options ( e . g ., assessment and treatment referrals , motivational interviewing , employment and educational assistance , and support and mentoring ) ( Paparozzi , 2003 ).
A shift away from rehabilitation to a more punitive model has emerged in tandem with public opinion favoring more punitive strategies ( e . g ., capital punishment , three-strikes laws , mandatory minimums ) ( Beckett , 1997 ; Pratt , 2000 ). Cullen , Fisher , and Applegate ( 2000 : 79 ) highlight the strange coupling of get-tough and transformative policies , as more of the public wants “ the correctional system to achieve the diverse missions of doing justice , protecting public safety , and reforming the wayward ” ( also , see Applegate , 2001 ; Bouley and Wells , 2001 ). No other branch of the criminal justice system is more affected by this bifurcated crime control policy shift than community corrections agencies . Public scrutiny and diminishing resources require community corrections agencies to maximize potential positive outcomes of offender programs . They must invest resources in the most cost-effective methods to decrease the potential for sanction stacking and ensure that the conditions of supervision are reasonable , realistic , and research based .
back to top
References
The articles and reviews that appear in Federal Probation express the points of view of the persons who wrote them and not necessarily the points of view of the agencies and organizations with which these persons are affiliated . Moreover , Federal Probation ' s publication of the articles and reviews is not to be taken as an endorsement of the material by the editors , the Administrative Office of the U . S . Courts , or the Federal Probation and Pretrial Services System . Published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts www . uscourts . gov Publishing Information