The word rehabilitation is used in a number of contexts and has several different but interrelated meanings. In health services, it denotes a process of being restored to normal functioning after an injury or period of illness. In addiction services, it entails being empowered to escape the destructive use of a substance and regain control over one’s life. In the armed forces, it means having rest and regeneration after a period of combat or other hazardous duty. In criminal justice, the concern of this entry, it refers to a process whereby after arrest, prosecution, and sentencing, those who have broken the law can be reinstated in the community with full rights restored and can desist from further involvement in crime. Thus, although there is no complete definition of what rehabilitation involves, it is usually viewed as comprising two components. One is concerned with the resettlement of discharged prisoners at the end of their sentences. The other is focused on the reduction of criminal recidivism, which applies both to prisoners and to those placed on community sentences.
This entry is primarily concerned with what is known, in terms of research, theory, and practice, about enabling individuals to achieve rehabilitation in the sense of reducing and, if possible, completely leaving behind a previous pattern of crime. Such a task is harder to achieve if there are major problems in relation to housing, employment, substance misuse, or family conflict. The penalty imposed by the court is, from a retributive perspective, intended to result in deprivation or restriction of liberty, not to remove the supports that an individual will need when trying to pursue a law-abiding life. Thus, the two strands of rehabilitation (resettlement at the end of a sentence and avoiding further involvement in crime) are mutually interdependent. They should reinforce each other, but a failure to provide for basic needs could undermine an individual’s plans to stop offending.
Prison authorities in United Nations member countries have a responsibility to observe the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted at the first United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Prisoners, held in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1955. Subsequently in Vienna, Austria, in December 2015, these rules were revised in a format now known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, in tribute to the former South African president and Nobel Peace Laureate who was imprisoned for 27 years. Rule 107 states that “[f]rom the beginning of a prisoner’s sentence, consideration shall be given to his or her future after release and he or she shall be encouraged and provided assistance to maintain or establish such relations with persons or agencies outside the prison as may promote the prisoner’s rehabilitation and the best interests of his or her family.” Several other aspects of the process of prison aftercare are also specified in the rules.
Of course, many of those sentenced by courts are not incarcerated but are given community penalties. The majority continue to live at home, although some may be required to reside for a fixed period in designated accommodation, such as a probation hostel. If individuals are to be enabled to avoid illegal activity, their sentences too should contain possibilities for rehabilitation. For those on community sentences, issues of housing, family contact, employment, and other areas of life should be less disrupted than for prisoners. They may be placed on probation or youth justice supervision, which requires them to report to the police, a supervisor, or youth worker. In more stringent cases, they may be required to attend weekly sessions of a group program at a drug treatment clinic. For returning prisoners (more than 700,000 each year in the United States), circumstances are different. Depending on the amount of time served, circumstances may be completely unrecognizable compared to the situation they left behind some years earlier.
Research on Reducing Reoffending
Extensive evidence shows that rehabilitation in the sense of reducing criminal recidivism can be successfully achieved. Several approaches to working in prisons, community corrections, and youth justice have been evaluated in terms of this objective. There are many studies of the impact of interventions designed to reduce rates or seriousness of offending by adults and young people, men and women, and individuals from different ethnic groups.
Typically in studies of this kind, a cohort of individuals who have broken the law is divided into two subgroups. Ideally, they will resemble each other in key characteristics (in research terminology, the groups will be matched). One subgroup, denoted the experimental group, is provided with some form of intervention that researchers or policy makers think might have an effect and which they want to evaluate. This could be any one of a wide range of activities. There are studies of basic education, higher level education, counseling, vocational training, psychological therapy, skills training, drug treatment, and special diets. Alternatively, the intervention could be some type of punitive sanction, such as a physically demanding regimen in an institution. The other subgroup, usually called business or treatment as usual, is dealt with in the more routine way and is effectively an untreated comparison or control group.
After the intervention has been delivered, the two groups are compared on some dependent variables. Given the core objectives of the criminal justice system, the central outcome of interest is usually the rate of reoffending after a fixed period. The latter might be anything from 1 month to 5 years, though 1 year is more typical. However, many other variables can be (and have been) measured. The object of the exercise is to test whether the two groups differ at the end of the study and on follow-up and, thus, whether the experimental activity had an impact. This is a simplified account of the research process, and there are many features of doing it that can vary a great deal between studies. The rigor of the design that is used can be a crucial factor when interpreting the results. Researchers devote considerable time to thinking about how well (or how badly) evaluation studies are done and whether the findings reflect a fair test of the intervention that was being evaluated.
Once a number of research projects have accumulated on a given question, it is useful to appraise whether there is any evident trend among the findings obtained. That process is called research review, and there are several ways of doing it. The underlying idea, however, is essentially simple. In a way, it is an attempt to see the big picture of what is happening. Within each study, there will be a measure of the difference between the two groups (experimental and control) at the end; this is called the effect size. In a review, the effect sizes from different studies are aggregated together utilizing the methods of meta-analysis. This generates a mean effect size. Many other analyses can be conducted to test the robustness of this, for example, comparing studies with different designs, sample sizes, or lengths of follow-up. If the groups were not well matched at the outset, to some extent even that can be taken into account and corrected for in statistical analysis. With enough data sets, it may also be possible to analyze moderators, other kinds of differences that could have influenced the outcome. They include demographic characteristics of the participants (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity), criminal history variables (e.g., type of index offense, estimated risk of reoffending), locations where the intervention was tested (e.g., prison, community), aspects of service delivery (e.g., intensity of programming, level of training of the staff, quality of delivery), and aspects of the research methodology
(e.g., random allocation, quasi-experiment, before-and-after design). These facets need to be understood to obtain a clear picture of whether observed effects are genuinely attributable to the intervention rather than anything else.
Enough studies and reviews have now accumulated to draw some pivotal conclusions about several prominent issues in this field. The earliest attempts to review the effectiveness of offender rehabilitation date back to the 1950s, but the research available then was limited in both quantity and quality. A large-scale review published in the 1970s, which found numerous positive findings, was widely misreported and misrepresented. From 1985 onward, however, the techniques of meta-analysis began to be applied in this field, and the steady growth of findings and reviews since then has made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to hold to the view that nothing works to reduce recidivism. By 2012, there were more than 100 published meta-analyses in this area, and several more have appeared since then. Many researchers in the field have therefore recognized that the volume of research on offender rehabilitation and behavioral change is sufficient for corrections agencies to draw meaningful conclusions concerning what works to reduce recidivism and increase public safety.
Some of the principal conclusions that can be drawn from the assembled literature on rehabilitation include the following. First, statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in reoffending can be achieved. Across the many hundreds of studies that have been published on this subject, those in treatment groups on average have a recidivism rate that is roughly 10% lower than those in untreated control groups. Second, if that figure seems rather unexceptional, it is important to remember that it is an average, summarizing a range of outcomes, including some in which experimental group participants reoffend more often than their comparators. The interventions that pull the grand mean down in this way are predominantly ones that use punitive sanctions or other types of deterrent measures. Third, the converse of this is that there are other interventions that have notably larger positive outcomes. There are studies that have found decreases in recidivism of 50% or more; that is, the rate of reoffending among the intervention group was sometimes less than half that of the controls. Criminal justice is a challenging area to conduct rigorous outcome research. Although some studies have had fairly weak designs, these findings have also emerged from numerous randomized experimental trials and high-quality quasi-experiments.
From Research to Theory
The most influential theoretical framework for understanding the variety of findings obtained from these different interventions is the General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning perspective of Don Andrews and James Bonta. The General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning is a theoretical account of the factors associated with the development and maintenance of involvement in delinquency and crime. From this standpoint, crime (in common with many other patterns of behavior) is learned. The best explanation of how that occurs draws on a synthesis of behavioral and cognitive social learning theory. A large volume of psychological and criminological research supports this view.
Translated into terms in which these ideas can be applied in offender rehabilitation, the authors produced a specific set of proposals collectively formulated as the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model. It is worth noting that this is not itself a theory. Rather, it is a set of recommendations derived from theory (the General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning). It proposes that interventions are more likely to succeed in lowering criminal recidivism and promoting rehabilitation if they take three principal factors into account. The RNR model began on the basis of three core principles: risk, need, and responsivity. In its 2017 recent iteration, taking progressively more sets of research findings into account, this has expanded to encompass 15 principles.
The first three principles are described as overarching. They emphasize the importance of operating within an ethical framework that expresses respect for persons and of basing intervention programs on empirically sound psychological theory. Principles 4–12 draw on numerous features of that theoretical and empirical background. They underline the crucial importance of assessing each individual’s risk level for further offending, using well-validated methods. Alongside this, there should also be assessment of criminogenic needs, risk-related variables that are associated with future reoffending risks. The provision of intervention programs is guided by the principles of general and specific responsivity, in attempting to ensure that programs employ behavioral, social learning, and cognitive behavioral methods and strategies for influencing change and building skills. They should also take account of relevant individual strengths and of personal and cultural differences in allocating individuals to specific types of rehabilitative programs. There should be a clearly delineated link between what is learned from individual assessment and the targets that are set with them for intervention.
The final three principles (13–15) are concerned with organizational issues. They include a recommendation that services be based in the community as far as possible, training practices be cultivated that generate high-quality relationship skills among correctional staff, and management procedures be adopted that provide effective systems of support for all the other activities. To secure positive outcomes, it is also vital that there is high-quality delivery of services, the integrity of which must be monitored and sustained. When services are provided according to these principles, and if program quality and fidelity can be maintained, doing so is reliably associated with better outcomes in terms of rehabilitative aims.
These findings highlight the useful distinction between programmatic and nonprogrammatic features of the process of rehabilitation. The former refers to the design and contents of interventions themselves, such as the sessions of a cognitive behavioral skills program. The latter refers to contextual, organizational, and other surrounding factors that, regardless of a program’s potential effectiveness, must be taken into account if it is to succeed. Those issues have not always received the attention they require. However, in his 2011 publication, “The Impact of Nonprogrammatic Factors on Criminal Justice Interventions,” Andrews sought to remedy this by examining how they influence outcomes and how they need to be incorporated in rehabilitative efforts.
From Theory to Practice and Dissemination
Mounting evidence supports the applicability of the RNR model, not only to what is called general or versatile offending but also to physical violence, sexual violence, and violence toward partners. Given how closely it reflects the expanding body of research findings obtained through meta- analysis, the RNR model has had a steadily growing influence on criminal justice professionals and systems in many countries. In some jurisdictions, this has led to large-scale efforts to design and deliver structured rehabilitation programs extensively in both prison and probation or other community correctional settings. In some criminal justice services, this has been accompanied by the creation of a process of program accreditation, to ascertain the appropriateness of methods employed in this work and manage its implementation.
There is a further advantage of rehabilitative work with offenders. Some of the activities that form part of its agenda are comparatively resource-intensive. Above all else, they require skilled, well-trained, and well-supported staff as well as materials for the management of programs and services in prison and community locations. The required expenditure may seem unattainable on top of already-high penal costs. However, when reoffending is reduced, there can be considerable savings to society. Economic analysis of the benefits to be gained from effective services shows that they can be remarkably cost-efficient. In 2015, Stephanie Lee and colleagues from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy reported on a series of comparisons between different interventions in their respective benefit–cost ratios. Many interventions have been found both to lower crime rates and reduce costs. For programs that combined different forms of rehabilitation and treatment components, benefit–cost ratios varied from 2:1 to as high as 40:1, with both young offenders and adults. The most effective interventions included Functional Family Therapy and Aggression Replacement Training in juvenile justice; and cognitive behavioral programs, correctional education, and community-based drug treatment with adults. By contrast, programs that entailed only surveillance or supposed deterrent ingredients such as scared straight have negative benefit–cost ratios.
In a key sense that is of major relevance to the work of criminal psychologists, offender rehabilitation works. The evidence for this is now substantial. A similar finding emerges both in general terms and for a variety of specific offense types. This contrasts markedly with the conventional approaches of punishment and deterrence, which, although ubiquitous, are an abject failure for reducing reoffending. Furthermore, rehabilitation programs are cost-effective; sums invested in them will reduce other kinds of spending later and elsewhere. None of this applies to everyone, of course, nor can it be guaranteed. That caveat applies, however, to almost every form of human endeavor. The likelihood of success can be maximized by following a number of what are now well-established principles and practices. In 2013, Francis Cullen identified a number of reasons to be optimistic about the future of rehabilitation, for example, combining the possibility of improving offenders’ lives with strengthening community safety and responding to the challenging of becoming a genuinely evidence-based field. Similarly, in 2015, James Byrne, April Pattavina, and Faye Taxman proposed strategies through which rehabilitation can become the central objective of both prison and community corrections. They include, for example, legislation or sentencing reform to reduce the rate of incarceration and the recruitment, training, and retention of a new wave of correctional staff with specialized skills in delivering effective rehabilitation within correctional agencies.
References:
- Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
- Craig, L. A., Dixon, L., & Gannon, T. A. (Eds.). (2013). What works in offender rehabilitation: An evidence based approach to assessment and treatment. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Phenix, A., & Huberman, H. M. (Eds.). (2016). Sexual offending: Predisposing antecedents, assessments and management. New York, NY: Springer.
- Sturmey, P. (Ed.). (2017). The Wiley handbook of violence and aggression. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
- United Nations. (2015). United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/GA-RESOLUTION/E_ebook.pdf
- Weisburd, D., Farrington, D. P., & Gill, C. (Eds.). (2016). What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation: Lessons from systematic reviews. New York, NY: Springer.