Since the 1980s, considerable attention has been directed toward identifying which types of correctional rehabilitation services should form the basis of offender treatment. It has been well-established in the corrections literature that certain programs and interventions are more effective and successful than others. A program or intervention’s success is reflected in its ability to modify offenders’ behavioral patterns and, by extension, reduce recidivism (i.e., commit a new offense after program participation). Programs that consistently show successful efforts in rehabilitating offenders and have credible documentation of their effectiveness are highly accepted into practice. Best practices for correctional rehabilitation services encompass successful, goal-oriented correctional initiatives that receive support by the correctional community and are recognized as being helpful to organizations and agencies. In addition to these components, best practices have a strong theoretical grounding, which help to emphasize their evidence-based approaches. These practices have evolved from years of transferring knowledge from research to correctional practitioners. This entry reviews the concept of rehabilitation and identifies the characteristics that define the best practices for correctional rehabilitation services.
The Concept of Rehabilitation
The rehabilitation ideal encompasses the broad view that offenders are unique and engage in behaviors differently based on environmental factors, psychological development, and biological influences. In other words, proponents of rehabilitation believe that internal factors or an individual’s social environment causes or influences engagement in crime. The concept of rehabilitation differs from other goals of punishment in the criminal justice system (e.g., deterrence, incapacitation) by seeking to change offenders’ behavioral patterns and focusing on improving offenders’ lives.
Correctional rehabilitation services embody this ideology and strategically plan interventions to modify offenders’ behavioral patterns. That is, rehabilitation programs and interventions do not occur by chance but are designed to include specific features. The main goal of these types of services is to reduce the probability that offenders will reoffend. In order to reach this desired goal, rehabilitation services target specific factors known to cause the offender’s criminality. Not only is this aspect of services important for improving offenders’ lives, but it also is a critical component to enhancing public safety. These components form the basis for the best practices for correctional rehabilitation services.
Despite the knowledge accumulation on what components correctional rehabilitation services should incorporate, research often indicates considerable heterogeneity in the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs and interventions. Studies related to correctional rehabilitation programs and interventions find that some are effective, some are moderately effective, and some have iatrogenic (i.e., adverse effects on offenders and increase reoffending) or no effects on changing offenders’ behaviors. The systematic variation in correctional intervention and program success has led to a search for the characteristics that distinguish effective treatment practices from those that are ineffective. Through the review and analysis of hundreds of studies, researchers have enhanced knowledge on what works in offender rehabilitation and have identified a set of principles that should guide correctional programs.
The Principles of Effective Intervention
The principles of effective intervention form the conceptual and empirical underpinnings for understanding the body of literature on offender rehabilitation. The best practices or what works for offender rehabilitation is not reflected in a single program or intervention but based on a body of knowledge developed over 30 years that has been conducted by numerous scholars. The what works movement demonstrates empirically that theoretically sound, well-designed programs that appropriately apply the principles of effective intervention can significantly reduce recidivism rates. The principles of effective intervention have three core elements—risk, need, and responsivity—that, together, form the Risk-Need- Responsivity (RNR) model. Since its development in 1990, this model has been expanded to include more principles with the intention of enhancing the design and implementation of effective correctional interventions. This section provides an overview of the RNR model.
Core Principles and Key Clinical Issues
In order for rehabilitation to be optimally effective, three conditions must be satisfied: Treatment programs should (1) deliver services to higher risk offenders (the risk principle), (2) target factors related to offending (the need principle), and (3) employ cognitive–behavioral and behavioral treatment programs (e.g., social learning, cognitive interventions), while considering offender characteristics when making decisions about the mode and style of service delivery (the responsivity principle). These three conditions form the foundation of the RNR model of correctional assessment and rehabilitative programming.
The first core element of the RNR model—the risk principle—provides a guideline for who treatment programs should target for services. There are two aspects of this principle: (1) risk (i.e., the probability that an offender will recidivate) can be predicted and (2) treatment services (or intensity/ dosage) should match offenders’ risk level. Higher risk offenders should receive the most intensive services while minimal or no intervention is sufficient for lower risk offenders. The second core element is referred to as the need principle and advises correctional rehabilitation services on what to target in order to have the greatest effects in reducing recidivism. This principle posits that correctional treatment services should target the known predictors (or risk factors) of crime and recidivism for change. There are two types of predictors for crime: (1) static (i.e., unchangeable risk factors like criminal history) and (2) dynamic (i.e., amenable risk factors like antisocial attitudes). Dynamic predictors are also referred to as criminogenic needs and are highly correlated with criminal behavior. Thus, these factors are considered to be the most appropriate targets for correctional rehabilitation services.
The last core component is the responsivity principle, which suggests how programs should go about targeting offenders’ needs to match the treatment services to offenders’ learning styles and capabilities. There are two elements of this principle: general and specific responsivity. The general responsivity principle states that the most effective interventions tend to be those that are behavioral in nature and based on cognitive, behavioral, and social learning theories. Cognitive– behavioral treatments are short-term, goal-oriented interventions provided by clinicians, which focus on identifying, understanding, and changing criminogenic thinking patterns that sustain criminal behavior. Some examples of such interventions include Relapse Prevention, Thinking for a Change, and Aggression Replacement Training. Specific responsivity underscores the importance of considering key offender characteristics when matching offenders to treatments and staff. In order to optimize effectiveness, correctional programs should adapt the style and mode of service according to factors (e.g., personality traits, cognitive deficiencies, anxiety) that could impede the delivery of services or offender participation in a program.
The RNR model also includes several other principles referencing key clinical issues to enhance service delivery. First, it is suggested that correctional programs employ multimodal techniques or expand their breadth of needs targeted. The effectiveness of interventions is often contingent upon the number of criminogenic needs targeted: Services are more successful when they target a higher number of criminogenic needs relative to noncriminogenic need areas (e.g., anxiety, motivation). Programs that limit the focus to one or two of these needs are unlikely to have much of an effect on offenders’ overall behavioral patterns.
Second, criminogenic needs (and risk to reoffend) can be assessed by correctional staff using a structured risk and needs assessment instrument. Best practices in correctional rehabilitation services often use instruments that have adequate predictive validities of an offender’s risk to reoffend, examine a wide range of criminogenic risk factors, and identify responsivity issues that contribute to program engagement. Some examples of assessments that are used in the field include the Level of Service Inventory-Revised, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, and the Level of Youth Service/Case Management Inventory. These tools assist practitioners with developing individualized treatment plans and services to target offenders’ higher scored need areas. A number of studies have also revealed that these tools are useful for facilitating case management decisions and guiding contact sessions. Correctional staff have the option to use professional discretion on these tools to override the structured decision-making, but this occurs on rare occasions and must be documented to provide explanations.
Overarching Principles
The principles included in this part of the RNR model codify a theme for showing respect to the individual under treatment and incorporating ethical and humane application of empirically driven services. Best practices deliver services with respect for the person (e.g., personal autonomy, just, legal) and the normative context. These norms may vary, however, with particular agencies based on the population they serve and the setting in which services are delivered. Another aspect of the overarching principles is that correctional programming should be based on empirically solid (i.e., validated) psychological theories of human behavior. In order to uphold this theme of respect for individuals, the RNR model of crime prevention extends to all agencies within and outside the justice system that encounter and deal with an offender clientele. These dimensions are considered overarching because they apply to any intervention or program, regardless of the type of treatment.
Organizational Principles
This section of the RNR model encompasses three principles that underscore the importance of appropriate staffing techniques and managerial support to maintain the integrity of such programming. It is suggested that correctional treatment services are most effective when they are offered in a community-based setting. These programs still produce meaningful reductions in recidivism, however, when facilitated in residential and institutional settings. The effectiveness of treatment services is strengthened by certain staff characteristics and practices (i.e., high-quality relationship skills, high-quality structuring skills) better known as core correctional practices (CCPs). The dimensions of CCPs include effective use of authority, prosocial modeling (i.e., provide directives/consequences to teach appropriate behaviors), effective reinforcement and disapproval, skill development (e.g., cognitive restructuring, problem solving), and advocacy/brokerage. Each of the dimensions represents best practices of interacting with offenders to enhance the quality of treatment services, which are derived from empirically validated theories of human behavior.
Finally, in order to maintain fidelity to RNR programming, it is important that staff have support from their own organization and other agencies that work directly with their organization. Within this context, managerial techniques involve the selection, training, and supervision of staff that fall in line with RNR approaches. Quality assurance becomes an important component to building a system supportive of best practices and to enhance continuity of care.
Validation of the Principles
Given the scope of research on offender rehabilitation services, there is now sufficient evidence to enable correctional policy makers to determine meaningful inferences regarding what works to reduce recidivism. The previous compilations of research findings and recommendations provide a coherent framework of guiding principles—the principles of effective intervention. Although the research does not provide support for each of the core principles with equal volume and quality, the conclusions of systematic reviews yield remarkable consistency in their findings. The convergence in findings is noteworthy given the variation in the methodologies and analytic techniques employed in studies.
In general, the average effect of rehabilitation on recidivism is positive and relatively large. This means that rehabilitation programs and interventions are not only capable of reducing recidivism but also likely to produce large reductions in reoffending. However, rehabilitation services that achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism adhere to the RNR model. Researchers have demonstrated how the magnitude of the relationship between rehabilitation and recidivism increases as programs adhere to more of the principles. Additionally, these studies also suggest that nonadherence to the RNR model shows no effect on recidivism and may increase subsequent criminal conduct. This finding holds true across offender’s sex, age, and correctional setting. Overall, the research indicates that programs that adhere to the principles of effective intervention can reduce recidivism as much as 30%.
While the literature provides a structured guideline for how programs and interventions should deliver services, it does not ensure how well these services will be implemented. Studies have demonstrated that evidence-based programs can increase criminal involvement if not competently delivered as intended and assessed through quality assurance processes. Thus, researchers have developed an instrument, the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI), that evaluates programs’ adherence to the principles of effective intervention and examines the quality of service.
Program Evaluation
An often overlooked component of best practices in correctional rehabilitation services is program or therapeutic integrity. Program integrity has recently gained more attention in corrections, as it is critical to ensure that offenders receive quality services capable of reducing recidivism. A high degree of therapeutic integrity means that staff are adequately trained and supervised and are able to be assessed for interpersonal skills that have been found to contribute to the delivery of effective services (e.g., CCPs). The CPAI is an assessment instrument that offers guidance on how to implement an effective program in a correctional setting.
Since its development, CPAI has undergone several revisions. As of 2018, the most current version of the instrument is called the CPAI-2000 and includes 131 items or measures of therapeutic integrity. The instrument is subdivided into two general areas—capacity (i.e., program capability to deliver interventions and services for offenders) and content (i.e., assessment procedures and the degree to which the program adheres to the RNR model)—and consists of eight domains: (1) organizational culture, (2) program implementation and maintenance, (3) management/staff characteristics, (4) client risk-need practices, (5) program characteristics, (6) dimensions of CCPs, (7) interagency communication, and (8) evaluation. The goal of the instrument is to begin holding programs accountable for the types of interventions they provide and enhance the amount of effective interventions in the field.
Several hundreds of correctional programs have been evaluated using the CPAI instrument to date and, accordingly, several conclusions can be drawn. First, the vast majority of programs do not receive a passing grade and have been found to need improvement. For example, earlier studies examining CPAI scores of programs found that only a small percentage (10–12%) received a passing score. Additionally, the literature underscores the relationship between CPAI scores and treatment effectiveness. More specifically, the overall CPAI program scores have been found to strongly relate to reductions in recidivism. In other words, those programs with higher quality ratings are associated with lower recidivism rates. Further, the two studies that have been conducted to examine the CPAI predictive validity found that client assessment and program characteristics were strongly correlated with treatment effectiveness. Additionally, one of these studies also identified program implementation as a significant predictor of treatment effectiveness.
These findings provide further validation of the principles of effective intervention, demonstrating that programs providing services to higher risk offenders, targeting criminogenic needs, and employing cognitive–behavioral techniques are some of the most influential approaches to offender behavioral modification. In addition to these conclusions, the CPAI evaluation results highlight an important element that contributes to program effectiveness—program implementation. Indeed, some scholars suggest that the quality of implementation might be equally as important as the type of service delivered.
Program Implementation
It is clear from the literature that effective practices for offender rehabilitation need to follow the principles of effective intervention. While these principles form the foundation of the programs, there are other characteristics associated with the most successful practices for correctional rehabilitation services. Specifically, these characteristics encompass the necessary components that help bridge empirical research with the proper implementation of programs. The transmission of empirical evidence from the producers to consumers has been identified as a major reason many programs fail or have no effect on modifying offenders’ behaviors. The implementation of practices for offender rehabilitation can often suffer from organization resistance, budget costs, staff turnover, and minimal staff training, to name a few. Improper program implementation spurred in part by a lack of understanding related to how practitioners can be adequately equipped to implement correctional rehabilitation services continues to be an ongoing problem in offender rehabilitation.
Practitioners should receive adequate training (and continual training) to learn new skills and gain insight into the purpose of the intervention or program. Within this context, the goals of programs need to be discrete, clearly articulated, and easily understood by practitioners. It is unlikely that practitioners will utilize the new information if it is not (a) easy to understand and deliver and (b) easy to incorporate into their daily practices. Thus, there should be personal communication and interaction between program designers and users to ensure proper program implementation. Additionally, supervising treatment delivery and providing feedback to users can serve as an important learning experience, enhance motivation, and ensure fidelity to the model. The most effective types of programs identified in research have been those that involve the researchers in program development, training, and observation of staff.
According to the research, effective programming is most likely when all criminal justice agents involved in the program are informed of policy changes. Further, policy changes should be a collaborative process between line–staff, managers, and program developers as staff buy in to the practice is an important component. Another way to increase the likelihood of staff adopting the correctional initiative is for managers or leaders of an organization to provide rewards or incentives to do so. Practitioners, too, should be exposed to new policy changes and provided with explanations about the importance of the correctional initiative.
While not all of the characteristics that define successful implementation of programming are provided here, these represent a basis for the general requirements necessary to further increase proper and consistent implementation of rehabilitation services.
References:
- Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–22. doi:10.1177/0093854890017001004
- Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
- Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In J. Horney (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000, Volume 3: Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (pp. 109–175). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
- Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2012). Correctional theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117–130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). Correctional program assessment inventory (CPAI-2000). St. John, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
- Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575–607. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x
- Latessa, E. J., Listwan, S. J., & Koetzle, D. (2014). What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism. Waltham, MA: Anderson.
- Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Swartz, K. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 148–169.