Leaving the Bars Behind
John A. Consiglio
John A. Consiglio
Abstract: For decades now, United States
Introduction and Thesis
According to national statistics gathered by Washington State’s Department of Corrections, The United States has over 2.3 million people locked up, the highest incarceration rate in the world. One out of 100 American adults is behind bars; while one out of 32 is on probation, parole or is incarcerated (Washington State DOC, November 2011). With such a staggering number of individuals having gone through the criminal justice system, it becomes imperative to investigate the practices and approaches to reducing offender recidivism, and to determine what actions can be taken that show effective recidivism reduction.
The idea of rehabilitative programs and educations has been a topic of much heated debate through the criminal justice system for decades. From the 50s up until the 70s, rehabilitation and programs had taken a bad wrap from both liberal and conservative pockets of the community. D. A. Andrews and colleagues report in their 1990 article Does Correction Treatment Work?, “rehabilitation came to be seen by liberals as a euphemism for coercing offenders and by conservatives as one for letting hardened criminals off easy…defenders of treatment were branded scientifically and politically naïve apologists for the socially powerful, self-serving human service professionals, or curious relics of a positivistic past” (Andrews et al, 1990; 370). Thus, many jurisdictions in the United States
However, over the last two to three decades rehabilitation and alternative sentencing programs have been on the rise. This is due primarily to the evidence-based research that has been done which showed the effectiveness of certain programs and therapies, as well as the results of strictly punishing and imprisoning offenders. D.A. Andrews and James Bonta write in their book The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, “It soon became apparent to psychologists that if punishment was to be used, it had to be used sparingly and always coupled with the reinforcement of prosocial behavior” (Andrews, 2010; 450). This means that punishment should only be used when it is coordinated with a treatment program. Andrews and Bonta state that reinforcement compared to punishment, has important advantages. For example, only reinforcement can shape and influence new behaviors, whereas punishment can only suppress existing behavior. For offender populations with limited prosocial skills or behaviors, punishment will do nothing to teach them new skills, hindering their chances at rehabilitation (Andrews, 2010; 450).
For some offenders, their sentences are not completely done within the constructs of a prison environment, but instead can be carried out within their community. This places correction agencies in a difficult position; they have a responsibility to their offenders by providing them appropriate supervision and treatment, while at the same time upholding the responsibility of keeping the community safe. According to the Washington State
The thesis of this report is to examine cognitive behavior therapy, as well as education training, and rehabilitation programs, to examine their effectiveness at reducing recidivism for offenders in community custody. In particular, this report will look at the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model (RNR) in how offenders should be classified for treatment, followed by an overview of the effectiveness of MRT and other cognitive behavior programs, Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R) programs, education and work programs, as well as certain programs that exclusively start inside the prison system such as correctional boot camps. To conclude, this report will summarize the findings and discuss some of the public opinions regarding treatment for offenders as well as the political motivations of treatment.
Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR)
To begin, it is important for the reader to understand that treatment does very little if it is not used effectively. To do this, one needs to assess which offenders need the most treatment. This is the purpose of the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model or (RNR). According to Bonta and Andrews in the article Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation, they believe that the RNR model is perhaps the most influential model for assessing and treating offenders (Bonta et al, 2007; 1). The basis for RNR can be found in its three core principles: (1) The Risk Principle, which is used to match the level of service to the offender’s risk to re-offend; (2) The Need Principle, used to assess the needs of an offender so they can be targeted in treatment; (3) The Responsivity Principle, used to maximize the offender’s ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention (can be done by providing cognitive behavioral treatment and tailoring it to the learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of the offender) (Bonta et al, 2007; 1).
This model has given researchers much insight and knowledge about offenders and the treatment they require. For example, Bonta and Andrews state, “as risk level increases then the amount of treatment needed to reduce recidivism also increases…However, in everyday practice there is a tremendous pressure to focus resources on lower risk offenders. After all, low risk offenders are more cooperative and motivated to comply with treatment demands than high risk offenders” (Bonta et al, 2007; 9). Thus, we have learned that resources for effective treatment need to be focused on higher-risk offenders to reduce recidivism.
However, as it was previously stated, many agencies put their resources into treatment for low-risk offenders; offenders who are at the least amount of risk at re-offending in the first place. Furthermore, Bonta and Andrews state “Inappropriate matching of treatment intensity with offender risk level can lead to wasted treatment resources and in some situations actually make matters worse…treatment services provided to high risk offenders show lower recidivism compared to treatment provided to low risk offenders. In fact, in 374 tests of the risk principle, treatment delivered to high risk offenders was associated with an average 10% difference in recidivism” (Bonta et al, 2007; 10). This evidence suggests that higher treatment for high-risk offenders is more effective at reducing recidivism than providing high treatment to low-risk offenders. This is further supported by Bonta and Andrews who found that providing treatment to low-risk offenders only showed about a 3% reduction in recidivism, a very mild effect compared to treatment for high-risk offenders (Bonta et al, 2007; 10).Therefore, the Risk Principle would suggest more treatment to high-risk offenders.
When we examine the evidence found in regards to the Needs Principle, we find that addressing the criminogenic needs (the offenders social life, competence level, their attitudes and beliefs, etc.) is essential at reducing recidivism, especially when the treatment also infuses the other two principles of risk and responsivity. Bonta and Andrews write, “Based on tests of the need principle, successfully addressing criminogenic needs is associated with an average 19% difference in recidivism. Treatments that focus on non-criminogenic needs are associated with a slight increase in recidivism (about 1%). If we examine only adherence to the general responsivity principle (i.e., use cognitive behavioral methods of intervention) we find on average, a 23% difference in recidivism. Finally, when offender treatment programs put all three principles into action then the effectiveness of correctional treatment can be quite significant” (Bonta et al, 2007; 11).
We can see the effectiveness of the RNR model in terms of addressing which offenders need treatment and what needs must be addressed during treatment. The data has suggested that it is essential to use more resources treating high-risk offenders; making sure to address their criminogenic needs. However, we must ask whether the RNR model is effective at treating offenders within community custody. Bonta and Andrews write in their report, “If a treatment intervention begins to adhere to one of the principles we start to see reductions in recidivism and when all three principles are evident in a rehabilitation program then we see average recidivism differences between the treated and non-treated offenders of 17% when delivered in residential/custodial settings and 35% when delivered in community settings. Treatment can work in residential and custodial settings but effectiveness is maximized when the treatment is in a community setting” (Bonta et al, 2007; 12). Thus, we find that the Risk-Need-Responsivity model (RNR) is an effective tool for assessing and treating offenders in a community custody setting.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: MRT and R&R
As we learned previously, an effective approach at providing treatment to offenders involves a number of factors. Andrews and his colleagues summarize the following, “Previous reviews regarding studies of treatment would suggest that neither criminal sanctioning without provision of rehabilitative service nor servicing without reference to clinical principles of rehabilitation will succeed in reducing recidivism. What Works, in our view, is the delivery of appropriate correctional service, and appropriate service reflects three psychological principles: (1) delivery of service to higher risk cases, (2) targeting of criminogenic needs, and (3) use of styles and modes of treatment (e.g., cognitive and behavioral)” (D. A. Andrews et al, 1990; 369). Therefore, we must now look at the types of treatment available that can help reduce offender recidivism.
We begin then, by observing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. According to Leana Allen and colleagues article The Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavior Treatment for Adult Offenders, they state “Cognitive-behavioral therapies emphasize the connection between cognition and behavior and suggest that dysfunctional behaviors may be altered through changes in dysfunctional attitudes, beliefs, and thought processes” (Allen et al, 2001; 498). Furthermore, Allen and colleagues write, “The cognitive-behavioral approach as applied to criminal behavior suggests that criminals think differently than non-criminals either because of a lower level of moral development or through dysfunctional information processing. Thus, cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation programs focus on changing the problematic thought processes that contribute to criminal behavior. Two of the current models of cognitive-behavioral therapy in a correctional setting are Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) and Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R).The first is designed to change moral reasoning and development; the second is an example of an information processing approach” (Allen et al, 2001; 498-99). Therefore, cognitive behavior therapy is a way to change the thinking and reasoning of an offender, in the hope to eliminate the thoughts and behaviors that contribute and reinforce criminal behavior. As Allen and colleagues suggest, the two most current models of cognitive therapy are Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) and Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R). In order to understand Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and the success it may have at reducing recidivism, we must look at both MRT and R&R and how offenders respond to these treatments.
Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT)
Allen and colleagues explain to the reader that MRT stems from Lawrence Kohlberg’s hierarchy of moral development (Allen et al, 2001; 499). “According to this perspective, individuals are assumed to pass through a series of stages of moral development, culminating in the highest levels of moral reasoning, during which individuals make decisions based on their own principles and values. Individuals with higher levels of moral reasoning are suggested to be more capable of choosing behavior that is socially defined as “right” rather than behavior that is considered “wrong.” This implies that criminals, because they have chosen wrong behavior, are at lower levels of moral development” (Allen et al, 2001; 499).
Allen and colleagues state that MRT is designed to be either a 12 or 16-step program, and the progression through the steps is related to an offender’s increased level of moral reasoning. Offenders may participate in correctional institutions during their incarceration and/or in the community through probation; or through aftercare on release from a correctional facility (Allen et al, 2001; 499). Their study effectively breaks down the main goals of MRT, and state that the treatment can be done within community custody.
What we must examine next is how MRT does at reducing recidivism among offenders. The subjects Allen and her colleagues viewed in their research of who had gone through MRT were drunk drivers, felony drug offenders, and general felony offenders. In regards to Drunk drivers, Allen and her colleagues’ state, “The evaluations of MRT for drunk drivers in Allen and her colleagues’ research produced two general findings. First, the treatment group, as compared with the control group, consistently demonstrated a lower re-arrest rate for any offense over the course of the studies, and in a recent study, this difference was statistically significant. Second, the treatment group, as compared with the control group, also had a consistently lower re-incarceration rate over time, and this difference was also significant in a recent evaluation” (Allen et al, 2001; 503).
Furthermore, in regards to felony drug offenders, Allen and her colleagues’ state, “(the) results from these evaluations indicated that felony drug offenders also benefit from participation in MRT. The treatment group, as compared with the control group, consistently demonstrated a lower re-arrest rate for any offense throughout the four follow-up studies. However, these differences were not tested for statistical significance. In addition, the group of felony drug offenders who received MRT had re-incarceration rates that were consistently lower than those of the control group over the series of four studies, and these differences were significant in recent evaluations” (Allen et al, 2001; 503).
Finally, in regards to overall felony offenders, Allen and her colleagues’ state, “(the) results from these evaluations suggested that general felony offenders who participated in MRT had decreased recidivism. At 5 years, the MRT group had a significantly lower re-arrest rate than the control group. At 7 years, MRT participants had accumulated fewer re-arrests on average than the control group, but this difference was not significant. The MRT group also consistently demonstrated significantly lower re-incarceration rates as compared with the control group” (Allen et al, 2001; 505). Ultimately, Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) proves to be successful at reducing recidivism among different types of offenders. Furthermore, because MRT can be practiced within a community custody setting, it is this researcher’s opinion that MRT is an acceptable treatment program for offenders in community custody.
Reasoning and Rehabilitation Programs (R&R)
Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R) is an educational, skills-based intervention. It has been described as a “cognitive-behavioral program designed to teach offenders social cognitive skills and values which are essential for pro-social competence. Specifically, the program helps offenders develop self-control, social skills, problem-solving abilities, and the ability to critically assess their thinking” (Allen et al, 2001; 500). Put simply, R&R aims to educate offenders to change their underlying thoughts and attitudes that contribute to their criminal behavior (Allen et al, 2001; 498). This type of program is designed for a small group of high-risk offenders during incarceration or probation (Allen et al, 2001; 500).
The research done by Allen and her colleagues regarding R&R only looked at general federal offenders in Canada; In their report they state, “Evaluations of the Canadian R&R program have generally found that R&R is beneficial in reducing recidivism…Findings indicated a lower re-incarceration rate for individuals who completed treatment, but this difference was not statistically significant. There was also no difference between the groups in terms of reconviction” (Allen et al, 2001; 507). Furthermore, Allen and colleagues report at least two studies, each of which used rigorous scientific methods, found significant differences in recidivism between the R&R participants and those in the control groups (Allen et al, 2001; 510). To conclude, Allen and her colleagues found that in the majority of the eight studies and in the majority of the measure regarding recidivism, the R&R participants had lower rates of recidivism than their comparison groups (Allen et al, 2011; 510). Therefore, reasoning and rehabilitation programs would be affective at reducing recidivism in offenders, although this report does not have any research that specifically states the advantages of R&R with offenders in community custody.
Vocational Education
So far we have addressed a number of ways one can assess an offender in terms of the treatment they require, and cognitive behavioral therapies such as MRT and R&R. Correlated with these types of treatment programs are resources offenders can use to further their treatment, and more importantly, to gain knowledge and experience which can hopefully deter the criminogenic behaviors that can lead to offender recidivism.
In Jeffery Bouffard and colleagues’ article Effectiveness of Vocational Education and Employment Programs for Adult Offenders, they discuss the roles vocational education and employment programs have on reducing offender recidivism. In regards to vocational education, they state, “Vocational education programs are intended to counteract the effects of poor educational achievement and lowered employability commonly found among correctional populations. Such interventions may comprise several different approaches, including classroom-based vocational education, job training, and apprenticeship training, in such areas as electrician or carpentry skills. In addition, programs aimed at improving offenders’ work related skills, such as time management and work ethics are often included. General vocational educational programs involve the provision of classroom opportunities to acquire basic work related knowledge, such as the basic math skills needed for automotive mechanics or construction tasks. This type of educational program is widely offered and is typically a prerequisite for more hands-on types of vocational or job training experiences” (Bouffard et al, 2000; 4).
However, when Bouffard and his colleagues measured the results of vocational education alone at reducing offender recidivism, their numbers did not paint the programs in a very good light. The research that was done by the team and investigated from previous studies showed mixed results throughout; some demonstrated no significant impact on reducing recidivism; while in some cases the program was associated with increased recidivism (Bouffard et al, 2000; 18). The definition as to whether a program “works” inevitably varies between correctional jurisdictions, and in the end Bouffard and his colleagues determined that vocational education programs “worked” according to the State of Maryland
Correctional Industry and Correctional Boot Camps
While this report is based upon what programs and tools are effective for reducing recidivism for offenders in community custody, it is important for the reader to have an understanding at the way some programs are carried out while offenders are incarcerated. Two such programs are Correctional Industry and Correctional Boot Camps, each of which will be addressed in this section. Starting programs while incarcerated can make working with offenders easier when they enter community custody.
Correctional Industry
The second program that Bouffard and his colleagues analyzed in their report was employment programs; in regards to offenders and corrections, known as Correctional Industry. Bouffard and his colleagues state, “Correctional industry is a term used to describe a range of offender employment related activities provided during the offender’s period of incarceration. Correctional industries produce a wide range of products and services for both government and private sector consumers, including furniture, health technology, automotive, institutional and jail products, signs, flags, business products and services, textiles and apparel, and food products… Correctional industry programs reduce prison operating costs, produce income for correctional systems through the sale of inmate produced goods, decrease inmate idleness, and provide skills to offenders for later use in the job market…correctional industry work can provide opportunities for inmates to develop time management skills, self-discipline, and work ethics.” (Bouffard et al, 2000; 5).
However, Correctional Industry also suffers from drawbacks similar to those found in vocational education. For example, Bouffard and colleagues expressed in their findings that the scientific quality of most of their researched studies was fairly low, meaning that there were very few studies to accurately draw scientific conclusions (Bouffard et al, 2000; 22). Only one study was identified that was considered a rigorous scientific study, which found only a small reduction in its treatment group; a difference that was considered not significant (Bouffard et al, 2000; 22). Furthermore, the other studies which showed modestly reliable estimates also produced figures that were not substantially significant. Because of this, this researcher cannot suggest correctional industry as an appropriate tool for offenders who are serving their sentences incarcerated.
Correctional Boot Camps
The final program that will be analyzed in this report is Correctional Boot Camps, another program that is constructed and implemented primarily during incarceration. Researched and reported by Doris Layton MacKenzie and colleagues in their article Effects of Correctional Boot Camps on Offending, they define Correctional boot camps, also called shock or intensive incarceration as “short-term incarceration programs modeled after basic training in military…Participants are required to follow a rigorous daily schedule of activities including drill and ceremony and physical training. They rise early each morning and are kept busy most of the day. Correctional officers are given military titles, and participants are required to use these titles when addressing staff. Staff and inmates are required to wear uniforms. Punishment for misbehavior is immediate and swift and usually involves some type of physical activity like push-ups...the camps differ in the amount of focus given to the physical training and hard labor aspects of the program versus therapeutic programming such as academic education, drug treatment, or cognitive skills. Some camps emphasize the therapeutic programming, while others focus on discipline and rigorous physical training” (MacKenzie et al, 2001; 127).
According to MacKenzie and her colleagues, despite their growing popularity, the boot camps remain controversial; advocates believe the atmosphere of the camps conduct positive growth; while critics argue that many of the components are in opposition to the relationships and supportive conditions that are really needed (MacKenzie et al, 2001; 128). However, the results of their research was essentially at an impasse; “an almost equal odds of recidivating between the boot camp and comparison groups, on average. Thus there appears to be no relationship between program participation (boot camp or comparison) and recidivism” (MacKenzie et al, 2001; 130).
Although, Mackenzie and her colleagues did find that the only characteristic that showed a strong relationship in regards to the effectiveness of boot camp programs was the presence of some after care treatment for adult offenders (MacKenzie et al, 2001; 135). Thus, it appears that Correctional boot camps are not significantly effective at reducing offender recidivism, unless offenders enter treatment when they renter the community, or are transferred into community custody.
Discussion
As stated earlier in this report, the discussion about treatment versus punishment often sparks heavy debate and concern among individuals in the community, as well as individuals working in corrections, and even those implementing policies in our state capitals. While the research would suggest that certain programs and treatments would be more beneficial for reducing offender recidivism, the views and opinions of individuals often carry a stronger voice than research.
Despite our growing understanding of effective programs for reducing recidivism, the United States
It is this researcher’s opinion that money is a root cause to how correctional policies are implemented and approached. After all, it takes money to keep prisons up and running. According to Washington State
However, Petersilia states that in fact, proper treatment of offender in the end is a cost-effective approach to reducing recidivism, with the added bonus of saving money:
“Today, there is ample scientific evidence showing that treatment programs can reduce recidivism, if the programs are well designed, well implemented, and targeted appropriately…Effective programs include therapeutic communities for drug addicts and substance abuse programs with aftercare for alcoholics and drug addicts; cognitive behavioral programs for sex offenders; and adult basic education, vocational education, and prison industries for the general prison population. Each of these programs has been shown to reduce the recidivism rate of program participants by 8-15 percent. Even with relatively modest reductions in subsequent recidivism, these programs pay for themselves in terms of reducing future justice expenditures. For example, prisoners who participate in vocational education programs have about a 13 percent lower likelihood of recidivism, and the programs cost about $2,000 per participant, per year. Analysts have estimated that such programs result in an average of $12,000 savings, per participant, down the line in saved criminal justice expenditures…It is thus highly likely that investing in selected rehabilitation programs will generate several dollars’ worth of benefits for every dollar spent” (Petersilia, 2003; 16-17).
Because of the effectiveness of such programs, public support for rehabilitation is evident within many communities and continues to grow throughout the nation. In Brandon Applegate and colleagues’ article Public Support for Correctional Treatment: the Continuing Appeal of the Rehabilitative Ideal, they found the following, “The most prevalent approach that researchers have taken to evaluate the public’s position on rehabilitation has been to provide respondents with a list of goals and ask which one is the most important. We were able to identify 27 studies that have asked respondents to rate, rank, or choose rehabilitation compared to at least one other correctional goal. Rehabilitation received the highest rating in at least one part of 20 of these studies. For example, 73% of respondents chose rehabilitation as the preferred emphasis of prisons” (Applegate et al, 1997; 238). Furthermore, in regard to the results of their research, Applegate and colleagues state, “The results reported here confirm what a less contemporary or more limited assessments of attitudes toward rehabilitation suggest: Despite perceptions to the contrary, the public supports correctional treatment for offenders. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate that a great deal of consistency exists toward rehabilitation” (Applegate et al, 1997; 251-52).
However, in concluding this discussion it is important to point out the criticism of certain evidence-based studies. Bonta and Andrews addressed this, summarizing that treatment programs that have been demonstrated to reduced recidivism in tightly controlled experiments, often find their effectiveness diminished when they are adopted by correctional agencies; the true potential effectiveness of treatment in the real world is about half compared to the experimental programs (Bonta et al, 2007; 15).
Conclusion
The criminal justice system has seen a number of changes in its lifetime. It has struggled with the dichotomy of punishment versus treatment for decades. Over the last three decades, evidence-based research has shown the world that appropriate implantation of treatment and therapy programs can significantly reduce an offender’s likelihood of recidivism. However, this report has shown the reader that only certain treatment programs, when applied to the offender’s needs and risk level, are truly effective at reducing recidivism, particularly with offenders held in community custody. Based on the research that was collected, it is imperative that offenders receive treatment based upon the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model (RNR), to effectively establish how much treatment one would require and which criminogenic needs that should be addressed. If treatment is administered correctly, it seems that Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) and Reasoning and Rehabilitation programs (R&R) have been shown to effectively reduce recidivism for offenders in a community environment. Furthermore, Vocational Education was not found to effectively reduce recidivism for community offenders (but this researcher believes the education may be beneficial and effective if coupled with either a MRT or R&R program.) Certain programs like Correctional Industry and Correctional Boot Camps were not found to significantly reduce recidivism (Boot camps were shown to be effective when coupled with MRT or R&R programs.) Because of the growing support for rehabilitation programs, and the cost-effectiveness they have as opposed to continued incarceration, it is more important than ever that correctional jurisdictions adapt more treatment programs for offenders in community custody; thus, benefiting their progression and reducing their chances of recidivism. Hopefully this report has shown the importance to adapt more treatment for offenders outside prison walls, in the hope that they can reform their behaviors and attitudes, and leave the prison bars behind.
References
Allen, Leana C., MacKenzie, Doris L., Hickman, Laura J. 2001. “The Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Adult Offenders: A Methodological, Quality Based Review.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Vol. 45 No. 4 Aug, 2001. Pgs. 498-514. Sage Publications.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, James. 2010. “The Psychology of Criminal Conduct” AP Anderson Publishing. New Providence , NJ
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, Ivan Et Al. 1990. “Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis.” Criminology. Vol. 28 No. 3 Aug, 1990. Pgs. 369-97.
Applegate, Brandon K., Cullen, Francis T., Fisher, Bonnie S. 1997. “Public Support for Correctional Treatment: the Continuing Appeal of the Rehabilitative Ideal.” The Prison Journal. Vol. 77 No. 3 Sep, 1997. Pgs. 237-58. Sage Publications.
Bonta, James. Andrews, D. A. 2007. “Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation.” Public Safety Canada Canada
Bouffard, Jeffery A., MacKenzie, Doris Layton., Hickman, Laura J. 2000. “Effectiveness of Vocational Education and Employment Programs for Adult Offenders: A Methodology Based Analysis of the Literature.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. Vol. 31 No. 1 2000. Pgs. 1-41. Hayworth Press.
MacKenzie, Doris Layton, Wilson, David B., Kider, Suzanne B. 2001. “Effects of Correctional Boot Camps on Offending.” American Academy
Petersilia, Joan. 2003. “When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry.” Oxford Oxford , NY