Historically, community corrections has been based on models of diversion, advocacy, and reintegration. Increases in crime and more high-risk offenders being sentenced to probation have led to emphases on control and surveillance, and “just deserts,” adversary, and restitution models have replaced the original models. The author argues for strategies of internalization, reintegrative shaming, and victim-offender reconciliation for a comprehensive community corrections model promoting change in the offender, the correctional process, and the community.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albanese, Jay S.
, Bernadette A. Fiore, Jerie H. Powell, and Janet R. Storti. 1981. Is Probation Working?Washington, DC: University Press of America.
2.
Allen, Francis A.
1981. The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal. New Haven: Yale University Press.
3.
Allen, Harry E.
, Chris W. Eskridge, Edward J. Latessa, and Gennaro F. Vito. 1985. Probation and Parole in America. New York: Free Press.
4.
Austin, James
and Barry Krisberg. 1981. “Wider, Stronger and Different Nets: The Dialectics of Criminal Justice Reform.”Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency18:165-196.
5.
Barkdall, Walter
, 1976. “Probation: Call It Control-and Mean It!”Federal Probation40:3-8.
6.
Becker, Howard S.
1963. Outsiders. New York: Free Press.
7.
Braithwaite, John
. 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Byrne, James
. 1986. “The Control Controversy: A Preliminary Examination of Intensive Probation Supervision in the United States.”Federal Probation50:4-16.
9.
Byrne, James
. 1989. “Reintegrating the Concept of Community into Community-Based Corrections.”Crime & Delinquency35:471-499.
10.
Clear, Todd R.
and Vincent O'Leary. 1983. Controlling the Offender in the Community. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
11.
Coates, Robert B.
1990. “Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs in North America: An Assessment.” Pp. 125-134 in Criminal Justice, Restitution and Reconciliation, edited by B. Galaway and J. Hudson. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
12.
Conrad, John
. 1984. “The Redefinition of Probation: Drastic Proposals to Solve an Urgent Problem.” Pp. 251-273 in Probation and Justice: Reconsideration of Mission, edited by P. McAnany, D. Thomson, and D. Fogel. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain.
13.
Cullen, Francis T.
, Faith E. Lutze, Bruce G. Link, and Nancy Travis Wolfe. 1989. “The Correctional Orientation of Prison Guards: Do Officers Support Rehabilitation?”Federal Probation53:33-42.
14.
Currie, Elliott
. 1985. Confronting Crime. New York: Pantheon.
15.
Dean-Myrda, Mark
and Francis T. Cullen. 1985. “The Panacea Pendulum: An Account of Community as a Response to Crime.” Pp. 9-29 in Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections, edited by L. F. Travis III. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
16.
Dell'Apa, Frank
, Tom W. AdamsJames D. Jorgenson, and Herbert R. Sigurdson. 1976. “Advocacy, Brokerage, Community: The ABC's of Probation and Parole.”Federal Probation40:37-44.
17.
Duffee, David E.
and Edmund F. McGarrell. 1990. Community Corrections. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
18.
Erwin, Billie S.
and Lawrence A. Bennett. 1987. “New Dimensions in Probation: Georgia's Experience with Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS).”Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
19.
Fogel, David
. 1975. We Are the Living Proof-The Justice Model of Corrections. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
20.
Galaway, Burt
and Joe Hudson, eds. 1990. Criminal Justice, Restitution, and Reconciliation. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
21.
Gibbons, Don C.
1988. The Limits of Punishment as Social Policy. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
22.
Gottfredson, Stephen
and Ralph Taylor. 1984. “Public Policy and Prison Populations: Measuring Opinions about Reform.”Judicature68:190-201.
23.
Harris, M. Kay
. 1987. “Observations of a `Friend of the Court' on the Future of Probation and Parole.”Federal Probation51:12-21.
24.
Jacobs, James B.1978. “What Prison Guards Think: A Profile of the Illinois Force.”Crime & Delinquency24:185-196.
25.
Knapp, Kay A.1982. “Impact of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines on Sentencing Practices.”Hamline Law Review5:237-256.
26.
Kelman, Herbert
. 1958. “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change.”Journal of Conflict Resolution2:51-60.
27.
Latessa, Edward
. 1986. “The Cost Effectiveness of Intensive Supervision.”Federal Probation50:70-74.
28.
Lawrence, Richard
. 1984. “Professionals or Judicial Civil Servants? An Examination of the Probation Officer's Role.”Federal Probation48:14-21.
29.
Lawrence, Richard
. 1990. “Restitution as a Cost-Effective Alternative to Incarceration.” Pp. 207-216 in Criminal Justice, Restitution, and Reconciliation, edited by B. Galaway and J. Hudson. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
30.
Lawrence, Richard
and Shelva Johnson. 1990. “Effects of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines on Probation Agents.”Journal of Crime and Justice13:77-104.
31.
Lemert, Edwin M.
1972. Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control, 2nd ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
32.
Lipton, Douglas
, Robert Martinson, and Judith Wilks. 1975. The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies. New York: Praeger.
33.
Lurigio, Arthur J.1990. “Introduction” (to Special Issue: “Intensive Probation Supervision: An Alternative to Prison in the 1980s”). Crime & Delinquency36:3-5.
34.
Martinson, Robert
. 1974. “What Works?—Questions and Answers about Prison Reform”The Public Interest35:22-54.
35.
McAnany, Patrick
, Doug Thomson, and David Fogel, eds. 1984. Probation and Justice: Reconsideration of Mission. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain.
36.
McCarthy, Belinda
, ed. 1987. Intermediate Punishments: Intensive Supervision, Home Confinement and Electronic Surveillance. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
37.
McShane, Marilyn D.
and Frank P. Williams III. 1989. “Running on Empty: Creativity and the Correctional Agenda.”Crime & Delinquency35:562-576.
38.
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission
. 1989. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary. St. Paul: Author.
39.
Morris, Norval
and Michael Tonry. 1990. Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals
. 1973. Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
41.
O'Leary, Vincent
and David Duffee. 1971. “Correctional Policy Models: A Classification of Goals Designed for Change.”Crime & Delinquency17:373-386.
42.
Parent, Dale G.
1988. Structuring Criminal Sentences: The Evolution of Minnesota's Sentencing Guidelines. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth Legal Publishers.
43.
Petersilia, Joan
. 1990. “Conditions That Permit Intensive Supervision Programs to Survive.”Crime & Delinquency36:126-145.
44.
Petersilia, Joan
, Susan Turner, James Kahan, and Joyce Peterson. 1985. Granting Felons Probation: Public Risks and Alternatives. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
45.
Reiss, Albert J., Jr.
1986. “Why are Communities Important in Understanding Crime?” Pp. 1-33 in Communities and Crime, edited by A. J. Reiss and M. Tonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
Rosett, Arthur
and Donald R. Cressey. 1976. Justice by Consent. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
47.
Schur, Edwin M.
1965. Crimes without Victims. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
48.
Symkla, John
. 1981. Community-Based Corrections: Principles and Practices. New York: Macmillan.
49.
von Hirsch, Andrew
. 1976. Doing Justice. New York: Hill & Wang.
50.
von Hirsch, Andrew
and Kathleen Hanrahan. 1978. Abolish Parole?Washington, DC: National Institution of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
