Correctional system rehabilitation programs

Although they come in various forms, these programs target the criminal attitudes and ways of thinking that foster illegal behavior. The intervention might involve, for example, counselors modeling prosocial conduct and also reinforcing inmates when such conduct is exhibited. Especially for juveniles, "token economies" are sometimes set up in which conforming offenders are given tokens that can purchase privileges.

Counselors also focus on the content of offenders' thinking and reasoning. They challenge inmates' antisocial attitudes, rationalizations supportive of criminal behaviors, attempts to externalize blame, and failure to confront the harm they have committed. Prisons house offenders who are mentally ill. In , an estimated , inmates were mentally ill, which comprised 16 percent of the state prison population and 7 percent of the federal prison population Ditton.

About 45 percent of these offenders received counseling or therapy while incarcerated; half were taking a prescribed medication; and about a fourth had been in a mental hospital or treatment program Ditton.

Another large group of offenders who receive special services in prison are sex offenders. There are over , sex offenders in state and federal prisons. In one survey of correctional systems, more than half reported special facilities for sex offenders e.

Most often, sex offenders receive some form of individual or group counseling Wees. We should also note another source of counseling and programming in prisons: chaplains and religious volunteer groups. Part of the formal role of prison chaplains is to provide counseling to inmates.

Such counseling often moves beyond religious issues to other problems in the offenders' lives Sundt and Cullen. Further, various types of "faith-based" programming are found within virtually every correctional system. These might include Bible study, prayer and meditation sessions, peer mentors, and worship services "Religion Behind Bars".

In Texas, there is a unit within a correctional institution that is, in essence, a "faith based prison" where religious volunteers provide inmates with both religious and support programs Cullen, Sundt, and Wozniak.

Finally, although most of the focus has been on adult offenders, we should note that many of the programs used in prisons are found as well in juvenile facilities. A survey in found that a majority of states offered these programs to juvenile offenders: "academic education, vocational training, vocational counseling, organized recreation, substance abuse counseling, mental health counseling, sex offender treatment, abuse counseling, and positive peer culture" Lillis, p.

Community-based treatment. Although the main focus of this section has been on prison-based programs, some mention should be made of treatment programs conducted in the community. Only two states do not supervise offenders released from prison. Otherwise, inmates returning to the community are placed on parole or mandatory supervised release, and they are monitored by parole officers. These needs may include: education, job training, and anger management counseling — just to name a few.

Depending on where the offender is in their sentencing, the options for rehabilitative services may vary. View all the rehabilitative programs and services offered by DRP here. Its top priority is to provide rehabilitative programming and skills to offenders and parolees to reduce their likelihood of re-offending by the time they return to their homes and communities. You are currently using an unsupported browser. First, as we discuss in greater detail later, not all rehabilitation program slots are utilized due to various factors, including a lack of teachers or programs being locked down for security concerns.

Second, the same inmate can be enrolled in multiple slots at the same time, meaning the number of inmates actually served could be less than the number of slots. In addition, it is possible that the number of inmates served in a year is greater than the number of slots.

This is because some inmates leave programs before completing them. As shown in Figure 3, most of the funding for these programs is spent on academic and career technical education.

Assessments Conducted to Determine Risk and Needs. At prisons with reception centers which receive inmates being admitted to CDCR inmates are evaluated to determine which prison would be most appropriate for the inmate to serve his or her sentence.

The department currently uses assessments to help determine which specific needs should be addressed and which inmates should receive priority when assigning inmates to rehabilitation programs.

Specifically, CDCR uses the following two assessments:. A total of 44 p ercent of inmates met this definition as of January 31, Once the inmate is transferred from the reception center to the institution where he or she will be housed, the inmate meets with a CDCR correctional counselor to discuss the results of the risk and need assessments and whether the inmate is interested in particular rehabilitation programs.

This is because inmate participation in rehabilitation programs is generally optional with a couple of exceptions. For example, inmates with a low literacy score or inmates caught using illicit substances while in prison may be required to attend academic education or substance use disorder rehabilitation programs even if they are low risk. To make such decisions, the UCC typically considers various factors—including inmate risk, rehabilitative needs, and inmate interest.

If space is not immediately available, the inmate is placed on a waitlist. Given that many inmates have multiple needs, it is common for an inmate to be placed on multiple waitlists. Priority is also generally given to inmates who will be released from prison earlier than others regardless of risk. CDCR is responsible for implementing and overseeing rehabilitation programs.

The board does this by regularly collecting data, visiting programs, and making recommendations to address issues it identifies. These key principles are summarized in Figure 5 and discussed in more detail below. To be evidenced based, a program must be both of the following:. It then estimated the potential fiscal benefits to state and local governments in Washington State if the programs were implemented with fidelity in Washington. WSIPP determined that certain programs such as SUDT had a significant amount of research showing that, if implemented with fidelity, they could potentially reduce recidivism enough to generate net fiscal benefits.

However, the magnitude of such net savings would differ depending on various factors such as 1 h ow certain costs differ in California compared to Washington such as the cost of operating the prisons and rehabilitation programs and 2 t he extent to which California was implementing CTE programs with fidelity such as whether inmates receive industry certification upon completion of the program.

While being evidence based increases the likelihood that a rehabilitation program will reduce recidivism, the program itself still needs to be directly evaluated.

Such an evaluation is necessary to determine 1 t he actual effect that the program has on recidivism and 2 i f the effect is significant enough to justify its continuation. Such a program evaluation is critical for two reasons. It is also important that the risk and need assessments used to classify inmates be validated whenever there is a significant change in the inmate population because the assessments were typically created using population information from prior years.

Validation is a process in which the assessment is tested to ensure that it is correctly classifying inmates. It is possible that assessments designed for inmate populations from prior years may no longer accurately categorize the current population.

This is because CDCR 1 o ften falls short in adhering to the key principles for reducing recidivism, 2 d oes not effectively use all of its rehabilitation program slots, and 3 h as a flawed approach to measuring program performance.

Figure 7 p rovides a summary of our findings, which we discuss in more detail below. This suggests that these programs could potentially be successful at reducing recidivism in California as well. Without such an assessment, it is difficult to ensure that the programs are operating in a manner that maximizes a reduction in recidivism. For example, it is unclear whether the anger management programs are consistently employing the treatment techniques found to be effective elsewhere.

This raises questions about how effective the current programs are at reducing recidivism. This study found that inmates who participated in the CTE programs were around 3 p ercentage points less likely to recidivate than those who did not. However, the assessment assumes that the CDCR programs will have the same effect on recidivism as the programs implemented elsewhere.

Please see the nearby box for a more detailed description of the Results First Initiative and the limitations of its evaluation. The Results First Initiative will compare the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation CDCR rehabilitation programs—beginning with its substance use disorder programs—against an inventory of programs that have been evaluated elsewhere and shown to reduce recidivism.

It is currently unclear whether the risk and need assessments used by CDCR accurately classify its current inmate population. This means both assessments currently being used do not take into account the significant changes in the inmate population that have occurred in recent years—such as the r ealignment, which shifted responsibility for tens of thousands of lower level offenders to county jail and probation departments.

Moreover, CDCR does not currently have a policy requiring these assessments to be regularly revalidated to account for significant changes in the inmate population that may occur in the future.

Some of the major changes include:. As mentioned previously, many inmates are on waitlists for rehabilitation programs. Despite this, not all programs are fully enrolled—meaning many slots are vacant because CDCR has not assigned an inmate to fill them. Moreover, even in cases where inmates are enrolled in programs, they often do not attend classes every day the program is offered. Empirically, individuals who did not complete high school were rearrested at The reasoning behind this is clear: formerly incarcerated individuals with low levels of education often find themselves without financial resources and social support systems.

They are also stigmatized with the mark of prison, making it difficult to reintegrate into society. This makes them vulnerable to committing criminal acts. Accordingly, inmates who participated in these educational programs in prison had a 28 percent higher chance of obtaining a job post release and, thus, were less likely to commit a crime.

In addition to showing the merits of rehabilitation, it is important to note that punishment of non-violent drug offenders behind bars often increases crime rather than decreasing it. Over 85 percent of drug arrests are for possession only, which means that such people were not committing violent acts at the time of arrest. However, sending these low-danger offenders to harsh prison environments might actually make them more likely to become violent criminals.

James Gilligan of the New York Times reports that two-thirds of prisoners reoffend within three years of leaving prison, often with more serious and violent offenses. Thus, Gilligan concludes that rather than helping individuals rebuild themselves, prison serves as a school for them to learn to commit more dangerous crimes.

Prison systems ought to shift from the focus on deterrence to the prioritization of rehabilitation programs, which will rebuild inmates and help them reintegrate into society. Until then, we can expect the prison population to continue to increase. The image featured in this article is in the public domain CCO.

The original image can be found here. Sophia Lam is a third year chemistry and political science major from New York City. The Case for Rehabilitation Programs for Non-Violent Drug Offenders While most of the current political rhetoric on drugs has been related to the legalization of marijuana, that does little for current non-violent drug offenders who are in prison.