Neighborhood Opportunity Network Analysis

Currently, NYC is experimenting with an alternative to incarceration called Neighborhood Opportunity Networks (NeON). These centers are part of a new model of community centric corrections programs known as justice reinvestment. Reinvestment programs are intended to reduce recidivism and reroute the money that would have been spent on incarceration to crime prevention programs instead. (Clear, et al, 2012). The Department of Probation (DOP) has begun placing NeON facilities in communities with the highest concentrations of residents sentenced to probation. The goal is to save money by diverting offenders from prison and providing services and opportunities for them to become successful members of their communities. The motto of NeON centers
is “Doing No Harm, Doing More Good, and Doing it in the Community” (McGarry, Yaroni, & Addie, 2104).
The intent of NeON centers is to benefit individual probationers and at the same time benefit the whole community by keeping families together and providing direction, education, and other needed services.
NeON centers have a friendlier and more welcoming design, shorter waiting room times, staff refers to probationers “clients”, and most locations share facilities with other social service agencies (Urban Omnibus, 2012). These changes are all intended to create a more welcoming and environment, reduce stress levels, prevent probationers from missing entire days of work or school to see their probation officer, and provide needed services such as housing and job services. By putting these centers physically closer to people who most regularly use them, both officers managing cases and those on probation can benefit. When probation
centers and officers are located miles from a probationer’s community it is difficult for officers to be “familiar with services and supports available in their clients’ neighborhoods, nor about their quality”. (McGarry, Yaroni, & Addie, 2104) Officers managing probation cases in NeON centers can work more effectively to create relationships with local community members including business owners, police, religious leaders, and service providers. These relationships help officers provide personalized and localized connections and answers to probationer’s questions and needs. It is a huge benefit that NeOn centers actively organizations in the area that are willing to hire people on probation. (Urban Omnibus, 2012).“It’s not just about creating offices that are located much closer to where people on probation actually live and work, it’s also about connecting them to nearby partner organizations that can help them get a job, further their education, improve their health, and strengthen their family and neighborhood.” (McGarry, Yaroni, & Addie, 2104).
Greenpoint, Brooklyn, where I live, has a relatively low crime rate (put .gov reference here) so I believe the number of local residents sentenced to probation is quite low.
My neighborhood would, as of now, not be the most effective place for testing a NeON facility. Also, I believe that building a NeOn facility in my neighborhood would cause some controversy. There has been an ongoing controversy over three homeless shelters that exists in my neighborhood. There is resistance to these shelters from the local community because there have been multiple complaints of excessive noise, street harassment, public drunkenness, and public urination attributed to some shelter residents. There have been a few community meetings with the local councilperson to try and improve communication and resolve outstanding complaints about the shelters, especially the management of one in particular. A shelter is different from a NeON facility, but I think local residents in my neighborhood would, at this time, likely object to a center for people on probation due to their current experiences with the shelters. It may be wrong to assume all organizations perform the same, but in order for a NeON center to be successful here, the Department of Probation would need to work closely with residents to communicate and dispels fears about this new type of facility and its
intentions.
In spite of the issues with the local homeless shelters, Greenpoint can be a supportive place. We have public community gardens, food banks, markets for local artists, as well as frequent fundraisers and clothing drives for less fortunate residents, and the majority of local stores and businesses is independently owned and operated. If the Department of Corrections could create a good relationship with the residents of Greenpoint, there could be support for a NeON facility. Local residents could be shown that there is value in providing NeON’s services to probationers, so they will be able to remain successful members of our community in the future. For NeONs to succeed in any community, they need both financial backing and community support. Many controversies exist with the American Correctional system and its operations. Therefore, clear and frequent communication between those running NeON facilities and local residents is imperative for these community oriented centers to succeed. Community centric corrections is a fairly new method being used for probation and it will take time to obtain more data about the effectiveness of NeON centers. If the success of traditional day reporting centers is any indication, it may be a challenge to win the trust and support of communities for NeON centers. According to Boyle, Ragusa-Salerno, and Lanterman’s 2013 study (as cited in Clear, 2012), most types of day reporting treatment centers have not demonstrated success in saving money nor reducing recidivism rates. More research needs to be done to see whether NeON centers’ methods of providing needed services and support to people on probation in the context of their own neighborhoods will benefit individuals on probation as well as their whole communities.