Encyclopedia of Community Corrections
Edited by: Shannon M. Barton-Bellessa
- Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc. |
- Publication Year: 2012 |
- Online Publication Date: May 31, 2012 |
- DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452218519 |
- Print ISBN: 9781412990837 |
- Online ISBN: 9781452218519 |
- Print Purchase Options
View Hide Publication Details
In response to recognition in the late 1960s and early 1970s that traditional incarceration was not working, alternatives to standard prison settings were sought and developed. One of those alternatives—community-based corrections—had been conceived in the 1950s as a system that might prove more progressive, humane, and effective, particularly with people who had committed less serious criminal offenses and for whom incarceration, with constant exposure to serious offenders and career criminals, might prove more damaging than rehabilitative. The alternative of community corrections has evolved to become a substantial part of the criminal justice and correctional system, spurred in recent years not so much by a progressive, humane philosophy as by dramatically increasing prison populations, court orders to “fix” overextended prison settings, and an economic search for ...
- Reader's Guide
- Entries A-Z
- Subject Index
- Classification and Risk Assessment
- Diversion and Probation
- History, Development, and Definitions
- Intermediate Sanctions
- Theory and Treatment in the Community
List of Entries[Page vii]
- [Page viii]
- [Page ix]
Reader's Guide[Page xi]
Classification and Risk Assessment
- Actuarial Risk Assessment
- Classification Systems
- COMPASS Program
- Firearms Charges, Offenders With
- Hare Psychopathy Checklist
- Level of Service Inventory
- Offender Needs
- Offender Responsivity
- Offender Risks
- Prediction Instruments
- Predispositional Reports for Juveniles
- Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments
- Risk Assessment Instruments: Three Generations
- Wisconsin Risk Assessment Instrument
Diversion and Probation
- Augustus, John
- Benefit of Clergy
- Boston's Operation Night Light
- Case Management
- Caseload and Workload Standards
- Circle Sentencing
- Conditional Sentencing and Release
- Conditions of Community Corrections
- Continuum of Sanctions
- Crime Control Model of Corrections
- Diversion Programs
- Drug Courts
- Faith-Based Initiatives
- False Negatives and False Positives
- Family Courts
- Family Group Conferencing
- Family Therapy
- Felony Probation
- Field Visits
- Investigative Reports
- Juvenile Probation Officers
- Manhattan Bail Project
- Mental Health Courts
- Neighborhood Probation
- Offender Supervision
- Pre-Sentence Investigation Reports
- Pretrial Detention
- Pretrial Supervision
- Probation: Administration Models
- Probation: Early Termination
- Probation: Organization of Services
- Probation: Private
- Probation and Judicial Reprieve
- Probation and Parole: Intensive Supervision
- Probation and Parole Fees
- Probation Mentor Home Program
- Probation Officers
- Probation Officers: Job Stress
- Project Safeway
- Reparation Boards
- Restorative Justice
- Shock Probation
- SMART Partnership
- Specialized Caseload Models
- Teen Courts
- Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs
- Wilderness Experience
History, Development, and Definitions
- Attitudes and Myths about Punishment
- Attitudes of Offenders toward Community Corrections
- Bail Reform Act of 1984
- Banishment [Page xii]
- Beccaria, Cesare
- Bentham, Jeremy
- Certified Criminal Justice Professional
- Civil and Political Rights Affected by Conviction
- Community Corrections Acts
- Community Corrections and Sanctions
- Community Corrections as an Add-on to Imprisonment
- Community Corrections as an Alternative to Imprisonment
- Community Partnerships
- Cook County Juvenile Court
- Costs of Community Corrections
- Determinate Sentencing
- Employment-Related Rights of Offenders
- Ethics of Community-Based Sanctions
- Flat Time
- Front-End and Back-End Programming
- Goals and Objectives of Community Corrections
- History of Community Corrections
- Indeterminate Sentencing
- Law Enforcement Administration Act Initiatives
- Long-Term Offender Designation
- Loss of Capacity to Be Bonded
- Loss of Individual Rights
- Loss of Parental Rights
- Loss of Right to Possess Firearms
- Loss of Welfare Benefits
- Net Widening
- Philosophy of Community Corrections
- Political Determinants of Corrections Policy
- President's Task Force on Corrections
- Prison Overcrowding
- Public Opinion of Community Corrections
- Public Safety and Collaborative Prevention
- Punishment Units
- Reducing Prison Populations
- Reintegration into Communities
- Second Chance Act
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative
- Split Sentencing and Blended Sentencing
- Temperance Movement
- Three Strikes and You're Out
- Victims of Crime Act of 1984
- Violent Offender Reconciliation Programs
- Volunteers and Community Corrections
- Boot Camps
- Community Service Order
- Community-Based Centers
- Community-Based Vocational Networks
- Day Reporting Centers
- Electronic Monitoring
- Financial Penalties
- Fine Options Programs
- GPS Tracking
- Group Homes
- Halfway Houses and Residential Centers
- Home Confinement and House Arrest
- NIMBY Syndrome
- Probation and Parole: Intensive Supervision
- Residential Correctional Programs
- Residential Programs for Juveniles
- Restitution Centers
- Brockway, Zebulon
- Discretionary Release
- Elmira System
- Firearms and Community Corrections Personnel
- Good Time and Merit Time
- Graduated Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders
- Irish Marks System
- Maconochie, Alexander
- Pardon and Restoration of Rights
- Parole Boards and Hearings
- Parole Commission, U.S.
- Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996
- Parole Guidelines Score
- Parole Officers
- Pre-Parole Plan
- Prisoner's Family and Reentry
- Probation and Parole: Intensive Supervision
- Reentry Courts
- Reentry Programs and Initiatives
- Salient Factor Score
- Truth-in-Sentencing Provisions
- Victim Impact Statements
- Work/Study Release Programs
Theory and Treatment in the Community
- [Page xiii]
- Addiction-Specific Support Groups
- Correctional Case Managers
- Crime Victims' Concerns
- Cultural Competence
- Disabled Offenders
- Diversity in Community Corrections
- Drug- and Alcohol-Abusing Offenders and Treatment
- Drug Testing in Community Corrections
- Effectiveness of Community Corrections
- Elderly Offenders
- Environmental Crime Prevention
- Evaluation of Programs
- Female Offenders and Special Needs
- Job Satisfaction in Community Corrections
- Juvenile Aftercare
- Juvenile and Youth Offenders
- Martinson, Robert
- Motivational Interviewing
- Offenders with Mental Illness
- Public Shaming as Punishment
- Sex Offender Registration
- Sex Offenders in the Community
- Sexual and Gender Minorities and Special Needs
- Sexual Predators: Civil Commitment
- Therapeutic Communities
- Therapeutic Jurisprudence
- Thinking for a Change
- Victim Services
- “What Works” Approach and Evidence-Based Practices
- Women in Community Service Program
About the Editor[Page xv]
Shannon M. Barton-Bellessa is an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at Indiana State University. She earned her B.A. (1991) in criminal justice from Kentucky Wesleyan College, her M.S. (1992) in juvenile and correctional services from Eastern Kentucky University, and her Ph.D. (2000) in criminal justice from the University of Cincinnati. Her numerous journal publications have been in the area of community corrections, correctional offi cer job satisfaction, and the juvenile justice system. She is the co-author of Community-Based Corrections: A Text/Reader (2012) and Juvenile Justice: Theory, Systems, and Organization (2005). She has been a co-investigator on a National Institute of Justice grant assessing the effectiveness of a cognitive-based program in a medium security prison and many small grants on various criminal justice system issues.
List of Contributors[Page xvi]
Howard Abadinsky, St. John's University
Joseph Allen, Chaminade University
Gaylene S. Armstrong, Sam Houston State University
Thomas E. Baker, University of Scranton
J. C. Barnes, University of Texas, Dallas
Shannon M. Barton-Bellessa, Indiana State University
Julie A. Beck, California State University, East Bay
Christopher M. Bellas, Youngstown State University
Lindsey Bergeron-Vigesaa, Nova Southeastern University
Phyllis E. Berry, Washburn University
James M. Binnall, University of California, Irvine
Kristie R. Blevins, Eastern Kentucky University
Lauren M. Block, Washington State University
Sarah E. Boslaugh, Kennesaw State University
J. Michael Botts, Belmont Abbey College
Scott Wm. Bowman, Texas State University, San Marcos
James A. Brecher, Nova Southeastern University
Taylor Brickley, University of South Carolina
Chester L. Britt, Northeastern University
Jeannie S. Brooks, Psychology Gerena and Associates, Inc.
Deborah J. Brydon, Mount Mercy University
Christopher M. Campbell, Washington State University
Kimberlee Candela, California State University, Chico
Nigel J. Cohen, Independent Scholar
Kendell L. Coker, Chicago School of Professional Psychology
Charles J. Corley, Michigan State University
Beverly R. Crank, Georgia State University
Christian Dane, Georgia State University
Nicola Davis Bivens, Johnson C. Smith University
Aimée Delaney Lutz, University of New Hampshire
Rhonda R. Dobbs, University of Texas, Arlington
Brenda Donelan, Northern State University
Ellen Dwyer, Indiana University, Bloomington
Dula J. Espinosa, University of Houston, Clear Lake
Douglas N. Evans, Indiana University, Bloomington
Jamie J. Fader, State University of New York, Albany
Sean M. Falconer, Washington State University
Noelle E. Fearn, Saint Louis University
Charles B. Fields, Eastern Kentucky University
Erica L. Fields, Rutgers University
Farah Focquaert, Ghent University
Brett Garland, Missouri State University
Kimberley Garth-James, California State University, Sonoma
Tony Gaskew, University of Pittsburgh, Bradford[Page xvii]
L. Kris Gowen, Portland State University
Richard M. Gray, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Marie L. Griffin, Arizona State University
Elaine Gunnison, Seattle University
Neil Guzy, University of Pittsburgh, Greensburg
Kenneth C. Haas, University of Delaware
Timothy Hare, Morehead State University
Nick Harpster, Sam Houston State University
Kay Harris, Temple University
Aida Y. Hass, Missouri State University
Francis Frederick Hawley, Western Carolina University
Todd C. Hiestand, MidAmerica Nazarene University
Michelle Hoy-Watkins, Chicago School of Professional Psychology
Jason R. Jolicoeur, Cincinnati State Technical and Community College
Linda Keena, University of Mississippi
Clive D. Kennedy, Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles
Neha Khetrapal, Macquarie University
Janine Kremling, California State University, San Bernardino
Jennifer L. Lanterman, University of South Florida
Edward J. Latessa, University of Cincinnati
JiHee Lee, Indiana State University
Keith Gregory Logan, Kutztown University of, Pennsylvania
Nathan C. Lowe, American Probation and Parole Association
Liz Marie Marciniak, University of Pittsburgh, Greensburg
Rande W. Matteson, Saint Leo University
Adam K. Matz, American Probation and Parole Association
Tana M. McCoy, Roosevelt University
Robert F. Meier, University of Nebraska, Omaha
Kevin I. Minor, Eastern Kentucky University
Junseob Moon, Kean University
Lisa R. Muftic, Georgia State University
Anne M. Nurse, College of Wooster
James C. Oleson, University of Auckland
Jeremy Olson, Seton Hill University
Mark N. Pettigrew, University of Manchester
Wm. C. Plouffe Jr., Independent Scholar
Nahanni Pollard, Simon Fraser University
John Prevost, Georgia State University
Michael J. Puniskis, Middlesex University
Cara Rabe-Hemp, Illinois State University
Adrian Raine, University of Pennsylvania
Blake M. Randol, Washington State University
Laura A. Rapp, University of Delaware
Shamir Ratansi, Central Connecticut State University
Pili J. Robinson Independent Scholar
Michael D. Royster, Prairie View A&M University
Meghan Sacks, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Patti Ross Salinas, Missouri State University
Stephen M. Schnebly, University of Illinois, Springfield
Pamela J. Schram, California State University, San Bernardino
Christine S. Scott-Hayward, New York University
Eric S. See, Methodist University
Ronak Shah, Indiana University, Bloomington
Derrick Shapley, Mississippi State University
Christopher Sharp, Valdosta State University
Casey Sharpe, Chicago School of Professional Psychology[Page xviii]
James E. Shaw, Chicago School of Professional Psychology
Matthew J. Sheridan, Georgian Court University
Martha L. Shockey-Eckles, Saint Louis University
Edward W. Sieh, Lasell College
Kamesha Spates, Colorado State University, Pueblo
William Stadler, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Paul D. Steele, Morehead State University
Leonard A. Steverson, South Georgia College
Cheryl G. Swanson, University of West Florida
Christine Tartaro, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
Caitlin J. Taylor, Temple University
Tracy Faye Tolbert, California State University, Long Beach
Jillian J. Turanovic, Arizona State University
John Turner, Indiana State University
Lisa Marie Vasquez, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
Yvonne Vissing, Salem State University
Robert F. Vodde, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Brenda Vose, University of North Florida
Patricia Bergum Wagner, Youngstown State University
Courtney A. Waid, North Dakota State University
Harrison Watts, Washburn University
Jalika Rivera Waugh, Saint Leo University
Stan C. Weeber, McNeese State University
W. Jesse Weins, Dakota Wesleyan University
Henriikka Weir, University of Texas, Dallas
Norman A. White, Saint Louis University
William R. Wood, University of Auckland
Miranda Young, Roosevelt University
Nancy Zarse, Chicago School of Professional Psychology
At the end of 2009, the United States continued to experience unprecedented growth in the number of individuals under some form of correctional supervision. This number included 1.6 million persons incarcerated in state and federal systems and more than 5.6 million supervised in the community. Of those supervised in the community, more than 5 million individuals are placed on either probation or parole, as L. E. Glaze reports in Correctional Populations in the United States, 2009, a study prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Of those incarcerated, 97 percent will reenter society at some point. As states and the federal government continue to experience the realities of dwindling resources during these difficult economic times, the use of community-based alternatives has become a necessity rather than an indulgence.
Unlike many other facets of correctional-based sanctions, community-based alternatives are designed to minimize the penetration of offenders into the system. The study of community corrections as a discipline has experienced limited attention despite its increased use in the system. Few college curriculums require a course specifically designed to address the role of community-based alternatives, despite the fact that most probation and parole officers as well as other personnel are required to obtain four-year degrees for employment. Likewise, the role of community safety is of the utmost importance for supervision; therefore, an understanding of the components, evolution, and effectiveness of these alternatives is critical.
The concept of community-based corrections as an alternative to incarceration has a rather short history. Although some of the options can be traced back to the use of halfway houses during the early 1800s, the increase in community-based alternatives really began during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Examples of increasing prison populations, the demise of rehabilitation, and the evolution of the “get tough on crime” movement further illustrate the use of community alternatives as less based on the concept of humanitarianism than on the need for individual accountability. Thus, the movement to enhance penalties that include a community component was born and grew. These alternatives to incarceration allow communities to continue to get tough on crime while balancing diminished resources with the need for punishment and reformation.Community Corrections Defined and Studied
Community corrections conjure a multitude of images, depending on an individual's experience with the system or even as a community member. For the purposes of this encyclopedia, the term community corrections, or community-based corrections, includes all nonincarcerative sanctions, ranging from the least restrictive, fines, to the most restrictive, intermediate-sanction boot camps.
Although there may be a set definition used for alternative methods of supervision, the purpose of these options elicits different meanings and views. For example, some may view the purpose of these sanctions as coddling offenders and being “easy” on crime with those who have violated the law. This negative image has far-reaching implications, particularly from a political vantage point. More positive views of alternative sanctions include the use of mechanisms for probation and parole providing appropriate, “just” punishment while allowing the offenders opportunities to remain engaged and be contributing members of society. Regardless of one's perspective on community-based alternatives, the benefits of keeping an offender in, or reintegrating him or her back into, the community are endless. For example, offenders who remain in the community have the ability either to maintain or to seek [Page xx]employment. Gainful employment not only provides monetary support for the offender and his or her family but also provides a tool for repayment of fines or restitution. Similarly, offenders may take advantage of community treatment programs that address the underlying causes of their behaviors or provide service to the community that is otherwise not being provided. A growing body of literature assessing the effectiveness of these options indicates that offenders can successfully reintegrate back into their communities. Additionally, as researchers begin to assess the effectiveness of assessment tools for placement and needs, communities can best determine which offenders are most appropriate for a community-based option and which programs are best supported, particularly with limited resources.The Encyclopedia
The purpose of the Encyclopedia of Community Corrections is to provide a comprehensive reference resource that reviews the topic of community-based alternatives to incarceration. This academic, multi-author reference work serves as a general and nontechnical resource for students and instructors to help them understand the importance of community corrections. The encyclopedia also serves as a guide for readers to appreciate the requirements of the various alternatives, as a reference on the historical development of these options, and as a tool for facilitating discussions generated by the specific social and topical articles presented in the work. Although the history of community-based alternatives dates back to the mid-1800s, until now no reference work bringing together materials on the topic has existed. As the United States has experienced a surge in its focus on and the importance of community-based alternatives over the past 40 years, it is now time to bring together resource materials that are usable not only for academicians and students but also for those working in the field of criminal justice.
The encyclopedia is a compilation of nearly 200 carefully selected entries on the various community-based alternatives representing not only the options available but also the mechanisms used for selection, the effectiveness of these options, their philosophical purposes, and the historical evolution of the alternatives. In order to cover these topics, the encyclopedia has brought together a group of internationally recognized scholars to contribute to the understanding and advancement of the field of community-based corrections. This one-volume resource is essential for any person entering the field of criminal justice. It is intended not only to be used as a primer for the topic but also to inform individuals of the existence of alternatives to incarceration.
Topics covered in the encyclopedia range widely, including a discussion of the historical development of community-based alternatives, an overview of the philosophical underpinnings of punishment and how they apply to alternative sanctions in the community, theoretical approaches to reintegration and treatment, and new developments in legislation that have directly impacted how offenders are supervised and released. Entries on various options for diversion from incarceration are also included. These topics include a review of some of the more innovative approaches to dealing with specialized offender populations, such as drug courts, mental health courts, and reentry courts. The encyclopedia also includes information on the use of restorative justice programs as a mechanism for reducing costs while managing less serious offenders in the system and recognizing the rights of the victim; these include family conferences, teen courts, reintegrative shaming, community justice, and victim-offender mediation. Topics on the viability of treatment include a review of the impact of Robert Martinson and his “nothing works” proposition; a review of the role of treatment staff; and some of the more frequently used alternatives in the community. One of the growing areas in the field of community-based corrections continues to be the use of risk/needs assessments and classification. Entries in this reference work address the various types and historical development of these tools for offender management. Within this context, for example, the use of the pre-sentence investigation report is covered. Information on the evolution of probation, including recognizance and suspended sentences, is provided. The various ways to administer probation and parole are reviewed. Additionally, revocation procedures for both probation and parole are included. The move toward using intermediate sanctions with a residential component, including halfway houses, community residential treatment centers, shock incarceration, and boot camps, also warrants and receives coverage in this encyclopedia. [Page xxi]Likewise, intermediate sanctions that do not have a residential component—including both restrictive and financial options, such as fines, fees, forfeiture and restitution, community service, intensive supervision, electronic monitoring, home detention, day reporting centers, and testing technologies—receive individual attention. Once offenders are released from institutionalization, they are placed under supervision in the community (parole). Like the several entries covering probation, several entries on parole document its many facets, from its historical evolution to the various sentencing strategies used to administer parole and the use of parole boards.
In the 21st century, with its legal, political, and economic challenges, it is more imperative than ever that correctional systems seek corrections methods that are alternative to and more effective than incarceration. The Encyclopedia of Community Corrections will assist readers—from students to scholars to corrections professionals—in understanding the evolution, options, and effectiveness of community-based corrections as a viable alternative to incarcerating suitable offenders by supervising and treating them in the community.Shannon M. Barton-Bellessa Editor[Page xxii]
William Rogers, a clergyman, begins offering instruction to inmates of the Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia, starting what is often cited as the beginning of the correctional education movement.
Elizabeth Fry begins teaching literacy to women and children in London's Newgate Jail, providing a model for later American women prison reformers.
Elam Lynds is made warden of the recently opened Auburn Prison, where he develops the congregate system, which incorporates a rule of silence, use of striped clothing, and a requirement that prisoners move in lockstep.
The New York House of Refuge, the first U.S. institution for juvenile offenders, opens.
Ex parte Crouse, a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, establishes the doctrine of parens patriae: the principle that the state has the right to remove children from households in which they are not being properly cared for.
Massachusetts becomes the first U.S. state to grant juveniles probation; by 1927, all states but one have enacted juvenile probation laws.
In New York, the Women's Prison Association is founded with the purpose of improving the treatment of female inmates and creating separate facilities to house them.
The first reform school for girls is established in Massachusetts.
Dorothea Dix surveys more than 300 poorhouses and penal institutions on the East Coast and reports that extensive reform is required.
The New York Prison Association commissions a nationwide survey and evaluation of penal methods. The resulting Report on the Prisons and Reformatories of the United States and Canada, by Enoch Wines and Theodore Dwight, calls for changes to the current prison system.
The first statute allowing reduction of the sentences of federal prisoners in recognition of good behavior is passed.
The National Prison Association (now called the American Correctional Association) is founded, making it the oldest organization in the world for people employed in the correctional profession; it publishes its Declaration of Principles in the same year.[Page xxiv]
Indiana establishes the first woman's prison in the United States, the Indiana Women's Prison in Indianapolis.
Fort Leavenworth opens in Leavenworth, Kansas, as a prison for military offenders.
Massachusetts establishes the first statewide probation system in the United States.
The federal prison system is established by passage of the Three Prisons Act, which establishes three prisons—in Atlanta, Georgia, in Leavenworth, Kansas, and on McNeil Island in Washington State—that operate with limited oversight from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Illinois establishes the first juvenile court in the United States in Chicago, to supervise the treatment of children aged 16 and younger who were delinquent, dependent, or neglected; by 1925 every U.S. state but two has established separate courts for juveniles.
Parole boards are established at each of the three federal prisons; the boards are made up of the warden and the physician from each institution and the superintendent of prisons from the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.
Katherine Bement Davis becomes the first woman to head the New York City Department of Correction. In her previous job as superintendent of the Bedford Hills Reformatory for Women, Davis was noted for her efforts to adapt school education to serve the needs of the incarcerated population.
Separate institutions are created in the federal prison system, through the leadership of Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, for younger offenders and women.
The Norfolk State Prison Colony, conceived by sociologist Howard Bedding Gill, is founded in Norfolk, Massachusetts, as a “model prison community.”
James V. Bennett conducts a study of the federal prison system highlighting problems including overcrowding and the lack of meaningful programs for the inmates.
Passage of the Hawes-Cooper Act places restrictions on the sale of goods made in prisons, primarily to protect private manufacturers and labor organizations from what they considered to be unfair competition.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is established in the United States to provide more humane care for inmates of federal prisons (11 were in operation at the time) and to professionalize the prison services.
A single parole board, the U.S. Board of Parole (later renamed the U.S. Parole Commission), is established for all federal prisons; originally it consisted of three members but was increased to five in 1948 and to eight in 1950.
The first training school for federal prison guards is opened in New York City.
The Correctional Education Association, an international professional organization for educators working in adult and juvenile correctional and justice facilities, is founded in the United States.
The criminologist and reformer Austin H. MacCormick publishes The Education of Adult Prisoners: A Survey and a Program, which reflects the results of a 1928 survey of 110 adult correctional programs.[Page xxv]
A federal prison in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, incorporates new concepts in corrections, including housing different security levels in the same institution.
UNICOR, also known as Federal Prison Industries, is established by an act of Congress as a government corporation with the purpose of helping offenders acquire useful work skills that will help them transition to life outside prison.
The first maximum-security prison in the federal system, designed to house the most violent, disruptive, and escape-prone inmates, opens on Alcatraz Island in California.
The Chicago Area Project (CAP), a delinquency prevention program focused on the poorest neighborhoods within Chicago, is founded by Clifford R. Shaw.
Approval of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act removes any minimum term of imprisonment for juveniles; they can be paroled at any time after commitment.
Executive Order 8641 allows the U.S. attorney general to grant parole to federal prisoners who can be useful to the war effort, a measure prompted in part by the addition of large numbers of conscientious objectors (who were resisting the draft for World War II) to the federal prison system.
The Youth Corrections Act allows federal sentencing of persons younger than 22 (at time of conviction) to indeterminate sentences with a maximum length of six years, with the exception of a few serious crimes. In 1958, provisions of the act are extended, in some cases to people younger than 26.
The American Prison Association changes its name to the American Correctional Association and encourages members to use the term correctional institution rather than prison in referring to such facilities.
The United Nations issues its Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, emphasizing rehabilitation.
The Narcotics Control Act provides mandatory terms of imprisonment for some drug offenses and makes offenders ineligible for parole.
In California, the Chino Experiment applies a therapeutic community method in the attempt to change the antisocial behavior of offenders, incorporating work release, family contacts, and special training into the prison system.
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency releases its Survey for the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, concluding that many institutions are brutal and degrading, failing to prepare prisoners for reentry into society.
The Court Employment Project (CEP) is created by the Vera Institute of Justice in New York City; in 1989, it is combined with another Vera Institute initiative, the Community Service Sentencing Project (created in 1979), to form the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES).
The Bureau of Prisons opens Metropolitan Correctional Centers in New York City, Chicago, and San Diego to meet the need for additional pretrial detention facilities.
The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals publishes national goals and standards for prisons and jails.[Page xxvi]
Lee Jett becomes the first African American to serve as a federal warden, at the Federal Correctional Institution in Englewood, Colorado.
Attorney General John Mitchell convenes a National Conference on Corrections, in part in response to a much-publicized riot at the prison in Attica, New York; one outcome is the founding of the National Institute of Corrections in 1974 to encourage professionalism, research, and exchange of ideas within the field of corrections.
The U.S. Board of Parole is reorganized to create five regional boards with explicit guidelines for decision making, a requirement for written justification for parole decisions, and an administrative appeal process.
The American Civil Liberties Union creates the National Prison Project to safeguard the rights of prisoners in jails, prisons, immigration detention centers, and juvenile facilities.
Marvin Wolfgang and Associates publish a study (based on cases in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) that claims that a small proportion of juvenile offenders, dubbed “the chronic six percent,” are responsible for most delinquent acts, while most juvenile delinquents commit only a few offenses.
New York State adopts the Rockefeller drug laws (named after then-governor Nelson Rockefeller), which increase penalties for a number of drug-related offenses, including sale and possession of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and morphine; the laws provide for mandatory minimum sentencing.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gagnon v. Scarpelli provides legal protection to prisoners on probation or parole; elements of due process must be observed before probation can be revoked.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act establishes four core protections for juveniles in the legal system: deinstitutionalization of status offenders, separation between juvenile and adult offenders, prohibition of placing juveniles in adult jails (with a very few exceptions), and a requirement that states address the disproportionate number of nonwhite juveniles in the justice system.
The University of Michigan's Institute of Social Research begins conducting the Monitoring the Future survey, which collects information about drug use, juvenile delinquency, and related topics.
The National Institute of Corrections begins operation, with the goals of providing technical assistance to state and local corrections agencies and judicial, parole, probation, and law-enforcement staff; conducting research on corrections; maintaining an information center; and developing national corrections standards and goals.
The Commission on Accreditation for Corrections publishes its first manual of standards, addressing the entire field of corrections for both juveniles and adults, including jails, prisons, probation, parole, and community residential centers.
The Parole Commission and Reorganization Act makes significant revisions to the U.S. Parole Commission (formerly the Board of Parole), including reducing years served before eligibility for parole for prisoners with life sentences, giving parole applicants the right to examine their own case files and bring a representative to their hearings, and mandating explicit guidelines for making parole decisions.
The first National Conference on Correctional Health Care is held.
The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act established that inmates have constitutional rights and authorizes the U.S. attorney general to seek relief on behalf of those confined in public institutions whose conditions deprive them of those rights.
The number of inmates in U.S. federal prisons more than doubles—from approximately 24,000 [Page xxvii]to almost 58,000—due in part to changes in sentencing.
James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling introduce the “broken windows theory,” which asserts that visible signs of vandalism encourage further vandalism and possibly more serious crime as well; this theory provides the basis for “zero tolerance” policies (basically, that any infraction of stated policies will be punished), which were first applied to gun possession on school campuses and later were expanded to include behaviors such as drug use, fighting, and bullying.
The National Commission on Correctional Health Care is established to articulate national standards for healthcare in prisons.
Georgia and Oklahoma establish the first correctional boot camps in the United States; by 1995, about two thirds of the states are operating boot camps.
Corrections Corporation of America, a private company that owns, manages, and provides concessions for prisons and detentions centers, is founded in Nashville, Tennessee.
The U.S. Supreme Court declares, in Schall v. Martin, that preventive detention of juveniles prior to their trials does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 reinstitutes the federal death penalty, introduces mandatory sentencing, and defines many new federal crimes.
The Rochester Youth Development Study conducts its first interviews investigating the correlates of juvenile antisocial behavior.
Florida creates the first drug court in the United States, in part to deal with the large increase of offenders due to the prevalent use of crack cocaine; it allows nonviolent offenders to receive treatment rather than enter the criminal justice system.
The inmate population in federal prisons more than doubles again, due in part to increased efforts to fight drug trafficking and illegal immigration, reaching almost 136,000 by the end of 1999.
New Jersey passes the first Megan's law, which requires public release of information about known sex offenders; the impetus for the law was the rape and murder of Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old girl, by Jesse Timmendequas, a convicted sex offender living in her neighborhood.
Kathleen Hawk becomes the first female director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
The Violent Crime Conduct and Law Enforcement Act provides for the reduction of sentences for inmates who participate in drug treatment programs.
In response to the growing number of drug courts established in the states, the National Drug Court Institute is established to conduct training and disseminate research.
The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act gives the U.S. Parole Commission additional responsibilities, including jurisdiction over prisoners confined under District of Columbia felony sentences.
Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber, becomes the first federal prisoner to be executed since 1963.
The case of Nathaniel Brazill, convicted of a second-degree murder for a crime committed when he was 13, draws international attention when he is tried in an adult court and sentenced to 28 years without parole.[Page xxviii]
Following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Federal Bureau of Prisons adds counterterrorism to its list of goals.
A residential, multi-faith-based program, the Life Corrections Program, is established within the federal prison system.
The Inmate Skills Development Branch (now called the National Reentry Affairs Branch) is created in the federal prison system to coordinate release preparation and reentry efforts.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons establishes a counter-terrorism unit to investigate activities of inmates suspected of terrorist activities, monitor and analyze their communications, coordinate translation services, and collaborate with the intelligence community and other correctional and law-enforcement agencies.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act becomes federal law: It creates a national registry of sex offenders with different requirements for three tiers of offenders, depending on the severity of their crimes.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 7.4 percent of U.S. federal and state prisoners are housed in private prisons.
The Rockefeller drug laws are revised in New York State, including the removal of mandatory minimum sentences, a reform that is made retroactive.
In January, California establishes a Community Corrections Program to manage initiatives for reducing recidivism and promoting public safety.
In February, the federal Department of Justice releases its 2012 budget request. It includes a plan to reduce expenses by adopting a more generous “good-time credit” system, which is intended to result in earlier release of some prisoners.
In May, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that overcrowding in the California Prison System violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution (against cruel and unusual punishment). This ruling requires California to make plans for the early release of about 32,000 prisoners over the next two years.
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama, cases that address the constitutionality of sentencing juveniles (the defendants in both cases were 14 at the time of their crimes) to life without parole.Sarah E. Boslaugh Kennesaw State University
Absconding: Failing to appear for a court date without having a legitimate reason for the absence.
ACA: The American Correctional Association (formerly the American Prison Association), the oldest association (founded in 1870) for people working in the correctional facilities. In 2011, the ACA had approximately 20,000 active members.
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act: A 2006 federal law that created a national sex offender registry, with reporting requirements varying according to the severity of the offense.
Administrative remedy process: A system created within the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons in the 1970s and later adopted by many state and international corrections systems to address inmate grievances and concerns.
Aftercare: Similar to parole for juvenile offenders, a form of supervised release to the community following a period of incarceration.
Aggravating factors: Elements present in the commission of a specific crime, which a judge may consider when setting a sentence for an individual.
Attica Correctional Facility: A prison in New York State most famous for an inmate uprising in 1971 that led to the deaths of 11 prison employees and 32 prisoners.
Bail: An amount of money, as determined by a judge, that a person awaiting trial must post as a precondition for release. If the person does not appear in court on the appointed date, the bail is forfeited; hence, posting bail is meant to ensure the timely appearance in court of the accused.
Balanced model: A model of corrections that replaced the medical model in the 1970s and that states that punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation are all worthwhile goals in the prison system.
Boot camp: A type of rehabilitation program, most often used with young offenders, that mimics aspects of military basic training, including rigorous discipline and physical conditioning.
CEA: The Correctional Education Association, an international organization founded in 1930 by and for professionals who provide education in adult and juvenile correctional and justice facilities.
Civil disabilities: Legal restrictions placed on convicted felons, such as removing their right to vote and hold office, engage in certain occupations, and associate with other offenders.
Classical criminology: An approach to criminology that emphasizes that behavior stems from free will, that perpetrators should be held responsible for their behavior, and that punishment is valuable as a deterrent.
Client-specific planning: A method of developing a sentence for an individual that takes into account factors such as the crime committed, the risk the individual poses to the community, and the specific needs of the individual; generally the plan is created by the defendant's lawyer and submitted to a judge for approval.
Community correctional center: A group living facility for offenders, often for those recently released from prison.
Community court: A type of court first created in New York City to speed up adjudication of minor offenses and provide restitution and supervision of offenders.
Community justice: A philosophy that emphasizes providing reparation to the community and to individual victims of crime, as well as involving citizens in crime prevention.
Community service: The requirement that, as a term of probation, an offender work (for instance at [Page 464]a hospital, in a nursing home, or picking up litter in parks) for a set numbers of hours to provide reparation to the community.
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984: A law that established many new federal crimes and made other changes, including abolition of parole and establishment of sentencing guidelines that led to a substantial increase in the inmate population of the U.S. federal prison system.
Conditions of release: Legally binding restrictions on conduct that must be obeyed by individuals on parole.
Confrontation therapy: A type of therapy that forces an offender to acknowledge the consequences of his or her crime to the victim and/or to society.
Congregate system: A type of penitentiary system developed in Auburn, New York, in which inmates worked together during the day, under a rule of silence, and were held in isolation at night. It was developed by warden Elam Lynds, who also mandated that prisoners wear striped clothing, be addressed by their numbers rather than their names, and move in lockstep.
Contract labor system: The practice of selling the use of inmates' labor to private employers; inmates worked within the prison, using equipment and materials provided by the employer, to produce marketable goods.
CTU: The Counter-Terrorism Unit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, established in 2006 to help monitor the activities of inmates suspected of terrorist activity and to improve collaboration among the bureau, other correctional agencies, and the law-enforcement and intelligence communities.
Day reporting center: A facility providing activities such as employment training, social skills training, and substance abuse counseling, often included in a type of intermediate sanction that requires offenders to report on a regular basis to the day reporting center.
Deinstitutionalization: Releasing mental patients from large facilities, such as state mental hospitals, and returning them, usually with supportive services, to the community.
Depo-Provera: The brand-name for the generic drug depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, a drug sometimes administered to male sex offenders because it removes their ability to respond sexually.
Determinate sentence: A fixed period of incarceration, imposed by a court and reflecting a philosophy of retribution for a crime.
Drug court: A court provided specifically to deal with substance abusers that takes a nonadversarial approach in the hope of breaking the cycle of addiction and crime; typically, an offender must frequently appear before the judge, undergo treatment, and submit to regular drug testing and other constraints.
Electronic monitoring: A method of providing community supervision, sometimes in conjunction with house arrest, in which an offender wears an electronic monitoring device, such as an anklet, that will set off an alarm if he or she leaves a specified area.
Evidence-based practice: Correctional methods that have been demonstrated in well-designed research studies to be effective.
Expiration release: The release of an inmate from incarceration without the threat that he or she can be returned to prison to serve the remainder of the sentence.
FPI: Federal Prison Industries, also known as UNICOR, established in 1934 as a government corporation to help inmates learn work skills that will facilitate their adjustment to life outside prison.
Furlough: The temporary release of an inmate, usually for one to three days, to allow a home visit intended to strengthen family ties and prepare the inmate for eventual release.
Good time: Discretionary reduction in a prison sentence as a reward for good behavior, such as participation in a treatment program.
Great Law: A principle adopted in Pennsylvania in 1682, drawing on Quaker principles that emphasized hard labor as punishment for most crimes, with the death penalty imposed only for premeditated murder.
Habeas corpus: Literally “produce the body,” a judicial order requiring that a prisoner be shown (as opposed to keeping people incarcerated in secret) and that reasons be supplied for their confinement.
Halfway house: A place where offenders reside during an intermediate stage intended to bridge the gap [Page 465]between incarceration and complete reintroduction into the community, typically a community-based facility in which active rehabilitation and counseling are provided while residents are allowed to work or otherwise engage in life in the community.
House arrest: A punishment in which an offender is confined to his or her home, except for specified court-approved activities such as working or attending school; it may be combined with electronic monitoring.
Incapacitation: Taking away an offender's ability to commit further crimes, often by incarceration in a penal institution.
Inmate balance theory: A theory of prison governance that advocates that officials tolerate small infractions, relax security measures, and incorporate inmate leadership in their efforts to maintain control of the prison.
Intermediate sanctions: Punishments that exist on a continuum between prison and probation, including methods such as electronic monitoring and day reporting centers.
Justice reinvestment: A community development strategy that uses funds that would otherwise be spent on prisons to create and support community safety projects.
LCP: The Life Connections Program, established in 2002 as the first residential multi-faith-based program in the federal prison system.
Lease system: A system in which inmates were provided to contractors who were entitled to their labor (for instance, in agricultural work), who in turn provided the inmates with food and clothing.
Least restrictive methods: The principle that when choosing among methods used to ensure a legitimate state interest, such as security, the preferred method should make the least infringement possible on a prisoner's rights.
Mala in se: Offenses that are considered wrong by their nature.
Mala prohibita: Offenses that are not wrong by their nature but are prohibited by law.
Mandatory sentence: A type of sentence that imposes a minimum punishment (such as a term of incarceration) for a given crime, without regard to circumstances and without allowing a judge to override this minimum punishment.
Marks system: A method of classifying prisoners based on the severity of their crime, which offers prisoners the opportunity to reduce their sentence terms through good behavior, educational achievement, and labor.
Mediation: A process sometimes used to divert offenders from criminal prosecution or to resolve civil disputes; it provides a neutral third party (the mediator) to help disputants reach an agreement, which often focuses on restitution and future behavior.
Medical model: A theory of criminology that viewed criminal behavior as a disease that could be diagnosed and treated through rehabilitative programs.
Megan's laws: An informal name for laws in the United States that differ from one state to the next but that require information about sex offenders (such as name, photograph, and address) to be released to the public; the first such law was passed in 1992 in New Jersey, following the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl, Megan Kanka, by a known sex offender.
Mitigating factors: Elements of a crime that a judge may use in lowering the sentence for a defendant.
National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act: A 1997 law that required the Federal Bureau of Prisons system to absorb felons from the District of Columbia.
National Committee on Community Corrections: A public-private coalition created in 1987 in Washington, D.C., to promote community-based sanctions.
National Institute of Corrections: An agency of the U.S. Department of Justice created in 1974 and charged with assisting federal, state, and local corrections agencies.
National Reentry Affairs Branch: An entity created within the U.S. federal prison system in 2003 by Harley G. Lappin to coordinate release preparation and reentry efforts; it was originally called the Inmate Skills Development Branch.
New York House of Refuge: The first institution for juvenile delinquents, opened in 1825.
Parens patriae: Literally “parent of the nation,” the power of the state to act on the behalf of a child—for [Page 466]instance, by removing a child from the custody of an abusive parent.
Parole: Release of an inmate from incarceration to the community, under supervision, after the inmate has served part of his or her sentence.
PINS: A person in need of supervision, which may include a juvenile status offender or a youth believed to be on the brink of getting into trouble.
Pre-sentence report: A report, prepared by a probation officer in order to advise a judge on sentencing, that includes information about a convicted individual's background.
Presumptive sentence: A sentence with a specified minimum and maximum range of time that allows a judge to set an individual's sentence within that range.
Pretrial diversion: A method of avoiding adjudication in that a defendant agrees to specified conditions (such as entering a drug rehabilitation program or submitting to regular drug monitoring) in exchange for the charges against him or her being dropped.
Prison Rape Elimination Act: A 2003 federal law intended to curb prison rape, in part by creating the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission to study the problem and mandating that the Department of Justice make elimination of rape in prison a high priority.
Private prison: A prison (or detention center or jail) operated by a third party under contract to a governmental agency in return for a specified daily or monthly fee per prisoner.
Probation: A sentence that allows a convicted offender to live in the community, generally with supervision, while serving his or her sentence.
PSI: A pre-sentence investigation, a report on a convicted offender's background for the purpose of helping the judge determine an appropriate sentence.
Recidivism: The return of former prisoners to criminal behavior, often followed by repeated incarceration; recidivism is often reported as the percentage of former criminals who return to crime after serving their sentences.
Recognizance: The obligation by an offender to perform specific acts (such as pay a debt or keep a court date) as a condition of being allowed to live in the community.
Reentry court: A court established to facilitate a released prisoner's adjustment to his or her life in the community.
Reformatory: An institution for juvenile offenders that emphasizes training, use of the marks system, and indeterminate sentences.
Rehabilitation model: A philosophy of corrections that emphasizes reforming offenders through provision of appropriate treatment programs.
Reintegration model: A philosophy of corrections that emphasizes maintaining a prisoner's ties with the community and his or her family in order to facilitate a successful return to the community.
Restitution: Providing money or services to a victim, often required from an offender as a condition of probation.
Restorative justice: A type of punishment that attempts to compensate victims or repair damage resulting from a criminal act; it is based on the philosophy that a crime is an offense not merely against the state but also against a victim and a community.
Retribution: A philosophy of justice that states that criminals who have infringed on the rights of others should be penalized, with the severity of the penalty appropriate to the severity of the crime.
ROR: Release on own recognizance, a type of pretrial release granted if a judge believes the defendant has sufficient ties to the community to guarantee that he or she will appear in court on the specified day.
Selective incapacitation: A method intended to make the best use of scarce prison resources by determining who, among the population of convicts subject to incarceration (and hence incapacitation), will most reduce the risk of further crime to society by actual incarceration.
Sentencing guidelines: A set of guidelines developed for judges, which indicates typical sanctions imposed in the past for particular offenses.
Separate confinement: A penitentiary system developed in Pennsylvania in which each inmate is housed separately in a cell and isolated from other inmates, including during work periods.[Page 467]
Shock incarceration: Imposition of a shock in the form of a short period of incarceration followed by a reduction in sentence.
SORNA: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, another name for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which established a national sex offender registry in the United States in 2006.
Spatial concentration: A phenomenon noted in some communities in which certain areas or neighborhoods have a high number of arrests and incarcerations compared to other areas.
Status offense: An act committed by juveniles that would not be a crime if committed by adults (for instance, alcohol consumption).
Technical violation: Failure of an individual on probation to abide by the rules and conditions of his or her probation, as specified by a judge; a technical violation may result in revocation of probation.
Therapeutic justice: A philosophy of justice that emphasizes rehabilitation rather than the punitive aspects of incarceration.
Three Prisons Act: An act of the U.S. Congress, passed in 1891, that established the federal prison system with three branches, in Leavenworth, Kansas; Atlanta, Georgia; and McNeil Island, Washington State. These were operated with limited oversight from the Department of Justice.
Unsupervised probation: A period of time specified by a court during which a released convict must abide by certain conditions but is not subject to probation monitoring; also called administrative probation.
Utilitarianism: A philosophy based on the principle that an action should be judged by its ability to maximize utility (variously defined as pleasure or preference), which, when applied to corrections, states that punishment must achieve sufficient good to outweigh the pain it inflicts.
Victims' services: Support provided, often by a district attorney's office, to assist victims and witnesses and help coordinate their testimony.
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act: A 1994 law that reduced the sentences of inmates who participated in drug treatment programs.
Work release center: A facility created to allow offenders to work in the community during the day while living in the center during nonworking hours.Kennesaw State University[Page 468]
Resource Guide[Page 469]Resource guide
Abramsky, Sasha. American Furies: Crime, Punishment, and Vengeance in the Age of Mass Imprisonment. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007.
Armstrong, Troy L., ed. Intensive Interventions With High-Risk Youths: Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1991.
Beccaria, Cesare. On Crimes and Punishments, Henry Paolucci, trans. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1963.
Bentham, Jeremy. The Principles of Morals and Legislation. New York: Hafner Press, 1948.
Berman, Greg and John Feinblatt. Good Courts: The Case for Problem-Solving Justice. New York: The New Press, 2005.
Bilchik, Shay. Promising Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1998.
Braithwaite, John. Crime, Shame and Re-Integration. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Bynum, Tim and Scott H. Decker. Project Safe Neighborhoods: Strategic Interventions. Chronic
Violent Offenders Lists, Case Study 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2006.
Byrne, James M., Arthur J. Lurigio, and Joan Petersilia. Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1992.
Byrnes, Michelle, Daniel Macallair, and Andrea D. Shorter. Aftercare as Afterthought: Reentry and the California Youth Authority. San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2002.
Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Dallas: Houghton Mifflin, 1963.
Carlson, Peter and Judith Garrett. Prison and Jail Administration: Practice and Theory, 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2008.
Champion, Dean J. Corrections in the United States: A Contemporary Perspective, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
Clear, Todd R., George F. Cole, and Michael D. Reisig. American Corrections, 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2010.
Cook, Phillip and Jens Ludwig. Gun Violence: The Real Costs. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Ekirch, A. Bound for America: The Transportation of British Convicts to the Colonies, 1718–1775. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Enos, Richard and Stephen Southern. Correctional Case Management. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, 1996.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish, Alan Sheridan, trans. New York: Pantheon Books, 1977.
Glaser, Daniel. The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964.
Glaze, Lauren E. and Thomas P. Bonczar. Probation and Parole in the United States 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2009.
Gray, M. The Business of Captivity: Elmira and Its Civil War Prison. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2001.
Greenfeld, Lawrence A. and Marilyn W. Zawitz. Weapons Offenses and Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1995.
Greenwood, Peter W. Selective Incapacitation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1982.
Hanser, Robert D. Community Corrections. Los Angeles: Sage, 2010.
Heeley, Kerry. Case Management in the Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1999.
Howell, J. Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009.
Hughes, R. The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia's Founding. New York: Vintage, 1988.
Jones, R. A. and C. Goff. Study of the Costs and Benefits of the Washington County Restitution Center. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1979.
Kant, Immanuel. The Philosophy of Law, W. Hastie, trans. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1887.[Page 470]
Korn, Richard R. and Lloyd W. McCorkle. Criminology and Penology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959.
Lamb, H. Richard and Linda E. Weinberger. Deinstitutionalization: Promise and Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
Lombroso, Cesare. Criminal Man, Nicole Rafter, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006.
Marion, Nancy E. and Willard M. Oliver. The Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
Martin, Gus. Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005.
Mauer, Marc and Meda Chesney-Lind. Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment. New York: New York Press, 2002.
Mays, G. Larry and L. Thomas Winfree, Jr. Essentials of Corrections, 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009.
Morris, N. and D. Rothman. The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Morris, Norval. The Future of Imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Murphy, Jeffrie G. Punishment and Rehabilitation, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 1985.
O'Brien, Patricia. Making It in the Free World: Women in Transition From Prison. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.
Packer, Herbert L. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968.
Parent, Dale. Day Reporting Centers for Criminal Offenders: A Descriptive Analysis of Existing Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1990.
Petersilia, Joan. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Phillipson, Coleman. Three Criminal Law Reformers: Beccaria, Bentham, Romilly. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith, 1970.
Pisciotta, A. W. Benevolent Repression: Social Control and the American Reformatory-Prison Movement. New York: New York University Press, 1994.
Roberts, John W. Reform and Retribution: An Illustrated History of American Prisons. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association, 1997.
Robinson, Paul H. Distributive Principles of Criminal Law: Who Should Be Punished, How Much? New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Sanborn, J. and A. Salerno. The Juvenile Justice System: Law and Process. Los Angeles: Roxbury, 2005.
Schneider, Richard D., Hy Bloom, and Mark Heerema. Mental Health Courts: Decriminalizing the Mentally Ill. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2006.
Simon, Jonathan. Poor Discipline: Parole and the Social Control of the Underclass, 1890 to 1990. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1993.
Solzhenitsyn, Alexander. The Gulag Archipelago. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.
Tonry, Michael and Kate Hamilton, eds. Intermediate Sanctions in Overcrowded Times. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1995.
Travis, Jeremy. But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 2005.
Tyler, Tom. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990.
Umbreit, Mark and Marilyn P. Armour. Restorative Justice Dialogue: An Essential Guide for Research and Practice. New York: Springer, 2010.
von Hirsch, Andrew. Censure and Sanctions. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Zimring, Franklin E. and Gordon Hawkins. Incapacitation: Penal Confinement and the Restraint of Crime. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
American Journal of Criminal Justice
American Journal of Family Therapy
American Journal of Legal History
American Historical Review
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Archives of General Psychiatry
Community College Journal of Research & Practice
Corrections Management Quarterly
Crime and Delinquency
Crime and Justice: A Review of Research
Criminal Justice and Behavior
Criminology and Public Policy
Critical Social Policy
Fordham Urban Law Journal
Hofstra Law Review
International Journal of Drug Policy
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
Journal of British Studies
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice[Page 471]
Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy
Journal of Crime and Justice
Journal of Criminal Justice
Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science
Journal of Negro History
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
Journal of the American Medical Association
Justice Policy Journal
Juvenile and Family Court Journal
Law and Contemporary Problems
Law and Human Behavior
Law and Inequality Journal
Law and Society Review
Legal and Criminological Psychology
Michigan Historical Review
National Drug Court Institute Review
National Institute of Justice Journal
New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Commitment
Perspectives on Policing
The Prison Journal
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
The Public Interest
Reviews in American History
Social Science Review
Stanford Law and Policy Review
Substance Use and Misuse
University of Chicago Law Review
University of Toronto Law Journal
Vermont Law Review
Victims and Offenders
William and Mary Law Review
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Canadian Addiction Research Foundation: http://www.peele.net/aab/arf.html
Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation: http://csvr.org.za
Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center: http://fjsrc.urban.org
Institute for the Study and Prevention of Violence: http://dept.kent.edu/ispv
International Law Enforcement: http://www.copnet.org
Juvenile Justice Trainers Association: http://www.jjta.org
Military School Alternatives: http://www.militaryschoolalternatives.com
Most Wanted Criminals and Fugitives: http://www.ancestorhunt.com/most-wanted-criminals-and-fugitives.htm
National Crime Prevention Council: http://www.ncpc.org
National Institute of Corrections: http://www.nicic.gov
National Rifle Association: http://home.nra.org
Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine: http://www.policemag.com
Probation Information: http://www.probationinfo.com
Quick Facts About the Bureau of Prisons: http://www.bop.gov/about/facts.jsp
Sexual Abuse Treatment: http://www.stopoffending.com
Teen Boot Camps: http://www.teenbootcamps.net
U.S. Parole Commission: http://www.justice.gov/uspc[Page 472]
The following selected Websites, along with editorial commentary, are provided for further research in community corrections.CEP: European Organisation for Probation
The CEP, an organization supported by the Directorate-General for Justice of the European Union, “aims to promote the social inclusion of offenders through community sanctions and measures such as probation, community service, mediation and conciliation. The CEP is committed to enhance the profile of probation and to improve professionalism in this field, on a national and a European level,” according to its Website. The CEP membership is composed of individuals and organizations working in or having an interest in probation and criminal justice. The CEP promotes cooperation among European countries on these matters by organizing conferences and publishing reports of those conferences as well as a newsletter and also acts as the “voice of probation” to the European Union and the Council of Europe. Organizations within 32 European countries are members of the CEP, and an interactive map provides links to the Websites of member organizations within each country as well as a summary of the probation system in each country. The CEP Website is written in English and French, and some CEP publications are also available in other European languages.
The “Knowledgebase” (http://www.cepprobation.org/page/58/knowledgebase) section of the CEP Website is a database that includes fact sheets (drawn from the comprehensive 2008 survey Probation in Europe by Anton van Kalmthout and Ioan Durnescu) that describe the probation systems in most European countries (including statistics and lists of relevant Websites), texts of European probation regulations, relevant articles, and presentations given at CEP events. Information within the “Knowledgebase” may be accessed by country or by keyword text search.
One section of the CEP Website is devoted to the Special Interest Group on Foreign National Prisoners, defined as “European citizens imprisoned outside their country of residence.” The purpose of this group, which is an umbrella organization comprised of member organizations, is to promote the welfare and interests of these individuals and facilitate their social reintegration. This section of the CEP Website (http://www.cepprobation.org/page/79/foreign-national-prisoners) explains the priorities of the Special Interest Group, lists members and their contact information, and includes a link to a downloadable copy (in PDF format) of the Good Practice Guide: Developing Services for European Citizens Detained Abroad, published by the CEP's Expert Group on Foreign Nationals.
The CEP publishes a newsletter that can be subscribed to through the Website. Links are provided on the Website to two other publications concerned with European probation issues: the European Journal of Probation and EuroVista: Probation and Community Justice. Articles from the European Journal of Probation may be downloaded for free, but articles from EuroVista must be purchased. The Website also contains information about CEP events (including four to five conferences held each year), links to funding programs relevant to European probation issues, a register of experts and training consultants in the field, and links to journals and organizations working in this field.[Page 474]Corrections and Public Safety (Pew Center on the States)
The Pew Charitable Trusts is a nonprofit, research-focused organization dedicated to improving public policy, informing the public, and stimulating civic life. According to its Website, the Pew Center on the States (PCS), a division of the Pew Charitable Trusts, “works to advance state policies that serve the public interest. PCS conducts credible research, brings together diverse perspectives, and analyzes states' experiences to determine what works and what does not. We work with a wide variety of partners to identify and advance nonpartisan, pragmatic solutions for pressing problems affecting Americans.” Corrections and public safety is one of the major areas of concern for the PCS (others include government performance, elections, voluntary home visiting, pre-K education, and children's dental health).
The Corrections and Public Safety Website is organized into four areas: reports, experts, related research, and related initiatives. The reports section includes downloadable, full-text documents of Pew Center reports (in PDF format) in five categories: prison population, community supervision, probation and parole, fiscal impact, and sentencing and courts. Calling up one of these reports on the Website often provides links to related information and research tools as well. For instance, on April 13, 2011, Pew published the report “State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America's Prisons,” which may be downloaded from the Website. Additional materials supplied with this report include a press release, a summary of key findings, an interactive map that allows readers to examine recidivism data by state, links to news media coverage of the report, a video, and a link to a biography of the director of Pew's Public Safety Performance Project. The experts section of the Website includes links to biographies of Pew staff members who have expertise in the area of public safety and corrections (as of 2011, these were Adam Gelb, Richard Jerome, and Jake Horowitz) and information about how to contact them. The final two sections include links to other Pew publications and initiatives related to public safety and corrections as well as links to related press releases and coverage of Pew reports in the news media.
Information on the PCS Website may be retrieved in several ways. These include a site-wide search engine, a site map, and a resource library that may be searched or browsed by category. Advanced searches may be limited by topic, state, resource type (e.g., fact sheet, report, press release, or news article), date, and keyword. Additional resources on this Website include a calendar of events, a general introduction to the Pew Center and its goals, and sections devoted to Pew initiatives (including the Public Safety Performance initiative).National Drug Court Institute
The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI), a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that began operation in 1998, is a professional services branch of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). The NDCI is supported by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and several entities within the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It performs and supports three main activities: education, research, and publication. In the realm of education the NDCI provides four tiers of training: Drug Court Planning Initiative training for local jurisdictional teams planning to implement a DWI (driving while intoxicated) or adult or family drug court; Comprehensive Drug Court Practitioner training, discipline-specific instruction for key drug court professionals, including judges, attorneys, treatment providers, law enforcement professionals, and individuals working in the fields of probation and parole; advanced subject-matter training, which addresses aspects of drug court operations such as long-term sustainability and responses to client behavior; and on-site and office-based technical assistance. In the area of research, the NDCI supports projects intended to help develop more effective procedures for drug courts and problem-solving courts. In the realm of publications, the NDCI disseminates publications aimed at improving drug court operations.
Information on the NDCI Website can be accessed in several ways. One is by the function of the person seeking information: An interface allows the user to select among 10 roles (case manager, defense attorney, probation officer, etc.) and be taken to information relevant to that role. Information is also organized into the categories of training, research, publications, and law. An interactive map on the Website allows users to search for drug courts in their state and [Page 475]provides local contact information. Several NDCI research reports are available for free download (in PDF format) from the Website, as are a number of brief fact sheets addressing topics such as synthetic cannabinoids and the application of the drug court model to cases of child maltreatment. Issues of the Drug Court Review, a professional journal published by the NDCI, are available for free download as well, and author guidelines and submission requirements are listed on the Website. Publications in the NDCI monograph series are also available for free download from the NDCI Website, as are issues of Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States, which has been published irregularly since 2004. The “Law” section of the Website includes a summary of judicial decisions relevant to drug courts, with links to the official record for each decision.Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (White House)
The Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships is part of the executive branch of the U.S. federal government; it was established in 2001 by President George W. Bush. The purpose of this office, according to its Website, is “to build bridges between the federal government and nonprofit organizations, both secular and faith-based, to better serve Americans in need.” These goals are achieved primarily by working through 12 agency centers located in different branches of the federal government: the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Congress, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Homeland Security, the Agency for International Development, the Department of Education, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Contact information, including Web links, for each of these agency centers is provided on the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships Website. This office also coordinates the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, a group of 25 leaders of nonsectarian and faith-based organizations that makes recommendations on ways the federal government can partner with community organizations.
The policy priorities of the office, according to its Website, are “strengthening the role of community organizations in the economic recovery; reducing unintended pregnancies, supporting maternal and child health, and reducing the need for abortion; promoting responsible fatherhood and strong communities, and promoting interfaith dialogue.” The Website includes sections that highlight activities focused on each of these priorities, with links to other state and federal initiatives with similar concerns. Although the office does not administer or manage grant programs, the Website includes links to federal grant programs that may be relevant to faith-based and neighborhood partnership programs. The office maintains a blog on its Website that includes reports of specific activities of the agency centers and their community partners, often containing video and links to related stories.
More information about faith-based and community initiatives within the Department of Justice (DOJ) can be found within the DOJ Website (http://www.justice.gov/archive/fbci/index.html), which outlines the history of the program and the efforts of the DOJ's Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives. The mission of the DOJ task force, according to its Website, is “to coordinate efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social services.” Currently there are four areas of focus for the DOJ task force: at-risk youth and gang prevention, domestic violence, prisoners and prisoner reentry, and victims of crime. The Website includes information about these areas of focus, funding opportunities, and conferences and events; it also includes links to a number of downloadable publications reporting on specific programs associated with the DOJ's Faith-based Task Force and offering advice about applying for partnership programs.United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), part of the Office of Justice Programs within the U.S. Department of Justice, was established in 1979. The mission of [Page 476]the BJS, according to its Website, is “To collect, analyze, publish, and disseminate information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice systems on all levels of government. These data are critical to federal, state, and local policymakers in combating crime and ensuring that justice is both efficient and evenhanded.” The BJS publishes annual data on criminal victimization, correctional populations and federal offenders, and case processing; it also publishes a number of periodic data series on topics such as characteristics of correctional populations, prosecutorial practices and policies, expenditures and employment in the field of criminal justice, state processing of civil cases, and other criminal justice topics. The BJS Website includes an interface that allows the user to subscribe, through e-mail or RSS, to a service that sends notification when new crime and justice statistical materials from the BJS, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) are available. BJS information is not copyrighted and may be freely distributed, copied, and reprinted. Many BJS publications and other products (e.g., press releases, data tables) are available for free download from the Website. These publications can be searched, viewed by product type or topic, or browsed alphabetically. A list of forthcoming publications and products is also available on the BJS Website. Graphs and data tables that clearly present basic historical statistics about topics of common interest (e.g., the number of adults incarcerated in the United States, the number of executions) are available in the “Key Facts” section of the Website (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfa).
Many BJS data sets are available for download from the Website. They are organized into eight categories: corrections, courts, crime type, Criminal Justice Data Improvement Program, employment and expenditure, federal, law enforcement, and victims. Each data set is accompanied by ancillary information such as status of the project, collection period, questionnaires used, related documentation and other publications, methodology used to collect the data, changes over time (for recurring data series), and links to related topics. For example, the Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey is an active project that has been conducted annually since 1980 (except 1991), with 2009 the latest year available. The information in this survey is collected from probation and parole agencies and is available at both the national and state level. The annual reports are available for download (in PDF format) for 1998 through 2009; for earlier years, the reports are available in paper format only. The BJS Website also includes several data analysis tools, some of which allow users to perform calculations and/or to create customized tables and graphs without needing to download data and analyze it in a spreadsheet or statistical program. Data sets that can be accessed this way include those from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, those from a BJS study on state prisoner recidivism, and various data from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Kennesaw State University