More handpicked essays just for you.
Effectiveness of rehabilitation in prison
How does rehabilitation in prisons affect recidivism
How does rehabilitation in prisons affect recidivism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Rehabilitative Philosophies
In researching this topic two theoretical philosophies were prominent, Risk-Needs- Responsivity and Good Lives Model- Comprehension. The Risk-Needs model is the oldest of the two and also provides some basic framework for the Good Lives Model. The RNR model was introduced by Andrews and Bonta in 1990 and states that if the dynamic risk factors associated with violence and crime are addressed and treated, then levels of risk, as well as recidivism, will decrease (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). This theory stemmed from an attempt to more accurately assess risk levels of offenders by measuring factors associated with crime and violence such as personal relationships, substance abuse, and antisocial traits. This has led to
…show more content…
the development of several risk assessment instruments currently used in correctional facilities (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). Unfortunately, much of what this theory is built on requires careful, long-term research and pressure for the development of long-term applications. So, despite being 20 years in its development, further research on the relationship and efficacy of these factors is still required. The Human Needs model is similar in both its logic and ultimate goals, but with further emphasis on better the lives of offenders rather than risk reduction (Ward, Mann, & Gannon, 2007). It should be noted, however, that the risk assessment tools developed that observe these factors and needs do in fact better predict risk than previous tools that focused solely on offender history, suggesting that there is potential in the underlying construct. A discussion that was written by Tatarsky briefly, explores the contrasts of harm reduction treatments and programs compared to more traditional strategies for substance abuse (2003).
Substance abuse and addiction are common among both adult and juvenile offenders and is among the main risk factors screened for when an offender enters a housing facility. Harm reduction is a treatment model that allows clients to help determine the ultimate goals of treatment by allowing the discussion of their perception of the problem and their personal goals. This also allows for many other personal needs to be addressed and, in some cases, are addressed before the presenting problem (Tatarsky, 2003). With so many personal needs being addressed, any step towards improvement is considered at least a small success. It is interesting to note that at least some of the personal needs that influence treatment under this model, such as mental health and socioeconomic status, are also correlated to some degree with crime (Duroses, Cooper & Snyder, 2014) (Tatarsky, …show more content…
2003). Beyond the basic principles of this model, Tatarsky (2003) describes harm reduction psychotherapy which is a treatment sub-model that integrates skill building and self-management to address client goals. Throughout treatment, these goals are "tested to determine" whether they are realistic enough to meet (Tatarsky, 2003). While actively working with a client to establish and meet reasonable goals does sound promising, there are still some concerns worth mentioning. For instance, even though one of the more favorable aspects of harm reduction from a client perspective is having control over the goal of treatment, have to test whether these goals are realistic is questionable (Tatarsky, 2003).
Time is limited within the penal system, both in regards to time spent with a client and the time available to conduct treatment, making it unrealistic test whether a goal is obtainable. Even within the community, a lack of concrete goals as described makes it easy for a client to claim it was too much without being dedicated to the result. Another concern is the growing adoption of similar methods by professionals and lack of empirical study of these techniques mentioned in the article (Tatarsky, 2003). While in theory the model described does have many benefits, not empirically knowing how it works with diverse populations, settings or other applications, it cannot be suggested for use within a high-risk
community. Harm reduction psychotherapy does still allow for other treatment techniques, including cognitive or behavioral methods, to be used in conjunction which is beneficial when working with populations or clients with multiple needs (Tatarsky, 2003). Some methods mentioned in this article also being used within the penal system include anger management and conflict resolution training (Tatarsky, 2003) (Dawn Brown, personal communication, December 25, 2016). This means that this model could allow for clients to participate in multiple therapies based on their needs, which is particularly beneficial when access to treatment is limited as is the case in many correctional facilities.
The RNR model was established in 1990 in an article written and published by Andrews, Bonta and Hoge, this article outlined three principles that made up an effective form of offender rehabilitation (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011). These theoretical principles stated in the article include: The Risk principle of which states the matching of an offender and their risk to the level of the program (high risk = high intensity); The need principle- this refers to targeting criminogenic needs to reduce the risk of recidivism; The responsivity principle- this states to matching the style of program techniques to the offender and their learning style/ability of which include general responsivity (cognitive social learning) and specific responsivity (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011). By following these rules, it shows that programs that follow the RNR model match the intensity of the program with the risk level of the offenders whilst also delivering services
This essay begins with the introduction of the Risk-Needs-Responsivitiy Model which was developed to assess offending and offer effective rehabilitation and treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). The R-N-R model “remains the only empirically validated guide for criminal justice interventions that aim to help offenders” (Polashek, 2012, p.1) consisting of three principles which are associated with reductions in recidivism of up to 35% (Andrew & Bonta, 2010); risk, need and responsivity. Firstly, the risk principle predicts the offenders risk level of reoffending based on static and dynamic factors, and then matched to the degree of intervention needed. Secondly, the R-N-R targets individual’s criminogenic needs, in relation to dynamic factors. Lastly, the responsivity principle responds to specific responsivity e.g. individual needs and general responsivity; rehabilitation provided on evidence-based programming (Vitopoulous et al, 2012).
Jail diversion programs such as community residential treatment centers can be short-term or long-term and are designed with 12-step programs that address the offender’s issues with drug and alcohol abuse in a real-world setting (Hanser,
Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879-892.
This research study will address the on-going issues of reducing recidivism, and the need to help ex-offenders succeed in society post incarceration. While literature pertaining to this topic of reducing recidivism is available, such literature tends to be written by elites and/or individuals who have never been incarcerated. Our study will provide first hand authentic answers regarding how to reduce recidivism.
In recent years, there has been controversy over mass incarceration rates within the United States. In the past, the imprisonment of criminals was seen as the most efficient way to protect citizens. However, as time has gone on, crime rates have continued to increase exponentially. Because of this, many people have begun to propose alternatives that will effectively prevent criminals from merely repeating their illegal actions. Some contend that diversion programs, such as rehabilitation treatment for drug offenders, is a more practical solution than placing mentally unstable individuals into prison. By helping unsteady criminals regain their health, society would see an exceptional reduction in the amount of crimes committed. Although some
Tyler, Kimberly A., PhD., Lisa Kort-Butler, and Alexis Swendener M.A. "The Effect of Victimization, Mental Health, and Protective Factors on Crime and Illicit Drug use among Homeless Young Adults." Violence and victims 29.2 (2014): 348-62. ProQuest. Web. 2 May 2014. .
Lipsey, M. W., Chapman, G. L., L & Enberger, N. A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. The annals of the american academy of political and social science, 578 (1), pp. 144--157.
In today’s society, many people commit crimes and illegal behavior is nothing new. Society knows that there are criminals and they have criminal intentions. The question today is not if people are going to commit crimes, it is finding the most effective method to help those criminals reenter society as productive citizens, and preventing new people from becoming criminals. Department of corrections around the nation have implemented a program that identifies the most effective method. The “what works” movement outlines four general principles that are implemented in the rehabilitation of criminals; and, these principles are risk principle, criminogenic need principle, treatment principle, and fidelity principle.
... middle of paper ... ... Understanding psychological theories helps criminologists to design appropriate correctional strategies to mitigate crime. Works Cited Eysenck, H.J., & Gudjonsson, G.H. d. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a The causes and cures of criminality.
One of the most commonly used classification systems for offenders is the combination of risk assessment and need assessment. The combination of these two systems of classification is rather new. The earliest types of classification focused mainly on offender risks by using custody classification and separating prisoners into minimum, medium, and maximum security (Van Voorhis et al., 2009). Early risks assessments appeared to only focus on historical factors that did not tend to change over time. A supplement of the classification was introduced with the original needs assessment system. The needs assessment was meant to offer information relevant to treatment (Van Voorhis et al., 2009). Unfortunately, the needs assessments were rarely used for the purposes of locating treatment. The introduction of models that combined the two assessments was paramount because it opened assessments up to the idea that factors change over time that influence offenders.
The complex issues of dealing with offenders in the criminal justice system has been a point of ongoing controversy, particularly in the arena of sentencing. In one camp there are those who believe offenders should be punished to the full extent of the law, while others advocate a more rehabilitative approach. The balancing act of max punishment for crimes committed, and rehabilitating the offender for reintegration into society has produced varying philosophies. With the emanation of drug-induced crimes over the past few decades, the concept of drug treatment courts has emerged. The premise of these courts is to offer a “treatment based alternative to prison,” which consist of intensive treatment services, random drug testing, incentives
As the current prison structures and sentencing process continues to neglect the issues that current offenders have no change will accrue to prevent recidivism. The issue with the current structure of the prison sentencing process is it does not deal with the “why” the individual is an social deviant but only looks at the punishment process to remove the deviant from society. This method does not allow an offender to return back to society without continuing where they left off. As an offender is punished they are sentenced (removal from society) they continue in an isolated environment (prison) after their punishment time is completed and are released back to society they are now an outsider to the rapidly changing social environment. These individuals are returned to society without any coping skills, job training, or transitional training which will prevent them from continuing down th...
Many of the factor two items are, in themselves, well known predictors of recidivism (e.g. Early behavioural problems, juvenile delinquency and impulsivity). Both Hemphill et al. (1998) and Leistico et al. (2008) conducted meta-analyses to investigate the factorial loadings of recidivism predictability. Both reviews found Factor 2 (antisocial and lifestyle facets) a better predictor of general recidivism than Factor 1 (interpersonal and affective facets). This indicates that Factor 1 items may have little use in criminal risk assessment. Additionally one Canadian study found that, Factor 2 scores, but not Factor 1 scores, had a moderate predictive efficacy for nonviolent and general recidivism over 3, 5, 10, and 20 fixed year follow-ups, and predicted violent recidivism at shorter follow-ups (INSERT CITATION –Canadian ARTICLE). Interestingly this study also found that while Factor 2 scores were significantly negatively correlated with all age variables (except age at last conviction); Factor 1 scores were mostly positively correlated with the age variables. The authors concluded that the PCL-R’s performance in risk assessment varies with the length of the prediction period and the type of offending. It has better predictive efficacies for general and nonviolent than violent recidivism, and for shorter rather than longer follow-ups with mostly small effect sizes (INSERT CITATION –Canadian
The link between drug use and crime is not a new one. For more than twenty years, both the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Justice have funded many studies to try to better understand the connection. One such study was done in Baltimore on heroin users. This study found high rates of criminality among users during periods of active drug use, and much lower rates during periods of nonuse (Ball et al. 1983, pp.119-142). A large number of people who abuse drugs come into contact with the criminal justice system when they are sent to jail or to other correctional facilities. The criminal justice system is flooded with substance abusers. The need for expanding drug abuse treatment for this group of people was recognized in the Crime Act of 1994, which for the first time provided substantial resources for federal and state jurisdictions. In this paper, I will argue that using therapeutic communities in prisons will reduce the recidivism rates among people who have been released from prison. I am going to use the general theory of crime, which is based on self-control, to help rationalize using federal tax dollars to fund these therapeutic communities in prisons. I feel that if we teach these prisoners some self-control and alternative lifestyles that we can keep them from reentering the prisons once they get out. I am also going to describe some of today’s programs that have proven to be very effective. Gottfredson and Hirschi developed the general theory of crime.