Assignment Writing Help on Most Effective Community-Based Programs

Most Effective Community-Based Programs

There are several ways of reducing recidivism available for any state that wishes to avert the ordeal. One of the strategies is the establishment of halfway house programs. It presents an opportunity for the newly discharged inmate to entangle and review the laws and regulations in the country in order to avoid recidivism. Physical evidence example of these programs that have been very successful in incorporating convict back to the society is the balling booth and Maud booth programs in New York that were set out in the year 1896. It allowed reintegration of prisoners to the community where they went in and out of prison without stringent rules being imposed upon them.

The next program involves the metropolitan residential programs where law offenders are housed in developed areas. The healing process is facilitated by the availability of modern facilities in the urban areas that increases the rate of reintegration. A research carried out in the year 2005 by Ohio department of youth services found out that there were high instances of moderate risk that faced youths housed in Ohio department of youth services firms finding their way back to the justice system than those located in places where community was involved in the healing process (Young, Taxman, Byrne, University of Maryland, & College Park, 2002).

Case Summary

In the event of helping individual re-entry to the community, the federal department of justice in the United States has come up with the following initiatives to facilitate the process. The first investment includes the reentry partnership initiatives (RPI) that unites social services, criminal justice and community groups in dealing with reentry problems. The second initiative is about re-entry courts that are established to deal with ex-inmate drug related cases, the last one is about weed, and seed based reentry partnerships. Participation in reentry initiatives involves citizen’s representatives including guardian, family members, and community advocates motivated to enhance the transition process and reintegration of inmates to the society (Schmalleger, 2012). The reason as to why the community must be involved in these initiatives is that the informal control agents found in the society is superior to the formal control agents. The two factor agents are different in the way they conduct their reunion process in terms of procedures and process. Therefore, it is essential to incorporate them for efficient and effective administration of justice. Formal agents include the correction agencies, prosecutors, parole officers, board, and the police.

On the other hand, informal agents incorporate friends, clergy, service providers, victims, neighbors, family, business people, and employees. Informal group is inherently connected and related to the inmate thus the healing process start when they engage and contact with a positive motive to change the offender’s behavior. Reaction of the member of the community determines the motivation level of the offender and the rate of reintegration. At this point if a person was offended by the accused, reentry programs provides grounds for forgiveness and transformation where the two parties agree to forget about the past (Robert Jonson, Konopasky, & Hans Toch, 2010). This manifestation reduces the feelings of revenge to the offenders consequently resulting to lower level of recidivism.

However, there are problems that face these initiatives in the United States while reuniting prisoners to the community. One of the challenges is that an offender may go back to his usual behavior when undergoing reentry. Having ones relative in the program increases the risk of slipping back to the old behaviors that led to the conviction. Structural factors in the United States justice system are rigid to procedural behavioral change in the sense that a prisoner is subjected to formal change in behaviors (Chastain & Moyano, 2010). In the event, they are released through reentry initiatives they exhibit behaviors that conform to formal corrections attributes. These attributes are slowly disillusioned as they entangle with other members in the society.

Recently, there has been development of community policing to give a chance to the community to deal with the issues of security culminating from the release of prisoners. Most of the prisoners have changed their lives and thirty percent are now serving as advisors and clergymen (Bobbie Huskey, 2010). This transformation is central to the development of the country’s economy in the sense that there is reduction in the recidivism budget. They become community advisors in cases of drug and substance abuse.

Case Analysis

Changes need to be done on the side of procedural compliance to behavior change when carrying out the reentry program for offender so that they are reintegrated at ease. It is because of the dire need of maintaining the new status of the ex-prisoner who is likely to find his or her way back to the old behaviors.

Executive Decision

Opening of a halfway house in my neighborhood will facilitates the act of curbing recidivism of some of the newly released offenders. On the contrary, there will be increased cases of conflicts between the community and the ex-prisoners. When they are put together, they practice the crimes that they learned while in prison. I would support this initiative because it would bring changes to many lives of young and old people.


Bobbie Huskey, L. (2010). Community Residential Correctional Programs. InCommunity corrections (pp. 301-330). Los Angeles: Sage.

Chastain, G., & Moyano, F. (2010). Corrective measures: Volume 2. Rockford, IL: Arcana Studio.

Robert Jonson, Konopasky, R. J., & Hans Toch. (2010). Special Population in Community Corrections. In Juvenile sexual offending: Causes, consequences, and correction (pp. 332-350). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schmalleger, F. (2012). Criminal justice: A brief introduction. Boston: Prentice Hall.

Young, D. W., Taxman, F. S., Byrne, J. M., University of Maryland, & College Park. (2002). Engaging the community in offender reentry. College Park, MD: Bureau of Governmental Research.