Community Corrections 291Corrections Center had five escapes. Citizen anxiety rose because tracking down
these prisoners was not handled well by local law enforcement.
All of these problems, stemming from the placrnent of a prison into a com-
munity, led to several consequences. Employees of the prison were not welcomed
into the community; therefore, they established residencies in other communities.
There were also arguments and physical confrontations between residents and em-
ployees of the prison at local facilities. In addition, employee turnover was high
at the prison, in part fueled by the tensions in the community. Finally, long-time
residents of Clallam Bay moved away from the town, citing concerns generated
by the new prison. K. A. Carlson (1992) points out that "the institution cannot
separate itself from its locale, and community problems will have institutional con-
sequences" (p. 67). She also states that in order for a community to accept a prison,
the public must believe that the benefits will outweigh the deficits, as they will
perceive any assurances made as promises, even if they are not in writing. This is
exactly what happened with George. He thought a promise was made that the boys
would be under 24-hour supervision, and when he discovered that they were not.
he became hostile toward the group home. With the Clallam Bay example, the
residents perceived several promises of which none were kept.
Prisons are not the only operations that require community support. Comm-
unity-based programs must also find supporters within local enclaves. The notion
of community corrections began in the late 1970s as an alternative to prison, given
a desire for neighborhood-based care instead of institutional treatment. This shift
created a negative response by communities and led to active efforts to prevent
group homes and the like. (P. Solomon, 1983). At their inception, community
programs were less expensive than prisons and seemed to leaci to lower recidivism
rates, although more refined studies question the latter notion (Sigler & Lamb,
1995). Elrod and Brown (1996) state that "successful implementation of community
correctional programs is frequently dependent on either the tacit or overt approval
of citizens who are often reluctant to accept offenders within their community"
(p. 462). Researchers believe that lack of public support can even harm the ability
of community corrections programs to reintegrate offenders.
Although criminal offenders are not the only population requiring community
programs, they are among the least acceptable populations, along with troubled
adolescents, the mentally ill, and alcohol and drug abusers according to residents.
Several reasons for opposing homes for such groups include fears of making the
neighborhood more dangerous, worries that these individuals would bother resi-
dents, and dislike of such persons or groups in family neighborhoods (P. Solomon,
1983). Other reasons found were fear of a reduction in property values and increased
traffic in the neighborhood (Arens, 1993; Cook, 1997; Wahl, 1993).
In several studies examining residential attitudes about group homes located in
neighborhoods, it was found that none of the expressed fears occurred and that
community members actually experienced no problems with the group home.
Arens (1993) found that although over one-third of respondents initially perceived