Community Corrections Program - Department of Justice Services Internal Audit Report

• NCJ Number: 78829
• Author(s): J A Lansing
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 57 pages
• Corporate Author: Multnomah Cty
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Internal Audit Report number 1-80

Annotation

Findings and recommendations are presented from an internal audit of the Community Corrections Program in Multnomah County, Oreg.

Abstract

Despite intentions expressed in the Community Corrections Act and in the county's own adopted plans, the program is not giving enough emphasis to diverting Class C felons to community-based programs and services. The focus of the county's initial community corrections plan, drafted largely by citizens in 1978, differed widely from the revised budget adopted piecemeal by the Board of County Commissioners during 1978-79 fiscal year. Board policy emphasizes covering the costs of traditional institutional care rather than the costs of alternatives to incarceration envisioned by the 1977 Community Corrections Act and the county's 1978 and 1979 plans. The audit showed that internal fiscal control weaknesses -- late phasing-in of contracts for community-based services, unresolved conflicts between initial program plans and actual expenditures, and poor morale among program managers -- have hampered the start-up of the county's Community Corrections Program. Ambiguities in the law itself, which caused misunderstandings between citizens and corrections personnel, are the subject of an anticipated Attorney General's opinion. Conclusions about the appropriateness of interpretations by State and county corrections officials about the use of reimbursement and construction funds will depend on the results of that opinion. It is recommended that (1) more money be allocated to community-based alternatives for Class C felons; (2) management responsibilities, goals, and priorities for community corrections be clarified; (3) the county's plan be rewritten to reflect more accurately board priorities; (4) deficient fiscal and accounting controls systems be upgraded; and (5) an annual progress report be issued. In addition to tabular data in the report's body, supplementary data and information bearing upon community corrections operations are appended. (Author abstract modified)