Statistics show that any criminal charge has some devastating effects to the offenders; moreover, those who have been charged for the first time face variety of collateral consequences and penalties if prosecuted again. Even if a person is put on a diversion program, the case and the arrest records are still made available to the public. As a result, such individuals are put in pretrial diversion programs. These programs reduce crime by examining the underlying problems that may have led to the individual engaging in the criminal behavior such as substance abuse and mental illness. Diversion programs are suitable for non-violent offenders because they are cost effective in terms of money generated through community restitution programs. In other words, the non-violent offenders are engaged in productive activities in the community (Clear, Reisig & Cole, 2015).

Moreover, non-violent offenders pay supervision fee which is used to cover the administrative costs for the prosecutor’s office. Besides the cost benefits, diversion programs are only suitable for first-time offenders who deserve a second chance for them to change their misdemeanor behavior. However, the diversion programs are not suitable for offenders charged with felonies and violent crimes because they can be of great liability to the jurisdiction implementing these programs. For example, misdiagnosis by the criminal justice personnel in an effort to include them in the diversion programs can lead to injuries to the communities, opening lawsuits upon the officers’ department. Furthermore, offenders of felonies are not eligible for the diversion programs because some of them are charged with class A or B felony; making them a threat to be within the community reach. Other violent offenders are charged with offenses that led to someone else’s death, or have previous records of conviction to a crime (Clear, Reisig & Cole, 2015).

In Texas, there are two correctional facilities that can benefit from diversion program. They include: Ernestine Glossbrenner Unit and Ellen Halbert Unit (female facility). The two facilities are used for offenders who have been charged with substance abuse. The two units have been used as correctional facilities for offenders who commit non-violent charges such as alcoholism and substance abuse. In addition, the two units have been engaging its inmates in community service programs that are intended to help the offenders get help from the close community through counseling. Ellen Halbert Unit has also been providing medical treatment for those offenders who suffer from mental illness and helping them to recover through continuous examination by professional medical personnel (Clear, Reisig & Cole, 2015).

The private correctional facilities are not better alternatives to public facilities. Many critiques have criticized private correctional facilities from the economic, social, criminological and religious views. Same as any other organization, private correctional facilities are for-profit organizations which tend to reduce the costs of essential services in prisons. For example, since the mid 1980s, many private correctional facilities in United States have been criticized for under provision of food, clothing, medical care, staff costs and security. As a result, private correctional facilities have endangered the lives of the securities, prison staffs, inmates and the public. For example, in 2007, at West Texas juvenile prison, it was found that the inmates were living in filth. The Texas Youth Commission (TYC) which was in charge of monitoring the facility found that due to the privatization and the chase for profitable contract, the inmates live horrific conditions. TYC found some fecal matter in the shoes of inmates which they had to wipe it out of their feet on the grass (English & Baxter, 2010). Recent studies have shown that more prison guards work under low pay rates and budgetary costs which have resulted in high turnover. In some cases, medical departments struggle with inadequate supply of medical equipment and drugs for the treatment of patients. In other cases, prison workers operate for long hours with little or no advance salary to cover their needs while they are in the prison environment; resulting to lay-offs and attrition (Lazovich, Forster, Widome & VanCoevering, 2007). Some of these budgetary constraints that the prison workers face make them to turn to illegal activities such as smuggling of ecstasy pills and tobacco (Kish & Lipton, 2013). In addition, United States has introduced several balance checks for ensuring there is proper funding and proper recidivism in prisons. Some of these trades-offs (balance checks) include grant funding which has helped by reducing the costs of recidivism random drug tests and ensuring that they meet certain conditions of community services. Grant funding has facilitated reduction of recidivism by enabling the prisons to deploy supervision policies and practices which have helped the offenders to restrain from repeating the criminal behavior (Volokh, 2013).

Corrections such as community program services, reentry strategies and parole and probation face a number of challenges or issues. One of the biggest challenges that correctional officers face is the lack of funding. Some community service programs may not have enough funds that may be needed to meet the medical need of some offenders especially those that charged with substance abuse (Clear, Reisig & Cole, 2015).

Most prisons and correctional replacement rely on three major components of operation which include organization structure, production and the problem and opportunities unique to the prison industry. The organization component is concerned with the issues organization structure, personnel (workers) and financial management. The production component involves inmates’ safety, supervision and incentives and compensations. Lastly, the prison is concerned with identifying problems and opportunities that could be unique such as the private sector involvement and developing relationship with other correctional programs. The Building Component Life Cycle Repair is a good example of a specific a management based institutional facility that can be used for offenders serving long jail terms. The model has been proved to be eligible for certain types of activities that should help inmates have a positive change in their behavior (Clear, Reisig & Cole, 2015).

References

Clear, T., Reisig, M., & Cole, G. (2015). American corrections. Belmont: Cengage Learning

English, L., & Baxter, J. (2010). The Changing Nature of Contracting and Trust in Public-Private

Partnerships: The Case of Victorian PPP Prisons. ABACUS, 46(3), 289-319

Kish, R.J., & Lipton, A.F. (2013). Do Private Prisons Really Offer Savings Compared With

Their Public Counterparts? Institute of Economic Affairs, 33(1), 94-107

Lazovich, D., Forster, J., Widome, R., & VanCoevering, P. (2007). Tobacco possession, use, and

purchase laws and penalties in Minnesota: Enforcement, tobacco diversion programs, and youth awareness. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 9(1), 58-64

Volokh, A. (2013). Prison Accountability and Performance Measures. Emory Law Journal,

63(339), 340-416

Need assistance with this?