Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation Programs

It is incredibly important to address concerns surrounding the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs in ensuring the safety of the public. Angela Davis advocates for rehabilitation with a compelling vision for transforming the justice system, but many concerns have been raised about the outcome of these initiatives. Skepticism exists in regard to the long-term impact of rehabilitation on reducing recidivism rates, questioning whether these programs are truly able to address the root causes of criminal behavior or simply create temporary solutions to long-term problems. The scale and resource constraints that are associated with widespread implementation of rehabilitation programs pose challenges that are difficult to ignore. Investing heavily in rehabilitation without concrete evidence of its success is incredibly risky.

The revolving door on American prisons is as bad for the communities across the nation as it is for the people being cycled through the system. In “Offender Reentry”, David Allender, delves into how recidivism affects both the criminals and the community. Americans are starting to realize that the current prison system is not designed to reform, only to punish criminals. Because of this many ex-convicts are released from sentencing and allowed back into the real world without the necessary social skills to properly reintegrate. The problem became obvous with sex offenders, followed by minor drug crime. Allender points out that “The limited funding for treatment programs, which occurs because no one can prove that criminal activity did not happen

America sends more of its citizens to prison than any other country in the world. The United States, though only five percent of the world’s population, incarcerate 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the incarcerated. About 6,937,600 offenders were under the supervision of adult correctional systems at year end 2012. Around two-thirds of the prison population which is released annually (637,400) will recidivate within the first three years of release (Glaze, 2013). The prisoner re-entry programs that are currently in place are clearly ineffective and insufficient. A reallocation of the budget is the first step towards fixing our re-entry programs. Once the budget is under control, the government needs to have a complete overhaul of system. There are many prisoner re-entry programs that have shown promise which means there is already a blueprint to success available.

The United States prison system is considered today to be one of the most flawed and corrupt systems of the modern world. Given this fact, it is unsurprising that one of the most talked about issues in the US today is prison reform. Prison reform is a phrase which refers to the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons, establishing a more effective penal system, or implementing alternatives to incarceration. The US has spent the past twenty years gradually working to improve its prisons, and even recently strives to better the federal and state prison system as a whole. One of the main goals of prison reform is reducing recidivism, which is the chance of an incarcerated person re-offending. One of the main ways to do this is to give inmates ways to spend their time that will better them and prepare them to re-enter society as a fully productive, rehabilitated citizen. This facet of prison reform is the basis for the Prison Reform and Redemption Act of 2017. This bill, which was to be reviewed on Wednesday, April 25 but is

Until as recently as the 1970s, the focus of criminal justice professionals revolved around rehabilitation of offenders (Cullen & Jonson, 2012, p. 27). Dating back to when the first American penitentiary was constructed in 1820, the idea was that by creating a system that mimicked the concept of a well-developed, law-abiding community within the prison atmosphere,

From 1973 to 2000 the imprisonment rate in the U.S has increased by a multiple of four, while the actual crime rate saw no such increase over that period. (Visher and Travis, 2003, p. 89-90) Historically, the prison system in America had always been marred with inadequacies and failures, specifically in rehabilitating prisoners. The significant increase in incarceration rates have put an even greater burden on the already inefficient prison system. In reality, the prison system does not actually function as a means of rehabilitating prisoners, and real purpose of the institute is to basically keep the “deplorables” of society away from the public eye. It serves as a tool to degrade members of society to the bottom of the social ladder and strip them of their most basic rights. For many prisoners, rehabilitation comes in the form of “corrections” which is largely characterized by the humiliation, abuse, and subjugation of inmates by correction officers. This form of rehabilitation is largely malicious and ineffective in its procedures and outcomes. Often times inmates, leave prison more emotionally and physically damaged that they were upon entrance as a consequence of the dismal conditions they were subjugated to. The current high rates of recidivism have testified to the fact that our prisons have failed as a deterrent. As a result, it must be

Today we see five prevalent goals of corrections including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Goals employed in corrections change over time depending on several factors including the trends of thought in society and issues within the prison system. Politics as well as prison overcrowding also factor into determining which goal dominates. Retribution has a long-standing history as the most culturally accepted goal because people fended for themselves prior to organized law enforcement (Bartollas, 2002, p. 71). Incapacitation, the dominant goal currently, eliminates the threat by placing the criminal outside society, typically through incarceration, and preventing the criminal from having the ability to commit additional crimes. Deterrence, like retribution, has continued as a goal throughout history. In an effort to reduce the risk of crime, law enforcement attempt to deter criminals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation gained enormous strength with an attempt at moral redemption of the offender. Reformists believed corrections needed a makeover as they worked towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation places more focus on the individual rather than the act in an attempt to rehabilitate the person. America did not begin to look at the corrections system more substantially until the 1970s as the idea of rehabilitation fell (Bartollas, 2002, p. 75). Restorative justice promises to restore the victim as the offender

Initially the Prison system was put in place to promote rehabilitation of criminal offenders. However, recidivism research studies conducted in the 1970’s seemed to show the treatment programs utilized by the prison system did not significantly reduce reoffending subsequent to a reoffenders release from incarceration. The National Academy of Sciences released a similar report that revealed the same inference that recidivism rates were not lowered simply by serving time within the prison system. Due to the outcome of these studies the principle of the ‘Nothing-Works Doctrine.’ was implemented. The doctrine specified that “correctional treatment programs have had little success in rehabilitating offenders.” Enhancements needed to be made when

Since 2002, The United States has had the highest incarceration rate in the world, and many of those imprisoned within the U.S. will be released and rearrested within three years (Langan & Levin, 2002). Unfortunately, research has been mixed shown that the time spent in prison does not successfully rehabilitate most inmates, and the majority of criminals return to a life of crime almost immediately. Most experts believe that many prisoners will learn more and better ways to commit crimes while they are locked up with fellow convicts. There is a combination of programs and environmental conditions that impact the recidivism rates. The majority of prisons exist to protect the public and punish the offender (French & Gendreau, 2006; Langan &

Without allocating the resources needed to do this during an offender’s release, it is inevitable that that individual will have a higher chance of recidivating. There are factors that have proven to assist in effective reentry into society. The Boston Reentry Initiative (BRI) has gone through stringent evaluation by numerous researchers and proven very effective as a reentry method (Braga, Piehl, & Hureau, 2009). BRI offenders have a recidivism reduction rate 30% greater than peers that did not go through the program. The BRI was applied on young offenders with violent criminal histories. The evaluation targeted this population because it is the most difficult group to prevent from recidivating. Since the initiative has proven it establishes a measurable impact on difficult populations, it is likely to influence more tolerant populations as well. This program focuses on intervening with offenders before they are released from incarceration. Offenders develop a plan for their release in association with organizations that work with the prison. These range from faith-based programs, community outreach workers and drug treatment facilities. Offenders implement their plan upon release in corroboration with these organizations. Plans are individually focused, but consistently guided by employment placement,

More than 700,000 offenders are released from state and federal prisons every year with over two-thirds returning to jail within three years of their release. Reentry programs are created to aid offenders that are incarcerated make an effective transition into society once they are released. Reentrance into ones community from a stay in jail or prison is a difficult transition for most offenders, not to mention for their family and even the community. There are many trials for these offender, such as being uneducated, therefore not able to find adequate employment, drug abuse, limited options for housing and mental health issues. (Prisoner Reentry Programs: Ensuring a Safe and Successful Return to the Community. (n.d.).)

As a country, we should care about all of our citizens and work toward bettering them, because we are only as strong as our weakest link. When it concerns the issue of corrections it should not be a discussion of punishment or rehabilitation. Instead, it should be a balance of both that puts the spotlight on rehabilitating offenders that are capable and willing to change their lives for the better. Through rehabilitation a number of issues in the corrections field can be solved from mental health to overcrowding. More importantly, it allows offenders the chance to do and be better once released from prison. This paper analyzes what both rehabilitation and punishment are as well as how they play a part in corrections. It also discusses the current reasons that punishment as the dominant model of corrections is not as effective as rehabilitation. After explaining rehabilitation and punishment, then breaking down the issues with punishment, I will recommend a plan for balance. A plan that will lower incarceration rates and give offenders a second chance.

Most findings indicate that punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and restitution are ineffective ways to reduce crime. It is noted that if the same resource monies could be redirected rehabilitation, the cost to the tax- payer would be reduced over time (Gertz et al, 2005). Rehabilitative programs are the most effective in reaching our ultimate goal of reducing crime and reducing future criminal behavior which is the purpose of incarceration. The problem with rehabilitation is that it is the most difficult to proof effective and even more difficult to persuade policy makers and community members to fund (Pinard, 2010). There are at

Community corrections is continually changing and has been for the past one hundred years. From the early to mid-twentieth century onward it has used three major models, the medical model, community model, and the crime control model. The major turning point for the American community corrections system that led to corrections as we know it today was in 1974 when What Works? - Questions and Answers About Prison Reform by Martinson was published. The system changed practically overnight across the nation. The notion of rehabilitating offenders was dismissed and a more punitive “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality took over. Presently the corrections system is still working in the crime control model, but professionals are trying to restructure how we deal with criminal offenders during and after incarceration. The difficulty in the restructuring is finding the balance between punishing criminal offenders proportionate to their crime, but also rehabilitating them to be productive members of society once they are released so that they do not recidivate.

Convicting, sentencing, and imprisoning are just the first few steps of reducing crime. All the effort, time, and money that go into keeping criminals locked up and off the streets are really for nothing in the end if he or she commits the same crime again after release. James Haley, who is the book editor of “Prisons” points out, “Every year, close to six hundred thousand inmates are released from state and federal prisons around the country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, two-thirds of former convicts commit new crimes and one-half are re-incarcerated within three years of being released from prison” (138). Are US prisons truly effective when so many prisoners are committing new crimes upon release? It is for the better interests of American safety that some prisoners are locked up for life, but this should not include the constant return of re-offenders. The life of most convicts involves committing a crime and being sentenced to jail only to repeat the same process again. Many re-offenders see incarceration as a ticket to a place to sleep and food to eat.