Abstract
There is evidence that over the past few years, there is a paradigm shift occurring regarding correctional rehabilitation. Paradigm shifts represent a shift in the basic assumptions that guide our thoughts and behaviors. Since the end of rehabilitative ideals in the 1970s, the focus has been to be “tough on crime” by having long-term incarceration and very little rehabilitative programming. This era of mass incarceration has not led to the positive outcomes we desire, such as lowered recidivism rates. Thus, there has been a stronger focus on rehabilitation, which differs from focusing solely on punishment in that there is an emphasis on self-improvement and reintegration into the community. Such a dramatic shift in how we think about both justice-involved individuals and the prisons that house them, however, takes time. From my vantage point, though, an improved emphasis on rigorously testing the effectiveness of correctional-based interventions and strategies for increasing motivation, along with buy-in from both inmates and prison staff, underscores this shift.
To this end, research suggests that moving away from solely focusing on the punishment model and including an emphasis on rehabilitation decreases criminal activity for those diverted from institutionalization and decreases recidivism rates for those who were incarcerated. Focusing on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism is more than a talking point or philosophical ideal. Important to most, if not all, Departments of Corrections is that preventing people from reoffending has the potential to save millions of dollars.
The Risks-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model is emblematic of the shift away from punishment and toward rehabilitation. The RNR model has been shown to reduce recidivism rates by up to 35% (Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Taxman & Thanner, 2006). This model guides offender assessment and treatment by considering the person in their full context, determining criminogenic risks, and intervening accordingly (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). There are three key principles of the RNR model. Risk: Services should match an offender’s risk of reoffending, with risk determined by factors associated with recidivism. Needs: Treatment should focus on dynamic criminogenic needs such as mental health and substance misuse issues along with anti-social attitudes. Responsivity: Interventions should match the individual’s needs and learning styles, which includes increasing motivation for participation when necessary (Crites & Taxman, 2013; Polashek, 2012).
All five studies in this issue of International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology are directly or indirectly related to the RNR model. This issue addresses risks factors associated with recidivism, treatment programs that address inmates’ specific needs, and responsivity by addressing inmates’ motivation and correctional staff’s views on rehabilitation. Three of the five studies focus on inmates as the sample and address: strategies in implementing and evaluating a trauma-based program for incarcerated women (Liebman et al.), reasons why many jail inmates in need of treatment choose not to participate in available programming (Meyer et al.), and motivation for women who volunteer in a prison-based peer education program (Collica-Cox). Two of the studies use prison employees and/or drug treatment counselors as their samples, and assess the relationship between correctional orientation (beliefs regarding the value of rehabilitation) and attitude (Lambert et al.), and predictors of confidence and job satisfaction for counselors in drug treatment programs (Chu & Sung).
In “Piloting a Psycho-Social Intervention for Incarcerated Women With Trauma Histories: Lessons Learned and Future Recommendation,” Liebman et al. address the complexities of implementing and evaluating an intervention for incarcerated women with trauma exposure. Trauma-focused interventions have been successful in reducing problematic mental health and substance misuse issues and, subsequently reducing recidivism among this vulnerable population. However, feasibility of implementation and the struggle to increase motivation is less clear. Liebman et al. add to the limited but growing knowledge base on trauma-focused interventions for incarcerated women by offering important methodological advice for researchers planning on implementing and evaluating trauma-focused interventions in correctional settings.
Two other articles in this issue address inmates’ motivation for program participation: Meyer et al.’s “Why Do Some Jail Inmates Not Engage in Treatment and Services” and Collica-Cox’s “Counting Down: HIV Prison-Based Peer Education Programs and Their Connection to Reduced Disciplinary Infractions.” In their assessment of the nearly 20% of jail inmates who needed treatment but refused programming, Meyer et al. found the following reasons inmates declined to participate: doubts regarding effectiveness, stigma concerns, lack of motivation, and lack of programs that address their specific mental health need. This is a very important issue in terms of the RNR model because too many jails do not have programs that meet individual needs and do not have interventions to increase their inmates’ motivation levels, such as motivational interviewing or solution-focused therapy. Collica-Cox found that women who volunteer to work in a peer education program have less disciplinary infractions. One of the primary reasons for this reduction is they do not want to risk losing their position working in the program.
In order for the RNR model to be effective, the counselors and other correctional staff must believe in its utility and deliver interventions in an effective manner. In “The Association Between Correctional Orientation and Organization Citizenship Behaviors Among Correctional Staff,” Lambert et al. found that staff members who supported rehabilitative efforts were more likely to work beyond their job descriptions, have better relationships with inmates, and have lower levels of stress at work. In “Professional Confidence and Job Satisfaction: An Examination of Counselors’ Perceptions in Faith-Based and Non-Faith-Based Drug Treatment Programs,” Chu and Sung found that the two predictors of professional confidence for drug treatment program counselors are experience and being certified.
As Mary Ann Farkas mentioned in her April 2014 editorial, the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology continues to publish research that can be utilized by researchers, administrators, and practitioners to help effectively treat justice-involved individuals. This issue is no exception. Readers of the articles in this issue will be able to better connect research to practice by understanding important implementation strategies and understanding why inmates in need sometimes decline available services. Researchers and practitioners will be able to understand the necessity of including interventions to enhance participants’ motivation levels, which is an important but underreported aspect of the RNR model. Finally, advocates can use these articles to support volunteering opportunities for inmates, considering it is associated with a reduction in disciplinary infractions, and support training for correctional staff on the importance and utility of rehabilitation programs.