Alternatives to Incarceration
Nicole Kimble
Professor White
CRJ 180
December 4, 2015

In examining the underlying historical and economic reasons behind the quest for alternatives to incarcerating offenders in jails and prisons, “between 1972 and 2010, the United States prison population increased exponentially from fewer than 200,000 prisoners to more than 1.6 million. Including, jails, the United States now incarcerates approximately 2.3 million people on any given day. By 2012, one in 108 American adults had been incarcerated. During these decades, the contours of American exceptionalism expanded as the United States acquired the distinction of leading incarcerator of the world.” (Eaglin, J pp.1845) I would also like to add that the “Model Penal Code takes an important stride toward fundamental thinking as it refocuses economic sanctions around the goal of successful reintegration into society. There is reason to believe that the broader public and political has not similarly reoriented itself around this framework, despite the apparent shift towards rehabilitative reforms. Neorehabilitaive reforms maintain the dame framework of exclusion that created policies that increased prison populations even though the rhetoric of reform has changed. So to speak, “unless and until the public politicians develop the will to fund a reintegrative system, economic sanctions may be another alternative to incarceration implemented in the wrong way despite the ally’s efforts to the contrary.” (Eaglin, J pp. 1851) In regards to describing alternatives to incarceration that juvenile courts currently use, some of the best practices point to “the use of standardized risk-assessment instruments, which can objectively determine which young people pose a danger to society. Such assessments can limit and target the use of detention and secure placement and make the use of confinement more equitable. A growing body of research shows that youth in programs such as Multisystemic Therapy—intensive intervention that works with youth in the context of their families and communities—have far better behavioral outcomes than youth who are sent away from home to prisonlike facilities.7 The combination of risk assessments, community-based alter natives to incarceration, and related reform efforts has helped many localities reduce their use of confinement. Connecticut, for one, decreased its residential commitments by 68 percent between 2000 and 2011, its average daily population in pretrial detention by 29 percent between 2006 and 2011, and its reliance on adult prison for juveniles by 63 percent between January 2007 and July 2012.8 For youth who appear to pose a significant risk to public safety, small facilities that are near the young people’s own communities and are focused on positive youth development show better results than their large, institutional counterparts. Some additional information to note is, the state of Missouri has received national attention for its work in this area.” (Salich, pp. 27) Finally, in discussing the significant societal and individual benefits of imposing sanctions or punishments that do not involve removing an offender from his/her family or community is where I believe probation comes into play. “Provide clear communication about offender responsibility and expectations. The emphasis of the case plan should be on expectations; what does the offender need to do and in what time frame? Offender accountability is key, but it can only be accomplished when the offender understands the rules and expectations; the offender needs to be part of the process of establishing these accountability standards. A behavioral contract is an excellent tool.” (Taxman, F pp. 43, 44) “Monitor progress in a timely fashion. A case plan is only as good as the feedback given to the offender. The goal should be to have the offender self-monitor progress as well as report progress to the supervision staff. This should not be done in an authoritarian manner, but with a focus on recognizing the small steps that advance progress. Monitoring requires the supervision staff to be non-judgmental. Setting a limited number of expectations at a time facilitates the work with the offender by having the offender and officer develop a trusting relationship. Small relapses or slips should be used as an opportunity to revisit the risk and need assessment tools and refine the case plan.” (Taxman, F. pp. 44)

References
Eaglin, J. M. (2015). Improving Economic Sanctions in the States. Minnesota Law Review, 99(5), 1837-1870.

Salsich, A. (2013). Alternatives to Youth Incarceration. Communities & Banking, 24(4), 26-28.

Taxman, F. (2009). Effective community punishments in the United States: probation. Criminal Justice Matters, 75(1), 42-44. doi:10.1080/09627250802699830