What Works (and Doesn't) in Reducing Recidivism

Edward J. Latessa, Shelley J. Listwan, Deborah Koetzle

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317521341
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Social Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book offers criminologists and students an evidence-based discussion of the latest trends in corrections. Over the last several decades, research has clearly shown that rehabilitation efforts can be effective at reducing recidivism among criminal offenders. However, researchers also recognize that treatment is not a "one size fits all" approach. Offenders vary by gender, age, crime type, and/or addictions, to name but a few, and these individual needs must be addressed by providers. Finally, issues such as leadership, quality of staff, and evaluation efforts affect the quality and delivery of treatment services. This book synthesizes the vast research for the student interested in correctional rehabilitation as well as for the practitioner working with offenders. While other texts have addressed issues regarding treatment in corrections, this text is unique in that it not only discusses the research on "what works" but also addresses implementation issues as practitioners move from theory to practice, as well as the importance of staff, leadership and evaluation efforts.

1
“Nothing Works” to “What Works”

The History and Social Context of Rehabilitation

Introduction

A number of texts provide excellent overviews of the history of juvenile corrections, correctional treatment, and correctional policy (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Cullen & Gilbert, 2013; Cullen & Jonson, 2012). Several core themes often emerge within these writings. This chapter briefly summarizes many of these common themes as they relate to correctional rehabilitation and the current policies that exist today. By doing so, we hope to provide a historical foundation for understanding the strategies and principles of effective treatment programs for offenders.

The first theme often discussed is the cyclical nature of correctional policy. As with fashion and music, trends often repeat themselves. Unfortunately for corrections (and sometimes fashion), we see repetition of the good but also the bad. We discuss how these trends have emerged and changed over time. Second, the cyclical nature of correctional policy is heavily influenced by social and political context. Consider, for example, the social context of the 1960s. The 1960s were a period of great social upheaval as our society became more invested in the rights of a variety of people including minorities, women, prisoners, and juveniles. In part, these changes (e.g., civil rights movement and women's rights) occurred because the political will and social forces existed to make them possible. The interest in saving those subjected to the correctional system, however, was fairly short-lived as we saw that treatment was abandoned for a punitive approach to crime. In that context, we discuss the third theme, which is the tendency to rely on panaceas as they relate to correctional practice. In that context, we discuss the impact of the get-tough movement on correctional policy.

This chapter focuses on the history of corrections but primarily from a treatment perspective. From that standpoint, we go back in time to quickly review some of the major shifts in policy to understand how the system came to be as it is today. We also discuss the challenges our current set of policies face in the road ahead. Before we begin, however, it should be noted that we do not wish to overemphasize that the American correctional system follows one model or one set of policies. If we count the federal and state systems, our correctional system comprises 51 separate and distinct entities. From there, of course, we have a number of local and regional policies and politics that come into play. Each state and, to a lesser extent, region faces unique issues as it relates to social issues, politics, and budgetary constraints. Thus, although it would be inappropriate to suggest that we have a united system of correctional policy, important themes remain. We begin by discussing the Age of Enlightenment because it represented the first shift toward understanding the role of the individual in criminal behavior.

The Age of Reason/Enlightenment

Make no mistake that the earliest forms of correctional policy were extremely punitive. Prior to the 1700s, the basic philosophy guiding correctional policy (in England and France and eventually in North America) was based on brutality. The retaliatory notion of an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" was seen clearly in the early torture-based punishments and vigilante justice. The shift in philosophy, however, began to take root during the Age of Enlightenment (or sometimes called the Age of Reason). Starting in the mid-1770s, the leading reformers advocated for a benevolent or humanistic approach to guide correctional policy. They argued against the current set of punishments as being too barbaric and having little utility. In particular, they believed that those accused of less serious forms of crime (which were also the most common types, such as theft of property) should be dealt with through a graduated system of punishments rather than such brutal ways.

Interestingly, this notion of utilitarianism is the key concept behind deterrence theory, which developed during this time period. Founded by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, deterrence theory asserts that punishment should be proportionate to the crime. Most people think of deterrence as a punitive or even retributive approach. We often hear politicians and others speak of shaming activities (e.g., pink underwear worn by inmates in Arizona), chain gangs, or even the death penalty in the context of "sending a message" in an effort to deter future crime. In reality, deterrence theory argues that overly harsh and severe punishments can have the reverse effect. For example, marginal deterrence can occur if petty crimes are subject to the same harsh punishments as serious crimes. In this circumstance, offenders may choose the more serious crime with the potential of a larger payoff (Stigler, 1970). Deterrence advocates instead argued that the purpose of punishment is prevention of crime, not revenge, and that although the sanctions used must be swift and certain, the degree of severity must simply offset the gains of crime (Devine, 1981; Geis, 1973; for a thorough discussion of deterrence theory, see Paternoster, 2010).

The reason we bring up deterrence theory here is not because we believe it is an effective treatment approach but, rather, to point out that its utilitarian nature is somewhat counterintuitive to the punitive polices of the get-tough movement of the 1980s and 1990s. Boot camps and other harsh punishments were often championed as prevention policies based on deterrence theory. In reality, some question whether the degree and severity of punishments given during the get-tough movement truly met the original principles given the severity was often disproportionate to the crime.

The Penitentiary and Reform

One of the other policy shifts that is important to note is the birth of the penitentiary. We discuss treatment in prison extensively in Chapter 10; however, it bears discussion here that the penitentiary was developed with the goal of reformation (but certainly not rehabilitation, as we advocate for in this text). At this time (early 1800s), treatment as we know it today was not a central focus of prison. Instead, the penitentiary concept was based on the notion of a "workhouse" where inmates were expected to engage in hard labor, reflect on their sins, and eventually see the error of their ways (Hirsch, 1992). The role of the church was significant during this time. The Penitentiary Act of 1779 was based on the notion that criminals were sinners who should be subjected to solitary confinement not simply for the purposes of punishment but also to ask for forgiveness and repent for their sins. Variations on the workhouse concept still exist in prisons throughout the county.

Two models of prison 'treatment came into existence during this time and had a great influence on the types of services we offer inmates in today's prisons. The first model is referred to as the Pennsylvania system. The Pennsylvania system followed the basic principles noted previously—that inmates would carry out all of their activities in complete isolation. To that end, prisoners were expected to work, receive religious instruction, and engage in all activities from their cells with no contact with other inmates (Devereaux, 1999).

This model eventually fell out of favor after inspections of the facilities showed that inmates were subjected to abuse and, by some accounts, that separation led to mental health problems among inmates (Hirsch, 1992). The concept of requiring inmates to work, however, remained popular and carried on in the second model.

The second model, referred to as the Auburn or New York system, maintained the work-based component of the Pennsylvania system but instead of requiring inmates to work in solitude, it allowed them to work together during the day. However, in the spirit of the Pennsylvania philosophy, inmates were not allowed to speak or look at one another. The silence was part of a strict system of discipline that was encouraged under this model. Another departure from the Pennsylvania model included having the inmates work on projects within the institution that had direct benefit for the institution, including producing clothing, furniture, and other marketable goods.

It should be noted that when we examine treatment services with juvenile institutions, there are some historical variations. For example, in early penitentiaries, juveniles, adults, women, and men were housed in the same facilities. However, due to the Child Savers movement (Platt, 1969), by the mid-1800s this began to change. The New York House of Refuge is considered to be the nation's first juvenile reformatory and opened January 1, 1825, with nine children (six boys and three girls). Like the adult models discussed previously, the youths were expected to be reformed by spending most of their time working, developing literacy skills, and receiving religious instruction. You can read more at http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_ed_reform_history.shtml.

In the end, none of these systems proved to be very successful. Overcrowding, a lack of funding, and abuse were rampant (Conley, 1980). As such, a new set of reforms began to take root. The new reformers argued that prisons should be designed with rehabilitation and eventual release in mind. The Declaration of Principles were adopted by the National Prison Association in 1870 with this philosophy in mind.

The principles included the following:

• Punishment should be for reformation.
• Reforming the individual helps protect society.
• Prisoners should gradually progress through the system and receive marks for good behavior (including rewards).
• Special training is required for prison officers.
• Education and religion are important areas that should be addressed.

Visit the following website for more information: http://www.aca.org/pastpresentfuture/principles.asp. These principles represented a departure from previous policies that were focused primarily on punishment via the deterrence philosophy.

One example of an institution that attempted to adopt these principles was the Elmira Reformatory. The reformatory was designed for first-time felony offenders ages 16-30 years. The reformatory opened in 1876 and used a system composed of three levels of classification. Offenders would begin at level 2 and were required to progress to level 1 in order to gain release. However, they could be demoted to level 3 for poor behavior. In order to move from level 2 to level 1, inmates were required to follow the rules, attend school, and work for a period of at least 6 months. However, if they refused to follow the rules, the residents were moved from level 2 to level 3. At that point, residents would be required to exhibit positive behavior for at least 3 months before they could progress to level 2 and start the process over again (Pisciotta, 1994).

Although the Elmira Reformatory boasted high success rates, the institution came under criticism due to its harsh conditions and allegations of brutality. As can be seen in our current prison system, the focus of treatment and rehabilitation in a custodial setting is difficult to achieve at best. Although the reformers discussed in the next section did not advocate that prisons should be abolished, they did advocate for the increased use of community-based options such as probation and parole supervision.

Progressive Era

The next major period of reform, at least as it relates to correctional treatment policy, shifted its focus toward understanding why individuals engaged in criminal behavior. The progressives believed that understanding each individual's circumstances was the key to reformation. They moved away from a pure free will model and instead blamed social and psychological problems for the offender's behavior. In that vein, they argued that individuals could be rehabilitated if we either changed their social environment or attended to their other needs on a case-by-case basis. Several key reforms were advocated, including the following:

• Probation
• Parole
• Indeterminate sentencing
• Establishment of a separate juvenile court

In this context, the reformers believed that rehabilitation could not occur unless certain conditions existed to allow the state a way to gauge change among inmates. Reformers advocated for a system of probation in which the officer would be able to diagnose and treat offenders. They also believed, based on the principles of the Elmira Reformatory, that release from prison should be based on good behavior. In that context, they advocated for an increased use of indeterminate sentencing to allow the state to assess progress before releasing inmates. For example, indeterminate sentences of varied lengths (e.g., 2-4 years vs. a flat sentence of 3 years) would provide the state the opportunity to assess whether offenders were rehabilitated before they were released (for broader discussion of the progressive movement, see Cullen & Gilbert, 20...