Offenders in Treatment it’s and Effectiveness on Recidivism For my Policy Analysis and Grant Proposal Topic, I have chosen to focus on the effectiveness that treatment has on offenders and the rate of recidivism. I believe that offenders who receive treatment while incarcerated will be less likely to re-offend compared to offenders who do not receive treatment while incarcerated. Furthermore, it is my belief that offenders who engage in community aftercare treatment once released from custody will be even less likely to re-offend compared to those who only receive treatment while incarcerated.
Hall, E. A., Prendergast, M. L., & Wexler, H. K. (2003). Multiple measures of outcome in assessing a prison-based drug treatment program.
…show more content…
The results of this research study coincide with my thesis statement that treatment is an effective measure in the reduction of recidivism. Overall, the research by Hall, Prendergast, and Wexler (2012) confirmed treatment to be an effective measure in reducing recidivism. The fact that those who received treatment were less likely to re-offend compared to those who received no treatment supports my idea. Moreover, my thesis statement is further supported as those who participated in prison-based treatment, coupled with community aftercare would be less likely to re-offend compared to those who only participated in prison-based treatment. In conclusion, based on the results of this research, this article will be a source of supporting documentation for my Policy Analysis and Grant Proposal.
Lurigio, A. J. & Olson, D. E., (2014). The long-term effects of prison-based drug treatment and aftercare services on recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(8), 600-619. The research conducted by Lurigio and Olson (2014) at The Illinois’ Sheridan Correctional Center (SCC) sought to measure the effectiveness of treatment on recidivism. Inmate recidivism in this study was measured by offenders who participated in both the prison-based treatment at SCC Therapeutic Community (TC) treatment program, as well as, community-based aftercare treatment following their release from custody. Participating
The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)
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.
The way the criminal justice system should handle crimes has always been a debated subject. For over the last forty years, ever since the war on drugs, there are more policies made to be “tough on crime”. From then, correctional systems have grown and as people are doing more crimes, there are plenty of punishments for them. In the mid 1970’s, rehabilitation was the main concern for the criminal justice system. It was common that when someone was convicted of a crime, they would be sentenced to prison but there would also be diagnosed treatments to help them as well. Most likely, they would have committed a crime due to psychological problems. When they receive treatment in prison, they can be healed and would not go back to their wrong lifestyle they had lived before. As years have gone by, people thought that it was better to take a more punitive stance in the criminal justice system. As a result of the turnaround of this more punitive criminal justice system, the United States now has more than 2 million people in prisons or jails--the equivalent of one in every 142 U.S. residents--and another four to five million people on probation or parole. The U.S. has a higher percentage of the
By the lack of rehabilitation programs in the state and federal prison systems, the chances of convicts releasing and returning back to prison increases rapidly. The lack of rehabilitation is one of the most leading causes to an offenders relapse or to a new crime that will be committed within 3 years from the offender’s release. A rehabilitation program
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.
The data from the study demonstrated that therapeutic community theory substance abuse treatment in a correctional facility was, “Effective in reducing the recidivism and that the time spent in treatment was positively related to greater periods between re-arrest and to a greater probability of positive outcomes. (Wexler, and Williams, 1986, Wexler, Falkin, and Lipton, 1990)
In a fight to reduce overcrowding, improve public health and public safety, and reduce the costs of criminal justice and corrections, federal, state and local leaders are constantly looking for alternatives to incarceration. A number of strategies have been put in place to save public funds and improve public health by keeping low-risk, non-violent, possibly drug-involved offenders out of prison or jail while still holding them accountable and securing the safety of our comminutes. These programs have been put in place to help those who don’t necessarily need to be in jail, get their priorities straight while also holding them accountable for their actions. They have been put in place to help reduce incarceration rates, but also help those who may have mental health issues or substance abuse issues that have caused them to make bad decisions (Treatment Court Divisions).
The United States of America is phrased by many, as being “the land of the free.” Yet, the Unites States currently has the highest per capita prison population than any other country. The United States makes up only 5% of the world’s population and of that 5%, 25% of our overall nation’s population is currently incarcerated. A few factors that attribute to our high rates of incarceration include, sentencing laws: such as mandatory- minimum sentencing, lack of initial deterrence from crime, the war on drugs and the presence of recidivism. With our ever growing incarceration rates and the cost of housing individual offenders averaging $22,000 a criminal justice agenda. Recidivism refers to a person 's relapse into criminal behavior resulting in rearrests, reconviction or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner 's release (National Institute of Justice.) Many programs have been implemented in our prison system to help reduce the recidivism rates. Programs such as educational/ vocational programming, reentry programs, substance abuse programs and subsidized employment are among many programs in which have been proven effective. Yet, due to costs deficits, the clock is ticking to find evidence based programs to invest in. So, the question currently being sought after is, which method is most effective in reducing recidivism rates?
When the term corrections is mentioned, the thought of incarceration is the first to come to mind. This is the case for as of the end of 2013, there were 1,574,700 people serving time in state and federal penitentiaries (Carson, 2014, p.1). This alarming number gives reason for the need of alternatives to incarceration. Avoiding imprisonment does not translate to a lenient punitive sentence for the alternatives can just as easily repair harms to the victims, provide benefits to the community, treat the drug addicted, and rehabilitate offenders (FAMM, 2013, p.1). The use of programs that offer an alternative to incarceration can reduce the amount of people in the prison system that is living on taxpayers’ dollars.
We have recently seen a change in the way that drug abuse and addiction are viewed. Considering addiction to be a chronic and relapsing disease is a new concept for the public, policymakers, and even health care professionals (Leshner 46). With this in mind, we can recognize that corrections without the benefit of treatment will fall short in correcting drug-seeking and addictive behaviors (Leshner 46). These, of course, are also the behaviors that most often cause an individual to return to crimes that promote their drug use upon leaving jail or prison (Leshner
However, when evaluating all of the research comprised of this study, there was some shortcomings that should lead future researchers to seek several unknown questions such as: what is the basis needed for drug treatment in traditional prisons since it isn’t offered regularly?, and what is the ratio of drug treatment programs as compared to prisons throughout the nation?. These questions can aid in the argument of a need for drug treatment programs as opposed to just prison. It could also prevail how drug treatment is limited in areas that may need it the most. Thus, for future analysis researchers should evaluate what traditional prisons really have to offer as far as drug treatment, what is the criteria for eligibility of treatment and the length that they can access treatment? If measured, this data can be an asset to improving traditional prisons treatment options and also provide the effectiveness of drug treatment in prison for a lengthy time compared with the treatment at an actual drug treatment program.
The United States of America has a higher incarceration rate than any other country in the world (Tonry, 1999). The goal of this high rate of incarceration is to deter criminals from committing more crime upon release from prison. Longer sentences are thought to deter individuals from committing more crime. Yet, recent research has questioned whether this high rate of incarceration is actually increasing recidivism rather than decreasing it. This study sets out to determine whether there is a positive relationship between incarceration of criminals who engage in drug-related crimes and recidivism in the community. This analysis examines fifty-six male offenders aged 18-22 years-old. These individuals were convicted in Maricopa County, the largest metropolitan county in the state
Currently, statistics indicate that 60 percent of criminals have reoffended at some point in their lifetimes. Many argue that prison causes an individual to reoffend, however many oppose this belief and argue that other factors cause a high rate of reoffending. This controversial topic raises multiple questions regarding prison and its role in reoffending, as well as what other factors can cause an individual to reoffend. The question then raised is: “to what extent does prison cause an individual to reoffend?” This question will help to determine the major factors causing individuals to reoffend, as well as give insight into additional statistics related to the topic. Numerous sources have been identified and critically
Over many years there has been great debate about whether rehabilitation reduces the rate of recidivism in criminal offenders. There has been great controversy over whether anything works to reduce recidivism and great hope that rehabilitation would offer a reduction in those rates. In this paper I will introduce information and views on the reality of whether rehabilitation does indeed reduce recidivism. Proposed is a quasi-experiment, using a group of offenders that received rehabilitation services and an ex post facto group that did not? I intend to prove that rehabilitation services do
Criminologist and politicians have debated the effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation programs since the 1970’s when criminal justice scholars and policy makers throughout the United States embraced Robert Martinson’s credo of “nothing works” (Shrum, 2004). Recidivism, the rate at which released offenders return to jail or prison, has become the most accepted outcome measure in corrections. The public's desire to reduce the economic and social costs associated with crime and incarceration has resulted in an emphasis on recidivism as an outcome measure of program effectiveness. While correctional facilities continue to grow, corrections make up an increasing amount of state and federal budgets. The recidivism rate in