View Record Details
|Title||Minnesota Community Corrections Act Evaluation, General Report|
Strathman, Gerald J.
|Abstract||The summary explains the need for the evaluation by the great impact of the Act on corrections in Minnesota. For example, the annual subsidy eligibility for CCA areas is over $13 million, and about 3,000 new adult felony dispositions and 7,000 juvenile petitions result in CCA county supervision each year. Thus the evaluation results are needed by State and county officials, by legislators who must make decisions on funding and on modifying CCA structure and requirements, and by the Deparment of Corrections which is responsible for the administration of the act. The summary examines the conceptual framework used in the evaluation. This includes identification of three objectives which follow directly from provisions of the act. They are conceptualized as contributing to three goals of the CCA: public protection, economy, and appropriate treatment of offenders. For example, the objective of the increase in programming activity at the local level (so that fewer offenders would require commitment to State institutions where the cost of incarceration is very high) contributes to the goal of promoting economy in the delivery of correctional services. Two outcomes are also identified: efficiency or the relationship between costs and public protection, and social justice, the balance of societal and offender interests. The summary describes the evaluation methods, process, and findings for each objective, goal, and outcome. The procedures employed in the evaluations include mail surveys, interviews and analysis of documents such as comprehensive plans, court disposition data and arrest, and conviction data. In general, two factors appear to hinder the success of such legislation: correctional legislation is relatively ineffective in significantly changing sentencing practices, and local administration of corrections services is expensive. Further, in Minnesota, legislation was implemented in a State that already practiced community corrections and the alternative to prison source|
|Producer||United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice|
|Place of Production||Washington, DC|
This publication is related to the following dataset(s):