Implementing Community Corrections - A Study and a Rebuttal

• NCJ Number: 76977
• Author(s): K Denhardt; D J Palumbo; E B Sharp; P Wright; P McManus
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 56 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Kansas
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; University of Kansas
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Center for Public Affairs Monograph Series, Volume 1, no. 1.

Annotation

Showing why implementation of the Kansas Community Corrections Act (enacted in 1978) is failing, this monograph states that counties should be able to get grants from the State for small programs conducted on a trial basis.

Abstract

The monograph defines community corrections as an approach to handling offenders which has four elements: decentralization of authority from the State to local levels, citizen participation in program planning and policy-making, deinstitutionalization of offenders, and an emphasis upon rehabilitation through community programs. An assessment of the program is based on these elements, since it is not possible to evaluate it by using an aggregate measure such as recidivism or by measuring costs and benefits. An analysis of the act is conducted to show the sources of the implementation problems, and why counties are reluctant to implement the act. The act does not adequately provide for decentralization, citizen participation, deinstitutionalization, or rehabilitation of offenders. Also, it fails to provide unambiguous policy directives that structure the implementation process so as to increase the likelihood that target groups will perform as desired. Further, as it is now written, the act leads to several problems, some of which revolve around the interests of county governments. They include the tendency to take a 'wait-and-see' attitude, inclination to use the act to expand jail facilities, and the view that the State funds are inadequate. The monograph recommends changing the State's approach. The current act takes an all-or-nothing approach: counties must adopt a total program, or not participate at all. A categorical grant approach, modeled after the creative federalism policy of the 1960's, would enable counties to experiment with a variety of programs to see what works. As a result, counties would be much more likely to become involved in community corrections. A rebuttal, 2 footnotes, and 13 references are included. (Author abstract modified)