NCJ Number
74441
Date Published
1980
Length
12 pages
Annotation
Sources of confusion in setting corrections policy are identified, and some guidelines for policymaking are offered, with emphasis on humane treatment and alternatives to incarceration.
Abstract
Correctional policy has often been confusing for the following reasons: (1) too many of the innovations of the fifties and sixties failed the test of effectiveness as measured by recidivism rates; (2) public skepticism and distrust of corrections undermined corrections administrators' confidence in their own policies; (3) profound social and economic changes have created problems which resist solutions; and (4) reform movements from outside the corrections system placed the correctional administrator on the defensive, handicapping the articulation of a positive program. In the midst of the confusion, the recommended approach is to set manageable goals, with efforts toward them measured by realistic criteria. While reduced recidivism may be the overall aim of corrections, it is unrealistic to make it the criteria of effectiveness for every corrections program. Concepts of humane treatment of inmates and the preparation of offenders for positive contributions to the community and their families must continue to infuse correctional efforts even though failures inevitably occur; otherwise, stagnation and deterioration are the alternatives. Further, corrections policy must be responsive to enlightened methods of social control, notable in the areas of prison architecture and corrections administration. Policy must also take into account fiscal realities, which dictate a reduction in prison populations. Program policy must aim at developing effective alternatives to imprisonment, particularly for low-risk and nondangerous offenders. Two references are provided.