Prison rehabilitation comparison

Messenger This article is part of the Beyond Prison series, which examines better ways to reduce re-offending, following the recent State of Imprisonment series. Instead, they have produced an expanding prison system.

Prison rehabilitation comparison

For example, some prisons reported difficulty recruiting and retaining sufficient teachers for some programs.

Crime and punishment and rehabilitation: a smarter approach

If inmates are not able to regularly attend their rehabilitation programs, they are less likely to be released with all their rehabilitative needs met, which makes them more likely to recidivate. Currently, the department collects some rehabilitation statistics—such as the number of hours offenders attend programs and the number of offenders who achieve certain educational benchmarks.

In addition, some existing performance measures are misleading. We note that rehabilitation programs vary in length, such as from three months for some CBT programs to over a year for some CTE programs.

Based on our review of the programs, as well as the key principles identified in existing research as being important to reducing recidivism, we identified several shortcomings with the programs. The Legislature could eliminate funding for a program if CDCR is unable to show that program is research based within a specified timeframe.

This would give CDCR time to identify or complete the necessary evaluations. As discussed previously, to be evidenced based, a program must be implemented with fidelity in addition to being researched based. This will ensure that CDCR programs continually incorporate the best practices that have been demonstrated to be successful.

We believe that OIG is best positioned to conduct these fidelity assessments given their existing role in independently monitoring and evaluating various CDCR programs and procedures. We would note that there are existing tools developed by researchers available to conduct these fidelity assessments.

We estimate that such a study could cost a couple of millions of dollars annually for a number of years. As such, the Legislature would be better positioned to determine where limited rehabilitation funding can best be utilized to achieve the greatest benefit to the state in terms of reduced crime and costs.

In order to ensure that CDCR uses risk and need assessments that appropriately categorize its inmate population, we recommend the Legislature establish a review committee to select the most effective assessment tools and ensure that the selected tools are independently validated on a regular basis.

As discussed previously, rehabilitation programs are most effective when they are tailored to provide the treatment needed to address identified inmate risks and needs. Thus, it is important to ensure that the tools used to identify such risks and needs remain valid and accurate.

Our proposed review committee would be similar to one currently used by CDCR to oversee the use of an assessment tool specific to sex offenders. Based on the costs of operating that committee, we estimate that establishing and operating a risk and need assessment review committee could cost around a million dollars annually.

While the specific makeup of the committee and number of members could vary depending on legislative priorities, we recommend that the committee include representatives from CDCR, research experts, and stakeholders experienced with reducing recidivism.

Appointments could be made by both the Legislature and the Governor to ensure that the interests of both are represented. This would help ensure that finite rehabilitation program funds are used to maximize recidivism reduction.

We note that the inmates required to attend basic education programs due to low literacy scores or SUDT programs due to substance use rules violations could continue to attend, as these programs have other goals in addition to recidivism reduction.

Based on this plan, the Legislature could determine whether legislative action—such as specifying how slots are to be allocated—is necessary. We recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR to conduct an assessment of all existing CDCR facilities to determine what level of resources would be needed at each institution to provide sufficient programs to allow all offenders to be released with all needs met.

Currently, CDCR receives funding for rehabilitation programs regardless of whether or not inmates attend programs. CDCR would only receive its complete funding allocation if a certain level of attendance is maintained.

For example, CDCR could potentially allocate additional welding slots to those prisons that are able to successfully recruit and retain instructors.

During the inmate assignment process, those inmates for which welding meets a rehabilitative need would then be assigned to those prisons.

This would help limit the number of slots that are not utilized due to instructor shortages. Additionally, the Legislature could consider whether to provide some level of funding stability to protect program service levels against fluctuations in attendance rates. For example, the Legislature could consider providing funding based on an average of multiple years instead of attendance in a single year or could consider providing the highest of two years of funding.

Providing funding in this manner would give the department greater incentive to thoughtfully decide how to allocate and use its rehabilitation resources. To the extent the Legislature wanted to make funding contingent on program quality, it could also fund programs based on various outcome measures—such as the proportion of inmates who successfully complete programs.

Requiring CDCR to collect and report such information would enable the Legislature, CDCR, and stakeholders to compare how effectively rehabilitation resources are used across various prisons and the extent to which further legislative or departmental action is required such as using this information to allocate slots to specific prisons.

However, given that offenders may not complete programs for various reasons, progress should also be measured at specified program checkpoints, such as when an inmate advances from a basic class to a more advanced class.prison admissions in the mids.2 The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services reported that by the end of June , roughly 24% of the state’s inmate population was serving time for drug abuse offenses (5, out of 23, inmates).

Crime and punishment and rehabilitation: a smarter approach rehabilitation today is almost always associated with cognitive-behavioural therapy.

Exposing the limitations of punishment

May 11,  · Prison vs. Rehab: What Really Works. Is being in prison going to make Cameron Douglas stop craving, using or selling drugs?

rehabilitation would cost a quarter of what it does for keeping. Until the mids, rehabilitation was a key part of U.S. prison policy. Prisoners were encouraged to develop occupational skills and to resolve psychological problems--such as substance abuse or aggression--that might interfere with their reintegration into society.

Comparison of Punishment with the Rehabilitation Abstract This paper relates to the understanding of the comparison between the effectiveness of punishment with the effectiveness of the rehabilitation of convicted offenders in prison and under community supervision.

May 11,  · For those like Cameron Douglas with financial resourceslet them pay for their rehab--and for the others, rehabilitation would cost a quarter of what it does for keeping them in prison.

Prison rehabilitation comparison
Crime and punishment and rehabilitation: a smarter approach