options to thejudiciary.

Impetus/Leadership: The impetus for enacting a systemof community-based corrections programs in Iowa was two-fold.Criminal justice practitioners and legislators wanted to expandnoninstitutional sanctions; they also wanted to move control ofcorrectional programs from the state to local government.

Organizational Structure: The Iowa Department ofCorrections is composed of the Division of Correctional Institu-tions, the Division of Community Correctional Services, theDivision of Administration, and the Division of Prison In-dustries. The Board of Parole, an independent agency reportingto the governor, reviews adult felony cases in the state correc-tional facilities.

Administration: The Division of Community Correction-al Services administers the community-based corrections pro-

66 COMbfVNlTYCORRECTIONSACTS A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 61

gram through eight judicial districts. Iowa is unique in that thestate provides oversight for probation and parole servicesthrough contracts with judicial district organizations but doesnot provide services. The eight regional organizations are publicagencies (similar to area mental health programs in NorthCarolina) that have local governing boards of directors. Agencystaff are hired by the local boards.

The state staff the Division of Community CorrectionalServices includes a director, deputy director, administrativeassistant, field training officer, and data processing clerk. Thestate has regulatory responsibility for community correctionsprograms including technical assistance, developmentguidelines, accreditation, and funding.

Fundable Programs: Each of the eight local communitycorrections organizations is required to provide the followingservices: pretrial services, which screen and supervise defen-dants released from jail prior to trial; presentence investiga-tions, which provide information to judges for sentencingdecisions; regular and intensive probation services; residentialfacilities for prison-bound offenders, which provide twenty-four-hour supervision for an average of four to six months; parolesupervision; work release facilities for prison inmates; and DWI,residential facilities, which provide a ninety-day treatment pro-gram. There is no eligibility criteria for participation in com-munity corrections programs.

Application Process: There is no application process forcommunity corrections programs in Iowa. Funding for com-munity corrections programs is part of the state budget process.The Department of Corrections distributes funds allocated bythe legislature for community corrections programs throughpurchase of service contracts with the eight regional organiza-tions. There is no requirement for submission of a local com-munity corrections plan.

Funding Formula: Funds are distributed to the regionalorganizations based on work-load formulas for field services andresidential services. In FY90-91, the legislature authorized $33million for community corrections programs.

Kansas Community Corrections ActPurpose: In 1978, Kansas passed a voluntary Community

Corrections Act. The legislative intent of the act is to preventthe institutionalization of nonviolent offenders in state correc-tional institutions, though this is not clearly articulated in thestatute. The mechanism for achieving this purpose is localcorrectional programs tailored to the needs of individual coun-ties that contain at least one of two core services-intensivesupervision or residential placement. In 1989, the Kansas legis-lature mandated participation of all counties in the CommunityCorrections Act.

Impetus/Leadership: The impetus for enacting a Com-munity Corrections Act in Kansas came from the legislature.The legislature wanted to provide alternatives to both incar-ceration and to prison construction. The governor refused to signthe legislation and it became law without his signature.

Organizational Structure: The Department of Correc-tions administers adult institutions, community services, andparole services. The Supreme Court administers probation ser-vices.

Administration: The Community and Field ServicesDivision of the Department of Corrections is responsible foroversight of community corrections programs. State staff pro-vide technical assistance to counties, promulgate regulations,policies, and procedures, and audit program performance. InFY90, there were six staff involved in administering communitycorrections programs at the state level, with an administrativebudget of $183,955.

Fundable Programs: The Community Corrections Actauthorizes funds to be spent for planning and implementingcommunity correctional services including, but not limited to,intensive supervision programs, restitution programs, victimservices programs, presentence investigations, house arrest,residential programs, and community corrections centers.

The target population for these programs is first- orsecond-time convicted felony property offenders. However, noclass of felony crime is automatically excluded.


Application Process: In order to apply for CommunityCorrections Act funds, counties or groups of counties must forma local corrections advisory board. The board develops a com-prehensive local corrections plan. The application for CCA fundsrequires a description of offender target populations, prisonadmissions for the community, local sentencing practices, localprosecution practices, local revocation rates, local serviceanalysis, and community demographics. The applicant mustproject the number of offenders who will be diverted frominstitutions, outline monitoring criteria, and demonstrate theability to adhere to state minimum standards for communitycorrections programs. Staff review applications and, after con-sulting the State Community Corrections Board, recommendfunding levels to the Secretary of the Department of Correc-tions.

Funding Formula/State Appropriation: Initially theKansas Community Corrections Act used a formula developedin Minnesota for dispersing funds and required a chargeback tocounties for certain felons who were incarcerated in the stateprison system. The formula was intended to equalize fundingavailable to different localities on the basis of their overallpopulation, relative ability to support local correctional services,and relative burden or need for such services. The formulacompared a county’s “ability to pay” to the state average on thebasis of per capita income and per capita adjusted propertyvaluation. It measured relative need for services according tohow a county’s crime rate per 1,000 population and the size ofits population aged five to twenty-nine compared to averages forthe state. The formula averaged these four factors, and thenthey were multiplied by an annual appropriation factor, usually$5.00.

In 1989, the formula was amended and the chargeback waseliminated. The current funding formula is based on a per capitacost for each program service. For instance, in FY90, averageper capita service costs were: adult intensive supervision,$1,510 per slot; adult residential services center, $42.85 per dayor $15,640 per bed slot; presentence services, $134.00 per clientserved. In FY91, the legislature authorized approximately $10million for community corrections programs.

Evaluation of the Act: In 1987, Temple University con-ducted a study of the Kansas Community Corrections Act. Thestudy produced the following preliminary findings: (1) The CCAprograms did appear to have drawn the majority of clients froma prison-bound population; (2) The reoffending rates amongcommunity corrections clients were no higher and no lower thanwould be expected of offenders with similar characteristics whoare incarcerated instead; and (3) Community correctionsprograms handle offenders at a lower cost than incarceration.The researchers recommended revising the funding formulaand reviewing the use of chargebacks to counties.

Michigan Community Corrections ActPurpose: In 1988, Michigan passed a voluntary Com-

munity Corrections Act (CCA). The purpose of the act is toreduce crowding in state prisons and local jails by placingnonviolent offenders in safe, highly structured communitypunishment programs that do not jeopardize public safety. Theact gives communities opportunities to assume responsibilityand greater control over correctional programs and servicesprovided to offenders.

Impetus/Leadership: Michigan legislators first began toexplore the development of a Community Corrections Act to easeprison and jail crowding in 1980. During 1984-1988, a series ofmeetings and statewide seminars were held and an ad hoc taskforce was established to acquaint key leaders with the benefitsof community corrections and to build consensus. Establishinga CCA was controversial because of philosophical and politicaldifferences. The Michigan Association of Counties and theMichigan Commission on Crime and Delinquency assisted legis-lators in building a consensus for the CCA In 1988, theMichigan state legislature passed the CCA as a mechanism forreducing prison construction expenditures and a means of ap-propriately punishing nonviolent offenders in the community.

Organizational Structure: Adult institutions and theAdult Parole Board come under the jurisdiction of the Depart-ment of Corrections. The Bureau of Field Services in the Depart-ment of Corrections administers adult parole and felonyprobation services. The Department of Corrections is also

70 COMMVNlTY CORRECTlONSACTS A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 71

responsible for monitoring local jails for adherence to statestandards. The District Courts under the Supreme Court pro-vide misdemeanant probation services. Misdemeanors serveactive sentences in county jails.

Administration: The Office of Community Correctionsadministers the Community Corrections Act. It is an inde-pendent agency that is administratively housed in the Depart-ment of Corrections but does not report to the DOC in any wayfor policy matters. The office has a State Community Correc-tions Board appointed by the governor and confirmed by thesenate. The Board provides oversight and policy authority forthe office. This is a unique structure among the states that haveCCAs.

There are fifteen staff the Office of Community Correc-tions, including three grant coordinators who are assignedgeographic areas of the state. The office provides technicalassistance to counties or groups of counties in developing a localcomprehensive corrections plan. In addition, the office reviewsand approves local plans, enters into contractual agreementswith local advisory boards for the operation of community cor-rections programs, monitors compliance with the agreements,and acts as an information clearinghouse. The annual ad-ministrative budget of the Office is approximately $1 million.

Fundable Programs: Counties or groups of counties mayrequest CCA funds for:

l technical assistance grants: funds to assist local unitsof government to establish Community CorrectionsBoards and comprehensive local community correc-tions planscommunity grants: operational funds for a widevariety of community corrections programs includingpresentence diagnostic evaluations, pretrial interven-tion programs to reduce the jail population, highlystructured nonresidential programs such as house ar-rest and day reporting centers, and a variety of typesof residential programs

l minimum security jail work camps that emphasizecommunity service work

CCA funds can not be used to replace current spending bylocal units of government for community corrections programs,for capital construction, or to create services which can alreadybe obtained at the local level.

The emphasis for funds during the first year of operationof the act (1990) was on technical assistance to assist with thecreation of local community corrections boards and the develop-ment of comprehensive plans. As the plans are completed, localcommunities will assume responsibility for the award andmanagement of contracts for services. The current focus of localplans is to improve appropriate use of jail facilities and free upjail beds through the increase of pretrial release options. Inaddition, residential programs for prison-bound offenders arefrequently included in local plans.

Application Process: In order to apply for CCA funds,counties or groups of counties must form local CommunityCorrections Boards. The Board must submit a comprehensivecommunity corrections plan to the Office of Community Correc-tions to be approved. The office provides technical assistancegrants to assist in this process. The local plans are very date-in-tensive and require analysis of the local offender population.The plans must describe various offender programs and ser-vices: what is currently being done, what needs to be done, andwhere scarce resources should be directed to more effectivelyaddress local correctional problems and needs. The plan mustdescribe a system for the development, implementation, andoperation of community corrections programs and an explana-tion of how the state prison commitment rate for the county, orcounties, will be reduced, and how the public safety will bemaintained. The data analysis must include a basic descriptionof jail use, detailing such areas as sentenced versus unsentencedinmates, sentenced felons versus sentenced misdemeanants,and the use of a jail classification system. The analysis mustinclude a basic description of offenders sentenced to probationand prison and a review of the rate of commitment to the statecorrections system from the county for the preceding threeyears.

Staff from the Office of Community Corrections initiallyreview requests for CCA funds based on objective criteria. Staff


present recommendations to the State Community CorrectionsBoard, which has final funding authority.

Funding Formula/State Appropriations: The legisla-ture makes specific appropriations for various uses of Com-munity Corrections Act funds. For FY92, the governor is askingfor $956,000 for technical assistance grants, $13.5 million forCommunity Corrections Grants, $9 million for residentialprograms and $900,000 for minimum security jail work camps.CCA funds are distributed to local units of governments basedon a formula. For technical assistance grants, the funding basefor a single county is $40,000 and $15,000 for each additionalcounty for a period of up to six months. For community correc-tions grants, the funding base is $20,000 for a single countycommunity corrections board and $26,000 for each additionalcounty. In addition to the base funding, counties are eligible foradditional funds computed on the population of the county andthe number of felony convictions.

Minnesota Community Corrections ActPurpose: In 1973, Minnesota passed the Community Cor-

rections Act. The act was proposed as a means of (1) providingmore human services to offenders, and (2) reducing reliance onstate institutions. The act targets a wide range of offenders:adult and juvenile, pretrial, postconviction, and postrelease.Counties tend to target their property offenders.

Impetus/Leadership: The community corrections move-ment began in one community when a group of local citizens andprofessionals joined together to discuss expanding local servicesto offenders. This resulted in the development of a residentialunit as a local step between probation and prison. As morecommunities joined the movement, they pushed for a statewideact. The Department of Corrections joined in the effort as well.In 1973, the act was passed, and it began with three separatepilot programs.

Organizational Structure: The Department of Correc-tions is divided into two divisions: the Division of InstitutionalServices and the Division of Community Services. Countiesunder the Community Corrections Act assume the respon-

sibility of providing probation, parole, and supervised releaseservices for both adults and juveniles. In the remaining coun-ties, felony parole services are provided by the state whileprobation services and jails are administered by the county.

Administration: The Division of Community Services inthe Department of Corrections administers the CommunityCorrections Act. The Department has final approval of eachcounty’s annual comprehensive plan and budget. The depart-ment submits that budget as part of its appropriate package.Departmental staff act primarily as liaisons between the coun-ties and the department, and between the counties and othercounties. The staff also promulgates rules and provides techni-cal assistance to the local boards to aid in the development oftheir comprehensive plans.

Fundable Programs: Community Corrections Act fundsmay be used for any felony program-pretrial, supervisedrelease, or parole. Because of the increased use of local jailsunder the act, a portion of the state funds may be used forprograms in jails, but not for jail construction.

Application Process: The application process for Com-munity Corrections Act funds begins with a single county or agroup of counties forming a community advisory board. Thisboard, representative of the local community, develops an an-nual comprehensive plan and budget for the development, im-plementation, and operation of the community-based programs.The plan should be based on the needs and expenses of the localcommunity. A comprehensive plan should include the mannerin which presentence and postsentence investigations andreports for the district and juvenile courts will be made; themanner in which conditional release services to the courts andpersons under jurisdiction of the commissioner of correctionswill be provided; a program for the detention, supervision, andtreatment ofpersons under pretrial detention or under commit-ment; delivery of other correctional services; and proposals fornew programs, which must demonstrate a need for the program,its purpose, objective, administrative structure, staffing pat-tern, staff training, financing, evaluation process, degree ofcommunity involvement, client participation, and duration of

74 C’UMM UNITY CORRECTIONS ACTSA COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 76

the program. The board recommends this plan and budget to theboard of county commissioners. Upon their approval, the planis submitted to the Department of Corrections for final approval.During the process, the DOC reviews and revises the plan withthe board members. The approved budget is submitted by theDepartment of Corrections as part of its appropriations request.

Funding Formula/State Appropriation: The fundingequalization formula is based on the county’s per capita income,net tax capacity, population at risk (age six through thirtyyears), and per capita correctional expenditures. The CCA fundsare distributed on a quarterly basis. The legislature ap-propriated $24 million this year for community correctionsprograms.

A participating county is ”charged back” a sum equal to theper diem cost of confining a juvenile in a state correctionalfacility. For adults confined in a state correctional facility, theper diem cost is deducted from the county’s subsidy.

tionsImpact Evaluations: In 1981, the Department of Correc-

and the Minnesota Crime Control Planning Boardreleased a ten-volume evaluation of the Community CorrectionsAct. They found that during the first five years of the act therehad been significant improvement in local corrections planningand administration in CCA areas. They noted growth in therange and quantity of local corrections programming, and alsoa modest increase in the number of adult felons and a moresubstantial increase in the number of adjudicated delinquents(the target populations) retained in the community.

However, not all of the purposes of the act were attained.Public protection may not have been jeopardized, but neitherhad it been increased. The study also found that the act was notnecessarily cost-effective. Although more “target offenders”were retained in the community in most CCA areas, not enoughoffenders were diverted from prison to offset the added ad-ministrative costs of the CCA

Montana Community Sentencing ActPurpose: In 1991, Montana passed a voluntary Com-

munity Corrections Act (CCA). The purpose of the act is to divertnonviolent felony offenders from prison. However, no funds were

appropriated to implement the act. The act authorizes judges toorder offenders into residential facilities for up to one year as acondition of a deferred or suspended sentence.

Impetus/Leadership: The impetus for the CommunityCorrections Act came from the legislature in response to prisoncrowding. The bill had been introduced previously but had notpassed. Support was garnered from counties interested inoperating residential diversion centers.

Organizational Structure: The Department of Correc-tions and Human Resources, renamed in 1991, administersadult institutions through the Institutions Section and felonyprobation and parole services through the Community Correc-tions Section.

Administration: The Community Corrections Act re-quires the Department of Corrections and Human Resources todevelop administrative rules for community correctionsprograms with input from local communities. The departmentis authorized to contract with community corrections specialiststo provide necessary technical assistance and training to judi-cial districts and corrections board.

Fundable Program: Community Corrections Act funds,when appropriated, can be used only for residential diversioncenters. Convicted nonviolent felony offenders are eligible forresidential placement.

Funding Formula/State Appropriation: The legisla-ture enacted the Community Corrections Act in 1991 but did notappropriate any funds to implement it. It is unclear, if funds areappropriated in the future, whether or not a funding formulawill be used.

New Mexico Community Corrections ActPurpose: In 1978, New Mexico passed a Community Cor-

rections Act. The purpose of the act is to reduce the prisonpopulation. The act originally targeted both adult felons andadjudicated delinquents. In 1988, the Youth Authority wascreated and all juvenile community corrections programs were

7 6 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTS A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 77

transferred to it. Now the act targets adult convicted felons inthree categories: reintegration, diversion, and parole.

Impetus/Leadership: The Corrections Department ledthe way for enacting a Community Corrections Act as a meansof reducing prison crowding. The act did not have any real forcebehind it until a series of prison riots in the early 1980sdemonstrated the need.

Organizational Structure: The Corrections Depart-ment is responsible for all adult institutions and adult probationand parole services. The Corrections Commission advises theSecretary of the Corrections Department and participates in thepolicy-making process of the department. The Probation andParole Division of the Corrections Department supervises alladult probationers and parolees.

Administration: The Adult Community Corrections Sec-tion of the Probation and Parole Division administers the adultCommunity Corrections Act. Staff from the division performregular program and fiscal monitoring and auditing.

The act uses three levels of panels. The first level is theState Community Corrections Advisory Panel. This panel con-sists of criminal justice and community representatives. Itmakes policy recommendations, sets goals, and reviews allapplications for funds and recommends them to the secretary.The second level is the State Selection Panel. This panel consistsof departmental representatives who make the final acceptanceor rejection of bids for services, and who recommend nonviolentfelons to local selection panels for acceptance or rejection. Thethird level is the Local Selection Panel. This panel consists ofvolunteers at the local program level who screen referrals to thelocal programs. This panel recommends to the programswhether to accept or reject the offender.

Fundable Programs: Community Corrections Programfunds may be used for diversion, reintegration, and paroleprograms. Examples include victim restitution, community ser-vice, job development, intensive supervision, family counseling,substance abuse programming, volunteer services, and residen-

tial services. The current emphasis is on reintegration programsthrough prisons and jails.

Application Process: The Corrections Department ac-cepts bids for contracts based on the needs of the service area.The Probation and Parole Division determines the areas forprograms based on the number of felons returning to theircommunity who can be serviced there.

Counties, municipalities, and nonprofit organizations maysubmit proposals. Some form of an advisory board which isrepresentative of that community must be in place. A proposalshould include a description of the agency offering the proposal;the problem being addressed; a description of the target popula-tion; a description of the geographic boundaries of the servicearea; a program description including the goal statement, ser-vice components, service delivery policies and procedures, andthe organizational chart; a work plan showing how the programwill be developed and evaluated, and an indication of the com-munity support for the program.

Funding Formula/State Appropriation: New Mexicodoes not use a funding formula; bids are accepted based on theneeds of the communities. The Corrections Department estab-lishes the service contracts and pays them out of the annualappropriation from the legislature.

The amount appropriated by the state varies with thenumber of contracts per year. The state appropriated $2.5million for this fiscal year.

Ohio Community CorrectionsSubsidy Programs

Purpose: Ohio has implemented two community correc-tions subsidy programs: (1) a Community Corrections Act(CCA); and (2) the Community-Based Correctional Facilitiesand Programs Act (CBCFPA). The legislature enacted the Com-munity Corrections Act in July 1979, and the Community-BasedCorrectional Facilities and Programs Act in April 1981. Thepurpose of both of these subsidy programs is to reduce thenumber of nondangerous offenders committed to state prisonsand countyjails by creating intensive correctional sanctions andservices at the local level.


Impetus/Leadership: The impetus for enacting com-munity corrections subsidy programs in Ohio was prison crowd-ing. The legislature passed these subsidy programs in order toreduce commitments to the state prison system and to unifycorrectional services at the local level.

Organizational Structure: The Ohio Department ofRehabilitation and Correction administers adult state institu-tions and felony parole services. The Division of Parole andCommunity Services in the Department of Rehabilitation andCorrection consists of the Adult Parole Authority, the AdultParole Board, the Bureau of Community Services, and theBureau of Adult Detention. The Adult Parole Authority mayexercise general supervision over all probation officers in thestate, including those in local probation departments. Allparolees and certain probationers referred by the Court ofCommon Pleas on a contract basis are supervised by the AdultParole Authority. In the remaining counties, probation servicesare provided by local probation departments. The Bureau ofCommunity Services oversees the state’s subsidy programs. TheBureau of Adult Detention administers the program to monitorand promote compliance with minimum standards for jails.

Administration: The Bureau of Community Services ad-ministers programs funded under the Community CorrectionsAct and the Community-Based Correctional Facilities andPrograms Act. There are eleven staff at the state level toadminister the community corrections subsidy programs withan annual administrative budget of approximately $350,000.State staff provide technical assistance to counties to apply forsubsidy funds, develop program standards, and audit standardscompliance and program performance.

Fundable Programs: Funds under the Community Cor-rections Act may be used for local probation service, paroleservices, preventive or diversionary corrections programs,release-on-recognizance programs, and specialized treatmentprograms for alcoholic and narcotic-addicted offenders. Fundsunder the Community-Based Correctional Facilities andPrograms Act may be used for intensive probation supervisionservices and for residential services.

Application Process: To receive a state community cor-rections subsidy, counties or groups of counties must form a localcorrections planning board. The board must submit a com-prehensive plan for correctional services that demonstratesunified correctional services at the local level, the number ofoffenders who will be diverted from state or local penal institu-tions, and an ability to meet minimum program standards.

Staff review applications and recommend funding forprograms on the basis of demonstrated need and satisfaction ofspecified priorities. Priorities for funds are established annuallyby the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction with advicefrom the State Community Corrections Advisory Board.

Funding Formula/State Appropriations: Based on ap-propriations made by the General Assembly, a minimum sub-sidy award is established that is supplemented based on thepopulation of each county. In FY89, the legislature authorized$1,620,150 for Community Corrections Act Programs and$4,223,989 for programs funded under the Community-BasedCorrectional Facilities and Programs Act.

Evaluation of the Community Corrections SubsidyActs: In 1989, the National Council on Crime and Delinquencyevaluated the impact of Ohio’s community corrections programson public safety and costs. The study found that offenders placedin Ohio’s community corrections programs had:

l been sentenced for serious crimesl possessed lengthy criminal historiesl higher levels of program needs than traditional felony

probationers. Profiles of offenders in the IntensiveSupervision Probation Program and in residentialprograms indicated characteristics similar to of-fenders sentenced to prison for Class 3 and 4 deter-minate sentences.

The researchers concluded that Ohio’s community correc-tions programs and, in particular, the Intensive SupervisionProbation and residential programs, do divert offenders fromprison. They found that the Community Corrections Act Pro-gram had less impact on diverting offenders from prison but it

80 COMMVNITYCORRECTIONSACTS A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 81

did, at aminimum, select the more serious cases typically placedon felony probation.

The study showed that rearrest rates for offenders placedin the Intensive Supervision Program and in residentialfacilities were well below a matched group of offenders sen-tenced to prison, and these programs produced a substantialsavings in operational costs when compared to even short-termprison confinement. According to the researchers, these resultsindicated that carefully screened offenders can be diverted fromprison to controlled community supervision without compromis-ing the safety of the community.

Oregon Community Corrections ActPurpose: In 1977, Oregon passed a voluntary Community

Corrections Act (CCA). The purpose of the act is to providesentencing alternatives and services for persons charged withcriminal offenses.

Impetus/Leadership: The impetus for the Oregon Com-munity Corrections Act came from the executive branch. In1976, Governor Bob Straub’s Task Force on Correctionsproposed a new system of delivering community sanctions inOregon. The task force recommended new legislation designedto “mobilize and facilitate a partnership of the best of both stateand local services.” In response to the task force’s proposal, the1977 legislature enacted the Community Corrections Act andprovided state funds to enhance existing community programsand develop new sentencing alternatives to prison incarcera-tion. By providing that each participating county be assessed a“payback” charge for each person sentenced for a class C felony,the legislature clearly implied that the control of the state’sprison population was also a purpose of the CCA

Organizational Structure: The Department of Correc-tions was created by the legislature in 1987. The department isresponsible for the management and administration of adultcorrections institutions, felony parole and probation services,and community corrections. The four branches are Administra-tion and Planning, Community Services (probation and parolefield services, community corrections programs), Inspections(jails), and Institutions (prisons). Historically, misdemeanor

probation has been a county-funded and administered program.Under the Community Corrections Act, counties can also opt toprovide felony probation services. All misdemeanants and felonssentenced to less than one year serve their sentences in localjails.

Administration: The Community Services Branch in theDepartment of Corrections administers both field services(probation and parole) and community corrections programsthrough a decentralized regional system. Along with field ser-vice responsibilities, state staff provide technical assistance inplanning and implementing local community corrections plans.They also monitor program performance. State agency staffinclude an administrator, an assistant director, an executiveassistant, four division administrators, and two communitysupervision administrators.

There is a state Community Corrections Advisory Boardthat advises the assistant director for corrections regardingprogram standards and rules. The board reviews local com-munity corrections plans and recommends funding to the assis-tant director. The board is composed of fifteen membersappointed by the governor.

Fundable Programs: The Community Corrections Actauthorizes funds for nonresidential and residential programsand services including: (1) structured community sanctions foroffenders; (2) drug and alcohol programs for at-risk offenders;(3) reentry programs for offenders leaving institutions; (4)preadjudication programs for persons in the criminal justicesystem; and (5) other alternatives to incarceration.

Though not explicitly stated in the legislation, the focus ofCCA funds from the state perspective is to reduce the numberof class C felons committed to the state prison system. Until1989, the legislation included a payback provision that requiredcounties to pay the state for each class C felon committed to thestate prison system. The payback provision was amendednumerous times over a ten-year period and was eliminated afterit appeared to be an ineffective disincentive.

Application Process: In order to apply for CCA funds,counties appoint local community corrections advisory boards

82 COMMUNITYCORRECTIONSACTS A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 83

to plan correctional improvement and to determine how CCAfunding should be spent. Counties submit applicationsdemonstrating a need for the program, its purpose, objective,administrative structure, staffing, staff training, proposedbudget evaluation process, degree of community involvement,client participation, and program duration. Applications arereviewed by the State Community Corrections Advisory Boardand recommendations for funding are provided to the assistantdirector for Corrections.

Oregon has three options for participation in the CCAUnder Option I, counties get their full funding allocation, estab-lish a community corrections board to draft the county’s CCAplan, operate community programs and services funded withCCA funds, and take over responsibility for felony probation andparole from the DOC. Option I counties get the field servicesallocation for that county, which the DOC formerly used tooperate felony probation and parole services. Thus, control ofthe field services allocation is the biggest incentive for countiesto select Option I. Option II is the same, except (1) the countycan contract with the DOC to continue to operate felony proba-tion and parole, and (2) supervision fees are remitted to theDOC. In Option III counties, the DOC manages the communitycorrections process. The DOC’s field services regional managerdrafis a plan for use of CCA funds. He appoints a local advisorycommittee and asks them to comment on the plan. In addition,he sends a copy of the plan to the County Board of Commis-sioners, and gives them a chance to comment. Option III coun-ties get 75 percent of the enhancement grant allocated to thecounty as well as 100 percent of the formula share of mentalhealth and probation center funding. The state continues tooperate felony probation and parole services.

Funding Formula/State Appropriationa: Through theCCA, there are three pools of state aid for local communitycorrections programs: enhancement grants, mental healthgrants, and probation centers grants. Enhancement and mentalhealth grants are allocated among counties using three equallyweighted factors-each county’s share of (1) the state’s generalpopulation, (2) the population at risk (males and females be-tween the ages of fifteen and twenty-nine), and (3) reportedcrimes, both misdemeanors and felonies. In the first biennium

after the act was adopted, four probation centers were fundedunder the CCA. Because total probation center funding has notincreased appreciably, no additional probation centers havebeen established under the CCA

Until 1989, there was a payback from counties to the stateto discourage class C felony commitments. When it waseliminated the payback was $3,000 per class C felony commit-ment to the state prison system. A ceiling limited the amount ofpayback each county was required to make over a two-yearperiod. When the payback was in effect, the legislature hadapproved redistribution of these funds among participatingcounties that submitted approved supplemental plans. If acounty lost $100,000 in paybacks, it could expect to gain$100,000 if its supplemental plan was accepted.

There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction over theformula for distributing CCA funds. Currently, the DOC ismoving toward a workload formula for field services.

For FY91-93, the legislature appropriated $18,951,380 tocounties for community corrections (field services, enhancementprograms, mental health services, and probation centers).

Evaluation of the Act: Evaluations conducted from thelate 1970s until 1983 suggested that the Community Correc-tions Act reduced the number of class C felony commitmentscompared to sentencing patterns that existed before the act. Ina 1985 evaluation, research showed that class C felony commit-ments had been reduced by 1 to 3 percent per year since the CCAwas passed. The evaluation failed to find significant differencesin reductions among counties in the different options. Researchconducted in 1986 by the Oregon Criminal Justice Councilindicated that Option I counties sentenced a significantly lowerpercentage of Class C felons to prison than did Option II or IIIcounties.

The researcher estimated that during the 1981-1983 bien-nium, reduction in prison commitments due to the CCAproduced a total savings of 1,272 person/years. At the time, itcost about $14,264 to confine one inmate for a year. As a result,Carrow estimated that the CCA saved the state $18,143,800 indirect costs of confinement. During that time, it cost about$14,136,000 to fund CCA (not including field services). Whenadjusted for probation revocations, Carrow concluded that the


CCA cost about as much as it saved in reduced imprisonmentcosts.

Pennsylvania County IntermediatePunishment Act

Purpose: Pennsylvania enacted a County IntermediatePunishment Act in December 1990. The purpose of the act is toprovide intermediate punishments for jail-bound offenders. Thetarget population is nonviolent offenders who otherwise wouldbe sentenced to county correctional facilities.

Impetus/Leadership: In response to prison crowding,Pennsylvania adopted revised sentencing guidelines in 1991.The guidelines were intended to reduce prison populations byshifting certain offenders to local jails. As a result, jails willbecome more crowded and the legislature enacted the CountyIntermediate Punishment Act to provide intermediate sanc-tions for jail-bound offenders.

Organizational Structure: The Department of Correc-tions operates state institutions for offenders, generally thosesentenced to two years or more. County jails house offenderswith active sentences of less than two years (generally). TheState Board of Probation and Parole supervises offendersparoled from state institutions. County probation departmentssupervise misdemeanants and felons and parolees from localjails.

Administration: The Pennsylvania Commission onCrime and Delinquency administers the County IntermediatePunishment Act. The Commission is an independent agencythat reports to the governor. Commission staff are responsiblefor reviewing local intermediate punishment plans, approvingapplications for funds, and developing and monitoring mini-mum program standards. The legislature did not appropriateany new funds to administer the act, so the Commission hasabsorbed this responsibility.

Fundable Programs: No state funds were appropriatedto support the County Intermediate Punishment Act. A portionof the state’s federal criminal justice grant money-Drug Con-

trol and Systems Improvement-was set aside to fund programsunder the act. Fundable programs include (1) noncustodialprograms that involve close supervision, but not housing, of theoffender such as intensive supervision, victim restitution ormediation, alcohol or drug outpatient treatment, house arrestand electronic monitoring, psychiatric counseling, and com-munity service, (2) residential inpatient drug and alcoholprograms, (3) individualized services that evaluate and treatoffenders, including psychological and medical services, educa-tion, vocational training, drug and alcohol screening and coun-seling, individual and family counseling and transportationsubsidies, (4) partial confinement programs such as workrelease, work camps, and halfway facilities, and (5) alternativesto pretrial detention.

Application Process: In order to apply for IntermediatePunishment Act funds, counties or groups of counties must forma local board, which must submit a county intermediate punish-ment program plan to the Commission. Commission staff areavailable to provide technical assistance in the development ofthe plan. The plan must describe the number of nonviolentcommitments to the county correctional facilities, populationand existing conditions at the county correctional institution,local service capabilities, and involvement of the judiciary,criminal justice and correctional officials, and local governmentofficials.

To apply for funds, counties must submit concept papersto the Commission on Crime and Delinquency. The conceptpaper must outline the proposed program, describe how it willaffect on the county’s correctional system, and describe evalua-tion strategies. Staff review the concept papers and recommendfunding based on documentation of need.

Funding Formula/State Appropriation: There is nofunding formula for programs funded under the County Inter-mediate Punishment Act. Grants are awarded on the basis ofdocumentation of program services.

No state funds were appropriated to implement the CountyIntermediate Punishment Act. Instead, a portion of federalcriminal justice funds administered under the Drug Control andSystems Improvement Grant Program was designated to sup-


port this new initiative. For FY91, $2.5 million was designatedfor these programs. Programs are eligible for a maximum ofthree years of funding and require matching funds: 25 percentlocal cash match the first year; 50 percent the second year; and75 percent the third year. Construction and renovation projectsare not fundable.

Tennessee Community Corrections ActPurpose: In 1984, Tennessee passed a voluntary Com-

munity Corrections Act (CCA). The purpose of the act is toestablish statewide community-based alternatives to incarcera-tion for selected nonviolent offenders. The act provides resour-ces between probation and prison so that more prison space isavailable for violent offenders.

Impetus/Leadership: The impetus for the TennesseeCommunity Corrections Act came from the legislature and theexecutive branch. In 1982, the State of Tennessee was placedunder federal court order to reduce prison crowding. In 1985,the governor appointed a new commissioner of the Departmentof Correction and called a special session of the legislature todeal with prison issues. Recognizing the need for alternativeconstructive punishment, and to help reduce prison crowding,the Tennessee General Assembly passed the Community Cor-rections Act.

Organizational Structure: The Department of Correc-tion is composed of the Adult Institutions Section, the Divisionof Community Services Section, and the Board of Paroles.Felons serve active sentences in the state prison system andmisdemeanants serve active time in local jails. The CommunityService Section oversees probation services, the CommunityCorrections Act, and standards for local jails. The state ad-ministers felony probation while the counties administer mis-demeanant probation.

Administration: The Division of Community Services inthe Department of Correction administers the Community Cor-rections Act. There are seven staff who manage the CCA grantprogram. They provide technical assistance to counties in thedevelopment of local community corrections plans. They review


applications and make recommendations to the commissionerof Correction. Staff develop program standards and monitorcompliance and program performance. In FY91, the legislatureauthorized $375,000 for administration of the CCA

Fundable Programs: Counties or groups of counties mayrequest CCA funds for alternatives to incarceration in jail orprison. These alternatives include noncustodial community cor-rections options that involve close supervision but do not involvehousing the offender in a jail or workhouse. Programs includeshort-term community residential treatment options, residen-tial in-house drug and alcohol treatment, and individualizedevaluation and treatment services.

Only nonviolent prison- or jail-bound felony offenders areeligible for community corrections programs. State agency staffhave developed two targeting instruments to assure that ap-propriate offenders are served in CCA programs. The OffenderProfile Index (OPI) is a grid that predicts whether the offenderis prison-bound based on current offense and prior criminalhistory. The Profile Index predicts the probability of incarcera-tion based on comparisons with characteristics of prison in-mates.

Application Process: To qualify for CCA funding, a coun-ty or group of counties within a single judicial district mustestablish a local Community Corrections Advisory Board. Theboard must submit a local community corrections plan to theDepartment of Correction. Recommendations for funding arebased on documentation of (1) the number of nonviolent felonycommitments to the Department of Correction, (2) populationand existing conditions at the local jail, (3) rate of felony com-mitments per 1,006, (4) population of the judicial district andpercent of population between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine, (5) availability of local correctional services, (6) sufficientlocal service capacity to support the community correctionsprograms, and (7) demonstrated involvement and support fromthe judiciary, local criminal justice/correctional officials, andlocal government in the development of the community correc-tions plan. Staff rate applications using objective criteria andmake recommendations to the commissioner of Correction.

88 COMMVNlTYCORRECTIONSACTS A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 89

Funding Formula/State Appropriations: There is nospecific funding formula for individual CCA programs. Eachapproved program receives funds based on workload measuresfor the services they are rendering to offenders. In FY 90-91, thelegislature authorized $5 million for Community CorrectionsAct Programs.

Texas Community Corrections SubsidyPrograms

Purpose: In 1981, the State of Texas began subsidizinglocal community corrections programs by funding intensivesupervision probation programs. In 1983, funds were authorizedfor restitution centers and court residential programs. Sincethen, an array of local community corrections programs havebeen added.

Impetus/Leadership: The impetus for subsidizing localcommunity corrections programs in Texas was prison and jailcrowding. The state has been under a federal lawsuit for anumber of years, and the legislature authorized funds for com-munity corrections programs in order to reduce commitmentsto state prisons and local jails.

Organizational Structure: The Texas Department ofCriminal Justice has three divisions. The Institutional Divisionoperates state institutions. The Pardons and Parole Divisionadministers parole services for offenders released from the stateprison system. The Community Justice Assistance Divisionestablished standards and provides funds for local communitysupervision and corrections departments. The 119 correctionsdepartments are under the administration of the DistrictCourts; probation officers are the employees of the courts. Localcorrections departments are funded 50 percent by the state and50 percent by counties.

Administration: Local community corrections subsidyprograms are administered by the Community Justice Assis-tance Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. State staffprovide technical assistance to counties to apply for subsidyfunds, develop program standards, and audit standards com-pliance and program performance. In FY91, the legislature

authorized $955,904 for administration of community correc-tions programs.

Fundable programs: State community corrections subsidies may be used for intermediate sanction programs includ-ing intensive supervision probation, electronic monitoring andhouse arrest, restitution programs, residential substance abusefacilities, court residential facilities, boot camps, communityservice programs, and day reporting centers. Funds are alsoprovided statewide for pretrial release programs.

Application Process: In 1990, new requirements wereadded in order to receive subsidy funds for community correc-tions programs. Local corrections departments must form alocal community justice council and must submit a communityjustice plan to the Community Justice Assistance Division. Theplan must summarize existing services, describe new facilitiesor programs, describe the assessment process for placing of-fenders in the sanction, provide offender profiles of the targetpopulation, and outline an evaluation plan. There are separatepools of money for residential services, electronic monitoring,regular probation supervision, and a variety of intermediatesanction programs. Staff review applications and make fundingrecommendations based on funds available and the priority ofthe program in the jurisdiction’s community justice plan. TheJudicial Advisory Council, created in 1989, then reviews theapplications and staff analysis before making its recommenda-tions to the director of the Community Justice AssistanceDivision. The director presents recommendations to the Boardof Criminal Justice for final approval.

Funding Formula/State Appropriations: Subsidies forprobation supervision are allocated based on the number ofofficers supervising felony workloads. In 1990, the amount paidwas $43,200 per officer. State funding for supervising mis-demeanants averaged 62 cents per offender per day. Funds forother community corrections programs are also allocated by aworkload formula. In FY91, the legislature authorized $62million for probation supervision services, $20 million forresidential services, $2 million for electronic monitoring, $2.5million for risk assessment, $50 million for a variety of com-

90 COMMUNITY CORRECTlONS ACTS A COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS LEGISLATION 91

munity corrections programs, and $5 million for discretionarygrants.

Virginia Community DiversionIncentive Act

Purpose: In 1980, Virginia passed a voluntary Com-munity Diversion Incentive Act (CDIA). The purpose of the actis to develop, establish, and maintain community diversionprograms from prison and jail for nonviolent offenders whorequire more than probation supervision but less than institu-tional custody. The act seeks to give communities greaterflexibility and involvement in responding to crime problems.

Impetus/Leadership: The impetus for enacting the Com-munity Diversion Incentive Act in 1980 was prison crowding.The legislature, responding to recommendations from the ex-ecutive branch, decided to expand the use of community sanc-tions in order to divert offenders from state prisons. Because ofconcerns about the impact on jail crowding, the act was amendedin 1982 to include diversion from local jails.

Organizational Structure: The Department of Correc-tions is composed of the Division of Adult Institutions, theDivision of Adult Community Corrections, and the Division ofAdministration. The Division of Adult Institutions oversees theState prisons, which house sentenced felony offenders. TheDivision of Adult Community Corrections administers felonyprobation and parole services, the Community Diversion Incen-tive Act, and inspection of local jails for meeting minimumstandards. Virginia is unique in that the state funds 90 percentof operating expenses for jails and reimburses counties forconstruction of local jails.

Administration: The Division of Adult Community Cor-rections administers the Community Diversion Incentive Act.Staff within the division administer both probation and paroleservices and the CDIA. There are four regional administratorsand twelve area managers who oversee probation and paroleservices and CDIA programs. In FY91, the legislatureauthorized $367,000 for administration of the CDIA.

Staff provide technical assistance to counties or private

providers who want to apply for CDIA funds. They reviewapplications and make recommendations to the Secretary of thedepartment. Staff provide oversight to the programs andmonitor program performance.

Fundable Programs: The act authorizes CDIA funds tobe spent for nonresidential and residential diversion programsand services. To date, all of the funds have been spent onintensive supervision programs. A variety of services areprovided to offenders in these programs including, but notlimited to, psychological testing and evaluation, counseling,basic education, vocational training, and residential placement.The only state-imposed service requirements are for casemanagement, intensive supervision, and community servicework. Offenders initially receive an active sentence; the CDIAprogram evaluates them for eligibility; they return to court, andthe judge suspends the sentence if they voluntarily agree tointensive supervision. For offenders under intensive super-vision, the CDIA Program may purchase other services includ-ing residential placement, counseling, and vocational training.

Application Process: In order to apply for CDLA funds,counties, cities, or groups of either must form local CommunityCorrections Resource Boards (CCRB). The CCRB applies for thegrant funds and is responsible for operating, purchasing, or con-tracting for services approved in the application. Staff in theDivision of Adult Community Corrections provide technical assis-tance in completing the grant application. Applications arereviewed competitively and are scored on (1) the experience andability of staff’ to provide the programmatic services, (2) the ade-quacy of outlined programmatic services, (3) appropriateness andadequacy of policies and procedures, (4) financial condition of theagency as evidenced by an audit report, and (5) cost of providingthe service. The applicant must specify the number of local mis-demeanants, local felons, and state felons who will be diverted fromjail and/or prison. The final funding decision is made by the directorof the Department of Corrections.

Funding Formula/State Appropriations: Applicantsrequest funds for core services and for offender services. Thecore service request can not exceed $50,000. The offender ser-

92 COMMUNITYCOHHECTIONSACTS

vices budget is based on the number and type of offender whowill be diverted from jail or prison: $4,200 per state felon, $700per local felon, $4,200 per parole-eligible misdemeanant, and$300 for local misdemeanants. In FY91, the legislatureauthorized $10 million for the Community Diversion IncentiveAct programs.

Evaluation of the Act: In 1985, the Virginia Joint Legis-lative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) conducted anevaluation of the Community Diversion Incentive Program. Thefindings indicated that the Program is beneficial to the state inthat it reduces the number of inmates incarcerated in correc-tional institutions and saves the state money.

According to the evaluation, CDI programs appeared totarget an appropriate population. This determination was basedon three tests. The first revealed that most state felons, localfelons, and misdemeanants receive sentences of incarcerationprior to referral to CDI. The second indicated that the majorityofoffenders who are evaluated for CDI participation but rejectedare subsequently incarcerated. The third indicated that a largenumber of state felon divertees statistically resemble the incar-cerated population. The report noted thatjudicial discretion andvarying sentencing practices and philosophies of judges make itdifficult for the DOC to totally control the population in CDI andtherefore the majority, but not all, of the clients in the programwould have been incarcerated.

According to the findings, the CDI Program saved the statean estimated $325,461 for FY84, though this may be a conser-vative estimate of the savings generated. To strengthen thecost-savings nature of the program, it was recommended thatthe director of the DOC undertake an intensive assessment ofthe CDI population in order to determine the types of offenderswho should and should not be diverted.

The program had been operating a short period of timewhen the study was conducted, so recidivism and repeat offenserates of CDI divertees could not be comprehensively assessed.Of the offenders who had been successfully terminated from theprogram when the study was conducted, 3.9 percent had beenconvicted of a new offense. The report noted that the DOC needsto strengthen its recidivism tracking system in order to assessthe impact of the program.

l l Correctional Assessment, Casework, and CounselingAnthony Walsh, Ph.D.

This text, written by a former practitioner, examines assessment and classification incommunity and institutional settings. Covers practical interviewing and counselingskills, including how to conduct productive interviews, adapt counseling theories to thespecial needs of community or institutional corrections, and how to supervise and helpthe alcoholic, drug addict, sex offender, schizophrenic, and mentally immature client.

l l Paroling Authorities: Recent History and CurrentPracticeEdward E. Rhine, William R. Smith, Ronald W. Jackson,Peggy B. Burke, Roger Labelle

The most comprehensive and current publication about parole in the United States.The work begins with a discussion of the history and changing philosophical context ofparole. It addresses the complete spectrum of issues facing paroling authorities todayincluding: jurisdiction, current political environment, discretionary parole release,post-release supervision, parole revocation, organizational variations of parolingauthorities, prison crowding, and the future of parole.

l l Community-managed Corrections and OtherSolutions to America’s Prison CrisisRoger J. Lauen, Ph.D.

Correctional expenditures could soon be in direct competition with educationalexpenditures unless measures are taken to reduce the rate of incarceration. Lauenbelieves non-violent offenders should be placed in expanded community-basedprograms. He examines the social and political factors affecting crime and sentencingtoday. This complete text presents both practical and theoretical aspects ofcommunity-managed corrections. Lauen analyses how we have arrived at the presentpredicament of massive crowding and presents a plan that will reduce incarcerationand reduce correctional expenditures without increasing crime. Gain valuableinformation on alternatives such as early release, improving parole,deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, new sentencing structures, and more from anauthor with seventeen years of practical experience.

l l The State of Corrections - ProceedingsStimulate discussion with this unique compilation of speeches and panel presentationsaddressing the most timely issues affecting corrections today. These proceedings,authored by correctional practitioners and noted leaders in their field, will provide youwith varying perspectives on the latest developments in areas ranging fromintermediate sanctions to the workforce crisis. Other topics include higher educationwithin the institution, community service, drug treatment programs, treatment of the sexOffender, and more. A top-notch resource for criminal justice students, practitioners,and libraries alike.

About the Author

Mary K. Shilton, J.D., is assistant director at the Nation-al Association of Criminal Justice Planners in Washington,D.C., where she is responsible for conducting research ondevelopments in criminal justice agencies and has participatedin research and analysis of the National Judicial ReportingSystem’s study of probation in 32 jurisdictions. In addition, asa member of the advisory board of the Alexandria DetentionCenter in Virginia, she has helped develop a volunteer femaleoffender education program and has performed a variety ofadvisory functions on management issues for the jail. Shereceived her juris doctor degree from the University ofCalifornia’s Hastings College of Law in 1974 and a master’sdegree in corrections, youth, and social policy from the Univer-sity of Oregon in 1971.

don’t reinvent the wheel! with this technical assistance ... · programs is less than prisons...

Documents