Introduction
Correction centers for crime offenders exist in an assorted list. They may include recreation, trial, parole, public duty and penalty alternatives. Majority of the type of systems command little attention from the society and hence do not usually cause public upheaval. Public duty like sweeping or mowing the lawn may pass without the public noticing the offender being punished. However, offenders on parole are distinct and are noticeable. This is due to their nature of crimes which is considered graver and they may be required to be put into custody. Apart from jail, there are houses set apart as intermediaries before their ultimate release back into the society. These houses serve as correctional places where the offender is trained into a responsible person to fit into the public. These houses are located in the community neighborhoods. This has caused anxiety and dilemma in the minds of the society members. This phenomenon dates back to ancient times where criminals were put together with other community members in the same neighborhood (Benzvy-Miller, 2007)
Nowadays, there is an upward focus on utilizing public rectifications as opposed to imprisonment. The quest for optional custody systems has become a global practice. Evidently, if the houses are to be used in holding an offender, the concerned officials need to be very inventive in putting up these systems. If the intermediate houses are to help as alternatives to prison term, then the community concern should be investigated thoroughly (Benzvy-Miller, 2007)
There has been a trend to build up a localized court method that has a spotlight beyond the finding, capture and sentencing of the wrongdoer. Disagreement decisions and curative fair dealings are utilized as a method of endorsing the lawbreaker, hence making a ruling or healing the damage committed on an injured party or the society. This may also involve society founded difficulty resolution to avoid potential offensive acts. The trial outfit and the society in collaboration take a practical and precautionary standpoint in their advance towards society’s protection and wellbeing requirements (Shilton, 2003)
In the entire mission to form the halfway houses in the communities, there has to be an investigation prior to the installation to ensure chances of success. Society engagement and involvement will create awareness and amicable acceptance of the intermediate houses by the community. If the members are at ease with the proposed houses they will readily accept the program. Awareness should be created on the reasons for having the intermediate houses and if they can accommodate the houses in their community. Conversely, there can be a sense of safety fears. The idea of criminals mingling with the society is not readily understood by most people. Control of the wrongdoer’s actions by the officers cannot be trusted by the society members fully (Shilton, 2003)
The public also fails to look at the exercise as a durable undertaking. There is a focus on their own safety as opposed to the overall ease to return to normalcy by the wrongdoer. Apart from the awareness creation, the public should also be involved in the program so as to understand what outcomes are intended. This can be done through volunteering, offering career talks and other social duties of a society (Shilton, 2003)
Confidence in those managing the program is also vital to the success of the process. Involvements of locals in the program who are conversant with the community stand a better chance of succeeding. Provision of needs such as medicines, expertise, religious uplifting, and education among others are important for the community to consider when accepting the intermediate houses. Societies may oppose the setting up of intermediate houses due to the contribution requirements. This nonetheless, can be avoided by the institution of a neighborhood working group to provide conduits to required duties, decision on specific jobs and passing information to the members (Shilton, 2003)
Communities tend to reject proposals of projects if they do not see the benefits that will come out of the project. Advantages such as roads, clean up and other infrastructural developments can impact the community positively. As opposed to running down of existing systems, the intermediate houses can upgrade existing infrastructure to benefit the society. Most programs have these advantages in their strategies but do not make them public. This impacts negatively as the community tends to assume them and take them as obvious. Location of the facilities should be outside of the living areas. This should be observed to avoid the community rejection of the project (Shilton, 2003)
Prior assessment of the neighborhood will give the correctional officers an outlook of the community. From this they can form a strategy to build into the area with preceding communication with the people. Each society has its own unique way of life. Knowledge of this will enable the provider plan in accordance with what is present in the community. People tend to resist what is foreign to them. Experiences with intermediate houses should be ascertained beforehand. This will give the provider a platform to build upon. Societies who have had bad experiences with the houses will tend to reject the proposals. However, education on the overall assistance can create a chance of acceptance (Shilton, 2003)
Conclusion
Intermediate houses for criminals and other offenders are necessary to a society. The people will likely benefit from the increased infrastructure and increased skill set into the labor grid. To the criminals, they tend to serve their terms within the society and feel accommodated hence healing and correcting their ways faster.
As much as the idea is welcomed, societies tend to fail due to the approach taken. Awareness creation is a vital part in the project success.
Work Cited
Benzvy-Miller, S. Forum on Corrections Research: Community Corrections and the NIMBY Syndrome. 2007. Web.
Shilton, M. Siting Halfway Houses – some suggestions for Correctional Professionals: Selected Readings and References. 2003. Web.