Can Rehabilitation be Effective - Research Paper Example

 Based on the empirical evidence, does rehabilitation work to reduce offender recidivism? According to the theory of effective correctional treatment, what approach to rehabilitating offenders is most likely to work?Przybylski (2008, pp. 2-3) reported that based on a review of literature covering the experience of the United States and Canada in over 30 years of research, a combination of programs involving the following programs has been shown to reduce recidivism significantly provided programs are properly targeted: education and vocational programmingtreatment for substance abuse covering therapeutic communities and aftercareinstitution of drug courtstreatment of sex offenders using cognitive-behavioral therapy/modified therapeutic communities and containment strategiestreatment strategies of offenders with mental health problemscognitive-behavioral programs special programs for juvenile offendersThus, the foregoing can be also referred to as one of the most updated theories of effective correctional treatment, if not the most effective updated or valid theory of effective correctional treatment.

Earlier, or in 2007, Bonta and Andrews reported that Canada has been using a risk-need-responsivity or RNR model in reducing recidivism with an increasing success rate in assessing and rehabilitating criminals in Canada and around the world (p. abstract section). The RNR approach follows three principles: (1) match services based on the risk to offend among offenders (risk principle); (2) assess and target criminogenic needs in treatment (need principle); and (2) maximize the offender’s ability to learn from rehabilitation by providing cognitive behavioral treatment and designing specific interventions based on learning style, motivation, and situation of the offender (responsivity principle).

Meanwhile, according to Murphy (2008, p. 4), in the English and Welsh Probation Service and Prison Service Programs of the United Kingdom, combines the RNR model discussed earlier and a model called the Good Lives Model (GLM). Murphy elaborated that the GLM focuses on helping offenders obtain what the probation and prison institutions termed as “human goods” or needs like intimacy, autonomy, and knowledge. Murphy (2008, p. 6) stressed however that in the UK probation and prison programs that those that have adequate discharge planning, provide appropriate community aftercare services, and involve significant others have increasingly reduced recidivism.

Much earlier, in 1996, Gendreau identified the principles of effective intervention: (1) services should be intensive and behavioral in nature given tangible, activity, and social reinforcers; (2) program contingencies and behavioral strategies should be implemented in a firm but fair manner (pp. 120-127); (3) therapists should be able relate with offenders in interpersonally sensitive and constructive ways; and (4) program structure should be designed to disrupt the delinquency network and promote prosocial activities; (5) relapse prevention strategies should be provided as soon as possible.

Gendreau also noted that there was no experimental evidence that sanctions in use at that time were effective and that punishment only trains a person what not to do and may not be effective (pp. 128-129). However, in 1999, using meta-analysis techniques, Lipsey (1999, p. 142) found that well-designed rehabilitative strategies reduce recidivism. In 2000, Cullen and Gendreau reviewed whether correctional rehabilitation empirically reduced recidivism and concluded that this is indeed the case (pp. 156-161). In a 2002 study, Cullen also confirmed that rehabilitation can actually reduce recidivism and stressed that attempting to rehabilitate is a right thing to do (p. 287). ReferencesBonta, J.

& Andrews, D. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Government of Canada: Public Safety Canada.Cullen, F. (2002). Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilla (Ed.), Crime: Public policies for crime control. Oakland, CA: ICS Press. Cullen, F. & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects. Criminal Justice, 3, 109-175. Gendreau, P. (1995). The principles of effective intervention offenders. In A.T.

Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional interventions that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Newberry Park, CA: Sage. Lipsey, M. (1999). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564 (July), 142-166.Murphy, W. (2008). Best practices in sex offender treatment. Prison Service Journal, Issue 178, 3-9. Przybylski, R. (2008). What works: Effective recidivism reduction and risk-focused prevention programs (A compendium of evidence-based options for preventing new and persistent criminal behavior).

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice: RKC Group.