What Works (and Doesn't) in Reducing Recidivism

Edward J. Latessa, Shelley L. Johnson, Deborah Koetzle

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000074345
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Diritto
• Subtopic: Diritto penale

What Works (and Doesn't) in Reducing Recidivism offers criminologists and students an evidence-based discussion of the latest trends in corrections. Experts Latessa, Johnson, and Koetzle translate the research and findings about what works and doesn't work in reducing recidivism into understandable concepts and terms, presenting them in a way that illustrates the value of research to practice. Over the last several decades, research has clearly shown that rehabilitation efforts can be effective in reducing recidivism among criminal offenders, but it is clear 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 ways, 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.

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 the implementation issues faced as practitioners move from theory to practice, as well as the importance of staff, leadership, and evaluation efforts.

This book synthesizes the vast research for the student interested in correctional rehabilitation as well as for the practitioner working with offenders.

1

From “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 emerge within these writings. This chapter briefly summarizes many of these common themes as they relate to correctional rehabilitation and the policies that exist today. In doing so, this chapter provides a historical foundation for understanding the strategies and principles of effective treatment programs for those involved in the criminal justice system.

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 was a period of great social upheaval as our society became more invested in the rights of a variety of groups, including minorities, women, prisoners, and juveniles. Change—for instance, the emergence of the civil rights movement and the women’s rights movement—occurred because the political will and social forces existed to make it possible. The interest in saving those subjected to the correctional system, however, was fairly short-lived as treatment was abandoned for a punitive approach to crime. In that context, we discuss the third theme, the tendency to rely on panaceas as they relate to correctional practice. Here, we look at the impact of the get tough movement on correctional policy.

This chapter focuses on the history of corrections 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 emphasize any particular model or set of policies followed in the American correctional system. 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 relating to social issues, politics, and budgetary constraints. But even though 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 individual in criminal behavior.

The Age of 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 and a tooth for a tooth” was reflected clearly in the early torture-based punishments and vigilante justice. A shift in philosophy, however, began to take root during the Age of Enlightenment (sometimes called the Age of Reason). Starting in the mid-1770s, the leading reformers advocated for a benevolent or humanistic approach to guiding correctional policy. They argued against the existing 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 brutal treatment.

Interestingly, this utilitarianism is the key concept behind deterrence theory, which developed during this 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. the requirement that inmates in Arizona wear pink underwear), 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, a person may choose the more serious crime with the potential of a larger payoff (Stigler, 1970). Deterrence advocates argued instead that the purpose of punishment is prevention of crime, not revenge, and that although the sanctions used must be swift and certain, their 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 that the punishment was often disproportionate to the crime.

The Penitentiary and Reform

Another notable policy shift is the birth of the penitentiary in the early 1800s. We cover 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, 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 (Devereaux, 1999). Variations on the workhouse concept still exist in prisons throughout the country.

During this time, two models of prison “treatment” came into existence that have 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 other activities from their cells, having 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 that, by some accounts, separation led to mental health problems among inmates (Hirsch, 1992). The idea of requiring inmates to work, however, remained popular and was carried on in the second model.

The second model, referred to as the New York system (or the Auburn 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 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 within 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-saving 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. It opened January 1, 1825, with nine children (six boys and three girls). Like the adult models discussed previously, the expectation was that the youths would be reformed through spending most of their time working, developing literacy skills, and receiving religious instruction. You can read more at 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 according to the purpose of rehabilitation and eventual release. The Declaration of Principles was 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: www.aca.org/pastpresentfuture/principles.asp. The principles represented a departure from previous policies that were focused primarily on punishment via the deterrence philosophy.

One institution that attempted to adopt these principles was the Elmira Reformatory. The reformatory, which opened in 1876, was designed for first-time felons aged 16–30 years. It had a system composed of three levels of classification. Those incarcerated would begin at Level 2 and had 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 fol...