A Content Analysis of Prison Websites: Exploring Approaches to Rehabilitation in Latin America

Abstract

Across much of Latin America, prison systems are characterized as having significantly high incarceration and overcrowding rates. In recent years, some of these systems have sought to address such problems by implementing rehabilitation and early release programs. However, the extent to which rehabilitation has been embraced and the nature of said efforts is not known. Using content analysis methods, this exploratory study examines the existence of language supporting rehabilitative practices and goals on official prison system websites across the region. While our findings suggest that prison systems have largely embraced rehabilitative goals, there is limited evidence to indicate that evidence-based practices are emphasized when it comes to assessment and correctional programs. As countries embrace rehabilitative efforts, it is important that they use empirically supported practices, as a perceived failure of the rehabilitative approach could shift the pendulum away from treatment and toward punishment. Implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords

Latin America corrections rehabilitation assessment evidence-based practices

Prison systems in Latin America are in crisis across the entire region (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, 2013). While the world prison population has experienced an average increase of 24% since the 2000s, South and Central American prison systems have faced significantly larger increases: 175% and 67%, respectively (Walmsley, 2018). Incarceration rates are also higher than the international average (145 per 100,000), with the median rate for South and Central American countries being 316 and 233 per 100,000, respectively (Walmsley, 2018). In part, this can be attributed to the high rates of pre-trial detainees held in prisons, which accounts for over 50% of the prison population in three countries in the region (Paraguay, 78%; Bolivia, 69%; and Uruguay, 69%). Across the region, only one country (Nicaragua) has a pre-trial detention rate below 40 per 100,000 of the national population (Walmsley, 2017). The growth in prison populations and incarceration rates has contributed to the high rates of overcrowding throughout South and Central American countries. With the exception of Suriname (75.20%), Belize (87.30%), and Mexico (94.4%), all prison systems in Latin America experience overcrowding, with occupancy rates ranging from 100.4% (Chile) to 357.6% (Guatemala) (World Prison Brief, 2020). Even those that are operating below capacity are likely to face operational challenges, given that the effects of crowding begin to occur at 80% capacity (Klofas et al., 1992).

Overcrowded prisons present a number of management difficulties, which can then translate into violent episodes, strikes, riots, and escapes attempts, all of which are common to prison systems in the region (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, 2013). These events can affect the integrity and the safety not only of the inmates, but also of the staff and any visitors, and can make it difficult for programming or services to be offered. Prisons are regarded by local experts as “small criminogenic universes” that do not permit for the rehabilitation of inmates, but rather increase their likelihood for recidivism once they are back in the community (Macera, 2018).

Literature Review

Evidence-Based Rehabilitation and Assessment

Beginning in the early 1990s, after the perceived failure of the correctional control strategy, prison systems began (re)embracing the rehabilitation and treatment of offenders as one of their main institutional goals (MacKenzie & Lattimore, 2018). Research has emphasized the importance of the evidence-based decision-making model, in which policy choices are guided by relying on the best available scientific evidence, to successfully develop, implement, and evaluate rehabilitative correctional programs (MacKenzie, 2000; Sherman, 1998; Welsh & Farrington, 2011). The existing evidence-base has identified a number of principles, namely risk, need, and responsivity (RNR), related to effective correctional interventions. Within this framework, programs seeking to reduce recidivism should utilize classification and assessment systems that include dynamic and static risk factors, match treatment to an inmate’s needs and risks, target criminogenic needs, utilize cognitive-behavioral models, deliver services in a manner that matches each inmate’s abilities, and ensure program fidelity (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Desmarais & Singh, 2013).

An essential part of evidence-based interventions is a reliance on classification and risk assessment procedures (Bonta et al., 2001). Identifying risk of recidivism and matching the level of services and supervision to the risk level is a core component of effective programming (Andrews & Bonta, 2010); doing so requires the use of validated, structured assessments that provide an objective level of risk and need (Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Desmarais & Singh, 2013). This approach is in contrast to traditional assessment and classification approaches, often characterized by the reliance on unstructured professional judgment of the probability of offending behavior, whereby correctional staff and clinical professionals made decisions regarding security and supervision levels based on their own training and experience (Andrews et al., 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Though structured and actuarial approaches to risk assessment are not immune from criticism, they have consistently been found to have less bias and greater predictive validity than clinical assessments of risk and need (Bonta et al., 1998, 2001).

The most effective programs target higher risk individuals for more intensive services and supervision (Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005) and target empirically supported and theoretically informed predictors of recidivism for change (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). These include criminogenic factors such as substance abuse, negative peers, employment and education, criminal thinking, low self-control, and problem solving skills, among others (Andrews et al., 2006; Desmarais & Singh, 2013). Implicit in this approach to rehabilitation is the need for actuarial or structured risk/need assessments and an emphasis on groups targeting criminogenic needs over non-criminogenic needs (e.g., physical activity, self-esteem, parenting skills; Latessa et al., 2020).

Correctional Programming in Latin America

Although rehabilitation has not been a priority for prisons in Latin America, there have been recent efforts to develop and implement correctional treatment programs meant to address the high incarceration rates and overcrowding levels within their prison systems. (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, 2013). For example, El Salvador implemented Yo Cambio, a program aimed at advancing individuals through a progressive system of rehabilitation and ultimately back into the community (Mellow et al., 2019). Chile has introduced drug treatment and alternatives to incarceration programs (Peillard et al., 2012), and several countries, including Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Costa Rica have adopted drug courts (Drugs, Security and Democracy Program, 2018).

The existence of such programs indicates an institutional openness toward rehabilitative ideals and goals, which had been lacking in the region until fairly recently (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, 2013). However, relatively little is known about the nature of most correctional interventions across Latin America. It is not known, for instance, whether they are based in empirically supported principles with a strong theoretical basis, which are necessary features to successfully rehabilitate individuals and reduce recidivism. Some notable exceptions exist. A Chilean reentry pilot program, implemented in a subset of the country’s prisons, is notable for its reliance on RNR and early indications of success, with a 32% reduction in recidivism when treatment participants were compared to a matched control group (Pantoja Vera & Guzmán Cáceres, 2011). Similarly, Argentina piloted an actuarial risk assessment to predict the risk of violence among individuals conditionally released from prison (Folino, 2005).

Despite the above examples, it is not yet clear that the move toward EBP is widespread across the region. Some have suggested empirically supported principles such as RNR may not translate to the Latin American context (Sanhueza & Brander, 2017) and at least some prison systems are using approaches that fail to adhere to empirical support. For example, efforts in the Salvadorian prison system largely focus on sports and religion, use an psychoeducational rather than behavioral approach to drug treatment, and use psychosocial assessments rather than structured assessments (Koetzle & Mellow, 2019; Mellow et al., 2019). Similarly, a survey of mental health professionals found that fewer than half of the countries surveyed in South America use structured risk assessments (Singh et al., 2014).

As the region increasingly moves toward embracing rehabilitative efforts, it is critical that the services offered are effective. Failing to provide effective interventions and services could result in high rates of recidivism and revocation and undermine confidence in these types of programs. This is particularly problematic in a region where most citizens do not believe governments are capable of successfully controlling crime (Cohen et al., 2017). Public sensibilities toward punishment tend to change swiftly (Tonry, 2004) and a perceived failure of the rehabilitative approach could swing the pendulum back toward a systematic rejection of its principles and goals, much like what occurred in the United States correctional system following Martinson’s (1974) declaration that rehabilitation programs were largely ineffective.

The current paper seeks to address the gap in the literature by providing a review of assessment and treatment practices in Latin America, as communicated by the official websites of the prison systems in the region. The development and implementation of evidence-based practices necessitates an institutional openness toward, and awareness of, said interventions as a first step. As such, the language used by prison systems on their official websites, which they use to interact with and present information to the public and stakeholders, is a valuable measure of institutional attitudes toward rehabilitative and assessment practices.

Given the potentially devastating consequences of relying on programs that are not supported by evidence, our goal is to rely on the content of the websites to identify the degree to which the region has embraced rehabilitative ideals and interventions, and to what degree the latter are supported by empirically validated principles. In order to do so, we relied on a content analysis of official prison system websites, focusing on whether the language being used reflected the adoption and reliance on evidence-based practices (EBP) when it comes to the rehabilitation, assessment, and classification of inmates.

Government Use of Websites

The internet provides a widely accessible means to present, transfer and share information that cannot be achieved as easily or inexpensively with other mediums (Clayton, 1997; Yu & Parmanto, 2011). For many organizations, it presents a controlled channel for communicating with stakeholders, the public, and the media (Kent et al., 2003). These perceived benefits have led to widespread adoption of official websites by governments and administrative bodies across the world, from local to national level institutions (Huang, 2007; Mustaf et al., 2020; United Nations, 2016; West, 2008). This phenomenon is referred to as “e-government,” a term that broadly encompasses the use of information and communication technologies (including the Internet and other digital means) in the public sector with the objective of improving its delivery of information and services (Kumar & Best, 2006; West, 2000).

Criminal justice system institutions have also embraced the use of e-government. Many court systems in the United States have strong web presence (National Center for State Courts, n.d.; United States Courts, n.d.), as do a growing number of police departments and agencies (de Guzman & Jones, 2012; Rosenbaum et al., 2011). Similarly, Departments of Corrections and prison systems across the globe have also developed websites, which are used to highlight organizational missions and the steps being used to meet these goals.

Though Latin American governmental institutions have been slower than the U.S. and Europe to adopt internet technologies, e-government has made steady gains throughout the region for purposes of information dissemination (Dias, 2019; Porrúa, 2013; Warf, 2014). In line with previous findings, during the preliminary stages of the present project, the researchers discovered that in most countries, government bodies have a strong web and social media presence (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram), and that they actively used it to communicate and engage with citizens. As such, we consider that prison system websites present a valuable source of data in a region such as Latin America.

As more organizations embrace the web as a fundamental part of their operations and communication strategies, content analyses of websites have been conducted across a varied number of disciplines, including, but not limited to, education, market research, political science, psychology, and public relations (Jose & Lee, 2007; Kahan & McKenzie, 2020; Kaushik, 2015; Slater et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2016). Content analysis of websites has also been used to examine a number of criminal justice related issues including sexual assault resources on higher education websites (Franklin et al., 2016; Hayes-Smith & Hayes-Smith, 2009), the prevalence, predictors, and content of municipal police websites in the United States (Rosenbaum et al., 2011), the characteristics of and information provided by online sex offender registries (Brewster et al., 2013), how cannabis products are described on retailer websites in the United States (Luc et al., 2020), and an analysis of mission statements located on state prison websites to understand the alignment between penological goals and theories (Graves, 2015; Lynch & Richards, 2011).

For the present study, we conducted a content analysis of the official websites of Latin American prison systems. Our analyses focused on the extent to which the websites utilized language indicative of adopting evidence-based assessment and classification practices, and if so, to what degree. Extrapolating from findings by the business literature, particular attention will be paid to each prison system’s mission and/or vision statements, tools organizations use to express and communicate their beliefs, purpose, perspectives, approaches, and directions to employees and relevant stakeholders (Hirota et al., 2010; Kemp & Dwyer, 2003).

Methods

Population

Our population was comprised of the official websites of Latin American prison systems. Website URLs were identified using data included in The World Prison Brief (WPB), an online database that provides free access to information on prison systems around the world (World Prison Brief, 2020). The WPB did not list a valid website for Honduras; however, it was located using a Google search. We identified active and official websites for all of the prison systems in the region, including eight countries in Central America and 12 countries in South America. We excluded two dependent territories in South America, the Falkland Islands and French Guyana because their prison systems are governed by European countries (the U.K. and France, respectively) and are not autonomous countries. Three countries (Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico) have both federal and state-level correctional systems, while the remaining 17 countries have a single centralized system. The final sample (n = 20) included websites of centralized and federal-level prison systems to facilitate cross-country comparisons.

Data Collection

Websites were visited between October and November 2018 and searched for information on mission/vision statements and assessment and rehabilitation practices. Websites were searched via website links and through website search boxes when information was not easily found. Search terms related to classification and assessment practices included “Clasificación” and “Evaluación” in combination with “penitenciaria,” “de reclusos,” “de presos,” and “de reos”; “Diagnóstico criminológico”; “Pronóstico criminológico”; “Riesgo de reincidencia” in combination with “reclusos”, “presos,” and “reos.” Search terms related to rehabilitation and programming included “rehabilitación,” “programas,” “tratamiento,” “reinserción,” and “reingreso.”

In some instances, prison websites were contained within larger governmental unit websites. Following Rosenbaum et al. (2011) criteria, we only included the content and features directly accessible from and related to the prison home page. In some cases, this also included links to press releases or reports. Website pages were copied and pasted into Microsoft Word documents as a method of preservation. In addition, system-level characteristics were collected from the World Prison Brief (2018) during the same time period. With the exception of the Suriname prison website, all data were collected in Spanish or Portuguese. The Suriname prison website was published in Dutch, and Google Translate was used to convert it to English.

Coding Procedures

A coding instrument was developed after a preliminary review of the existing websites and a review of existing instruments focused on website content analysis. We pretested the coding by having two coders analyze a subset of the websites, with a third member of the research team reviewing any disagreements. The coding was finalized after pretesting it on five websites and included items related to website organization, prison organization, correctional programs, and assessment practices. Both coders are bilingual (fluent in English and either Spanish or Portuguese). Each website was coded by one coder with a subset of measures coded by the second coder. Interrater reliability was calculated as percent agreement, that is, we divided the total number of agreements by the total number of agreements and disagreements (Yeaton & Wortman, 1993). Coders’ percent agreement was 83.67%, with disagreements resolved through a discussion. Coding occurred between June and September 2019.

Measures

Because the focus of the current article is on the language used by the prison websites regarding assessment and classification processes, the current analysis focuses on four key concepts: rehabilitative purpose, programming, classification, and reference to evidence-based practices (EBP). We also included one system measure (occupancy level), and one country measure (GDP).

Rehabilitative purpose

The website’s mission and/or vision statement(s) was coded for the expression of rehabilitative goals. We first identified whether each website had an explicit mission or vision statement (i.e., it included the words “mission” or “vision” in the title/heading) or a statement that, although not explicitly titled, served the function of conveying the goals of the prison system. Mission and vision statements were coded for manifest content including terms like “reahabilitación”, “reinserción”, “readaptación”, “reeducación”, or “tratamiento.” Statements were coded (1) if they expressed a rehabilitative purpose and (0) if they did not.

Programming

Websites were coded for the presence of information about programming and the nature/type of programming provided. Types of correctional programs included domestic violence, sex offending, education, employment, arts, family, religion, substance abuse, gender-specific programs, anger management, mental health, re-entry, and general cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Each type of program was coded (1) if a specific reference was made and (0) if no reference was made.

Classification practices

Websites were coded for the type of classification procedures referenced and included both internal (taking place at the home institution for purposes of housing or programming) and external (taking place at a designated classification or intake facility) practices and the type of assessment used. Approaches were coded (1) if they reported using a standardized or actuarial approach and (0) if they used a psychosocial or clinical approach. Websites that mentioned either internal or external classification practices were coded (1), while those that did not mention these practices were coded (0).

Evidence-based practices

Finally, websites were coded for any indication of using EBP for purposes of classification, assessment, and/or treatment. Our coding criteria were quite comprehensive, as to include any indication that empirical research of some kind informed the rehabilitation and assessment practices in place. Websites were coded (1) if they included any terms related to evidence, science, and empirical support, as well as more specific key terms such as Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) or the Good Lives Model (GLM), an alternative rehabilitative model to RNR (Ward et al., 2007), and coded (0) if no relevant terms were identified.

Occupancy level

Because crowded prisons are more difficult to manage (Klofas et al., 1992), prison system occupancy level data were collected from the WPB database. The WPB calculates occupancy levels by dividing a country’s prison population total by the system’s official capacity.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

A nation’s economic growth operationalized as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita (i.e., the sum of the final expenditures on goods and services plus exports less imports of goods and services) is frequently used to measure a country’s standard of living and economic health (The World Bank Group, 2020b). Research also indicates a strong positive relationship between GDP and government expenditures on criminal justice (Farrell & Clark, 2004). To facilitate cross-country comparisons, the World Bank’s International Comparison (ICP) relies on GDP converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates (PPPs) and divided by total population. For each country represented in our sample, GDP per capita based on PPP was obtained from the World Bank’s ICP database (The World Bank Group, 2020a).

Results

Rehabilitative Purpose

All 20 websites included mission or vision statements that were either explicitly defined as such, or contained a section that did not have the specific title of “mission” or “vision,” but described the goals of the system. We found that the mission or vision statements for 16 (80%) of the websites expressed rehabilitative goals, an overwhelming majority of the websites. Only four countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Guyana) had websites that did not include a reference to rehabilitation in their mission or vision statements.

Programming

Almost all of the websites (18; 90%) referenced some type of correctional programming. The websites for the prison systems of Bolivia and Paraguay were the only two that did not mention any kind of programming whatsoever. As indicated in Table 1, a range of programs are referenced throughout the region. The two most common programs were education (89%) and employment (89%), interventions that have been found to be associated with reductions in recidivism. However, the next six most common programs target non-criminogenic needs including arts and crafts (67%), sports (67%), and religion (39%). Though education and employment have been found to be effective treatment targets, targeting arts and crafts and sports has not been found to be associated with reducing recidivism (see Latessa et al., 2020).

Table 1.

Type of Rehabilitative Programming Referenced, by Country.

	A	Be	Br	Ch	Co	CR	Ec	ES	Gua	Guy	H	M	N	Pa	Pe	S	U	V
Education	X		X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Employment	X		X	X		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Arts and crafts	X		X			X	X	X	X	X	X		X	X			X	X
Sports	X		X			X		X	X	X	X	X	X	X			X	X
Mental health	X			X			X	X	X				X		X		X
Family/parenting				X				X	X				X	X	X		X
Religious			X						X		X	X	X	X			X
Other	X			X					X	X						X	X	X
Reinsertion/resocialization			X	X	X	X								X
Sex offender	X							X						X	X
Substance abuse		X						X							X			X
Domestic violence	X							X						X
Gender-responsive	X													X			X
Cognitive behavioral therapy	X							X							X
Anger management								X

Note. A = Argentina (federal); Be = Belize; Br = Brazil (federal); Ch = Chile; Co = Colombia; CR = Costa Rica; Ec = Ecuador; ES = El Salvador; Gua = Guatemala; Guy = Guyana; H = Honduras; M = Mexico (federal); N = Nicaragua; Pa = Panama; Pe = Peru; S = Suriname; U = Uruguay; V = Venezuela.

As a point of comparison, CBT, which has a significant amount of research backing its effectiveness, was mentioned in only three (16.67%) of the websites that reference programming. Similarly, anger management, substance abuse, and reinsertion (reentry) programs were referenced on less than half of the websites analyzed.

Classification

We were able to identify some reference to classification or assessment in 12 (60%) of the websites. More specifically, two websites (Uruguay and Venezuela) mentioned external classification procedures, while ten websites (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Suriname) included references to internal classification practices. No single website indicated using both internal and external classification protocols.

Only four websites referenced the type of assessment being used. Three (Panama, El Salvador, and Venezuela) indicated a clinical or psychosocial assessment was used to mental health, personality, and general functioning, respectively. Argentina’s website indicated an actuarial risk assessment was used; though the name of the assessment was not available.

Evidence-based Practices

We found terms related to EBP in five (25%) of the websites. More specifically, four websites (Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, and Panama) included a general reference to EBP or the use of empirical evidence to support decision-making. Argentina’s Institute of Criminology (the technical-criminological body of the Federal Penitentiary Service), for instance, indicated that knowledge through the realization of interdisciplinary studies and investigations based on empirical evidence. . .will support the reform processes and the taking of decisions to achieve institutional objectives (Servicio Penitenciario Federal, n.d.). In El Salvador, it was indicated that strategies to modernize the Penitentiary System include providing technical-scientific treatment and access to comprehensive health care of persons deprived of liberty, taking into account their rehabilitation and resocialization (Ministerio de Justicia y Seguridad Pública, 2019). Argentina and Chile included a specific reference to RNR. Only one website (Argentina) included both a general reference to EBP and a specific reference to RNR. No references to the GLM were identified.

Summative Scale

Due to the significant variation regarding the content and format across the different websites and to provide a holistic view of how each site fared when it came to our criteria, we developed a summative scale (0–4) based on the following: rehabilitative purpose, correctional programs offered, classification or assessment system mentioned, and reference to EBP (yes = 1 for all four items, no = 0). The sample had a range of 0 to 4, with $\bar{X}$ = 2.50 and median = 3.0, with 55% of the countries scoring a 3 or a 4. As indicated in Table 2, all but two of the top 10 wealthiest countries, as measured by GDP, scored 3 or 4 points on our scale. In contrast, only Venezuela in the next quartile of countries rated a 3 on our scale. Interestingly, three (Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua) of the five countries in the bottom quartile rated a 3 or 4 on our scale. These three countries also have extreme levels of crowding, with El Salvador and Guatemala occupancy levels in excess of 200% and Nicaragua’s occupancy level close to 180%. Although the summative scale suggests some degree of alignment between GDP and EBP, it is clear that other factors also predict the degree to which Latin American prisons reference EBP on their websites.

Table 2.

GDP Per Capita (USD) and Summative Scale, by Country.

Country	GDP per capita (USD), PPP^a	Occupancy level^b (%)	Rehabilitation	Programming	Assessment	EBP	Summative scale
Panama	$25,553.70	122.2	1	1	1	1	4
Chile	$25,222.50	100.4	1	1	0	1	3
Uruguay	$23,572.20	99.3	1	1	1	0	3
Argentina (FED)	$20,610.60	122.1	1	1	1	1	4
Mexico (FED)	$19,844.60	90.1	1	1	0	0	2
Costa Rica	$17,671.10	129.1	0	1	1	0	2
Brazil (FED)	$16,096.40	167.7	0	1	1	1	3
Suriname	$15,510.50	75.2	1	1	1	0	3
Colombia	$15,012.90	145.9	1	1	1	0	3
Peru	$14,418.10	240.7	1	1	1	0	3
Paraguay	$13,599.90	143.1	1	0	0	0	1
Venezuela	$12,640.70	153.9	1	1	1	0	3
Ecuador	$11,734.40	133.2	1	1	0	0	2
Belize	$8,648.10	87.3	1	1	0	0	2
Guyana	$8,640.70	137.5	0	1	0	0	1
Guatemala	$8,462.40	372.0	1	1	1	0	3
El Salvador	$8,331.80	215.2	1	1	1	1	4
Bolivia	$7,873.20	363.9	0	0	0	0	0
Nicaragua	$5,533.60	177.6	1	1	1	0	3
Honduras	$5,138.80	204.0	1	1	0	0	2

Source. ^aWorld Bank, International Comparison Program database (2019).

World Prison Brief (2020). Occupancy level based on official capacity.

Discussion and Conclusions

Though our findings suggest that many countries in the region have embraced a rehabilitative model as evidenced by the language used on their websites, it is important to note some limitations to the current study. First, our content analysis is based on a picture of correctional practices in Latin America as presented by governments on their official websites and for a specific time period. It does not capture variations across time, nor does it provide information about the number of individuals served by these programs. Second, we focused on the language used on these websites to identify the degree to which the region embraced rehabilitative ideals and interventions, and to what degree the latter are supported by empirically validated principles. Thus, our results reflect what governments opted to publicize on their correctional system websites and may not reflect the nature of services offered at individual institutions. Although a valuable source of data, this language, by itself, may not necessarily reflect practices and realities of everyday prison administration. Third, while we investigated the existence of rehabilitative and evidence-based content, we did not examine the nuances and granularity within that content (e.g., details on program implementation and structure of assessment practices). Finally, we focused solely on centralized and federal-level prison systems data, which facilitated cross-country comparisons but may have provided an incomplete picture of the correctional practices in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico (countries which have both federal and state-level correctional practices).

Despite these limitations, our findings offer a first look at the extent to which rehabilitation has been embraced in the region as indicated on official government websites. Language informs practice and though it may not necessarily be a precondition for reform and implementation, one can argue that for programs and models to have practical effect, it is useful for the conversation to take place first. The fact that almost all of Latin American prison systems adopted language reflective of and aligned with the rehabilitative model is significant in and of itself. Though we are not able to claim that the use of this language indicates the quality—or even the presence—of practices on the ground, we argue that it does indicate prison systems’ openness to and readiness for the adoption/implementation of the rehabilitative model. Language is necessary to move the field forward as it has the capacity both to influence mindsets and alter the status quo (e.g., a recognition that punishment, alone, does not solve the problem). The existence of language around rehabilitation, assessment, programming, and evidence-based practices in Latin America, even with variations across countries, is aspirational and, at the very least, indicates intent. We consider this a fundamental step for building and sustaining an evidence-based organization (Guevara, 2011; The Carey Group, 2011).

Though the vast majority of prison systems expressed rehabilitative goals, identified correctional programming, and referenced classification/assessment practices, only 25% of the systems had any mention of terms related to evidenced-based practices. This raises questions about whether countries are relying on evidence-based practices to guide their assessment/classification protocols and rehabilitative programming and whether current practices can fulfill the widely adopted rehabilitative purpose. This finding becomes particularly concerning considering the abundance of programming (e.g., sports, arts, and religion) which lack evidence to support their effectiveness as it relates to rehabilitation of correctional populations (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Latessa et al., 2020). Results may indicate that Latin American correctional systems are taking part in an important conversation, which underscores an institutional openness toward rehabilitative ideals and goals, but may not yet be embracing empirically supported approaches. Though some programs and activities are better than none, they are not likely to have meaningful impacts on reducing recidivism. Given the region’s historical bent toward punishment, a failure to use EBP may increase the risk of backlash against rehabilitative efforts.

Though we are not able to assess why some countries were rated higher than others based on our summative scale, it seems clear that economic conditions bear some consideration. Twelve countries had a rating above the mean and all but four of these were among the top 50% in terms of GDP. Though Venezuela’s GDP currently ranks number 12 among the countries in our sample, its GDP has dropped significantly in the past several years. Of note, however, is the seeming embrace among Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, three countries marked by high levels of prison crowding and low economic indicators. In part, this finding may be the result of investments in this region by the U.S. and other countries. The U.S., for example, has appropriated over $3.1 billion since 2016 to provide funding to programs focused on improving a number of areas, including social welfare, violence prevention, and justice reform (Meyer, 2020). It may be that the influx of American dollars has been successful in moving these countries toward empirically supported reforms, at least in the area of justice reform. Future research should more fully examine the impact of foreign aid on correctional practices and EBP.

Clearly, the language of rehabilitation and assessment is currently in practice in the region. Future research should explore whether, to what degree, and in what form, this language reflects practice. Specifically, it should examine the extent to which empirically supported practices have been implemented in the region’s prisons and the impact of these approaches on prison management, reentry, and recidivism. This type of analysis becomes increasingly urgent in a context like Latin America, a region marked by extreme violence, growing prison populations, and significant prison crowding. Lessons learned in the U.S. make clear that improving prison conditions, reducing violence, and keeping communities safe from crime requires thoughtful implementation of empirically supported practices. A failure to do so may undermine the current efforts and swing the pendulum away from the rehabilitative paradigm and toward more punitive approaches to crime prevention.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Irina Fanarraga

References

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Wormith

J. S.

(2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281756

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Anderson Publishing.

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Public Safety Canada.

Bonta

Bogue

Crowley

Motiuk

(2001). Implementing offender classification systems: Lessons learned. In Bernfeld

G. A.

Farrington

D. P.

Leschied

A. W.

(Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs. Wiley.

Bonta

Law

Hanson

(1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.123

Bourgon

Armstrong

(2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854804270618

Brewster

M. P.

DeLong

P. A.

Moloney

J. T.

(2013). Sex offender registries: A content analysis. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(6), 695–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412459331

Clayton

(1997). Are you on the web yet? Corrections Today, 59(5), 64–66.

Cohen

M. J.

Lupu

Zechmeister

E. J.

(Eds.). (2017). The political culture of democracy in the Americas, 2016/17: A comparative study of democracy and governance. Latin American Public Opinion Project.

10.

de Guzman

M. C.

Jones

M. A

. (2012). E-policing: Environmental and organizational correlates of website features and characteristics among large police departments in the United States of America. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 8(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.4018/jegr.2012010104

11.

Desmarais

S. L.

Singh

J. P.

(2013). Risk assessment instruments validated and implemented in correctional settings in the United States. Council of State Governments Justice Center.

12.

Dias

G. P.

(2019). Fifteen years of e-government research in Ibero-America: A bibliometric analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 400–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.008

13.

Drugs, Security and Democracy Program. (2018). Drug courts in the Americas. Social Science Research Council.

14.

Farrell

Clark

(2004). What does the world spend on criminal justice? The European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control.

15.

Folino

J. O.

(2005). Risk assessment and violent recidivism risk management in convicts from argentina. In S. W. Hartwell (Ed.), Research in social problems and public policy (Vol. 12, pp. 75–88). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

16.

Franklin

C. A.

Jin

H. R.

Ashworth

L. M.

Viada

J. H.

(2016). Sexual assault resource availability on Texas higher education campuses: A web site content analysis. Women & Criminal Justice, 26(5), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2015.1128377

17.

Graves

S. M.

(2015). Correctional mission statements as indicators of the criminal justice policy environment: A research note. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(5), 488–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403414524052

18.

Crime and Justice Institute, Guevara

(2011). Putting the pieces together: Practical strategies for implementing evidence-based practices. National Institute of Corrections. https://s3-amazonaws-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/static.nicic.gov/Library/024394.pdf

19.

Hayes-Smith

(2009). A website content analysis of women’s resources and sexual assault literature on college campuses. Critical Criminology, 17(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-009-9075-y

20.

Hirota

Kubo

Miyajima

Hong

Won Park

(2010). Corporate mission, corporate policies and business outcomes: Evidence from Japan. Management Decision, 48(7), 1134–1153. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011068815

21.

Huang

(2007). A comprehensive analysis of U.S. counties’ e-Government portals: Development status and functionalities. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000675

22.

Jose

Lee

S.-M.

(2007). Environmental reporting of global corporations: A content analysis based on website disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(4), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9172-8

23.

Kahan

McKenzie

T. L.

(2020). School websites: A physical education and physical activity content analysis. Journal of School Health, 90(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12851

24.

Kaushik

(2015). Content analysis of political party websites in India. World Digital Libraries - An international journal, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.18329/09757597/2015/8102

25.

Kemp

Dwyer

(2003). Mission statements of international airlines: A content analysis. Tourism Management, 24(6), 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5177(03)00049-9

26.

Kent

M. L.

Taylor

White

W. J.

(2003). The relationship between web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0363-8111(02)00194-7

27.

Klofas

J. M.

Stojkovic

Kalinich

D. A.

(1992). The meaning of correctional crowding: Steps toward an index of severity. Crime and Delinquency, 38(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128792038002003

28.

Koetzle

Mellow

(2019). Improving prison management and community reintegration through risk, need, and responsivity. Revista de La Maestría En Administración Pública, 2, 187–202.

29.

Kumar

Best

M. L.

(2006). Impact and sustainability of e-government services in developing countries: Lessons learned from Tamil Nadu, India. The Information Society, 22(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240500388149

30.

Latessa

E. J.

Johnson

S. L.

Koetzle

(2020). What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism. Routledge.

31.

Luc

M. H.

Tsang

S. W.

Thrul

Kennedy

R. D.

Moran

M. B.

(2020). Content analysis of online product descriptions from cannabis retailers in six US states. International Journal of Drug Policy, 75, 102593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.10.017

32.

Lynch

M. J.

Richards

T. N.

(2011). State correctional policy survey: What state correctional departments say they do. Journal of Crime and Justice, 34(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2011.580519

33.

Macera

(2018, August 12). Cárceles peruanas: Estado invierte US$3.135 anuales por cada reo. El Comercio. https://elcomercio.pe/economia/peru/carceles-peruanas-gasta-s-1-3-mlls-sobrepoblacion-penitenciaria-noticia-545829

34.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128700046004003

35.

MacKenzie

D. L.

Lattimore

P. K.

(2018). To rehabilitate or not to rehabilitate: That is the question for corrections! Criminology & Public Policy, 17(2), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12364

36.

Martinson

(1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.

37.

Mellow

Koetzle

Vasquez

(2019). Assessing criminological technical teams to reduce overcrowding in salvadoran prisons. Revista de La Maestría En Administración Pública, 2, 203–232.

38.

Meyer

P. J.

(2020). U.S. strategy for engagement in Central America: An overview. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10371.pdf

39.

Ministerio de Justicia y Seguridad Pública. (2019). Política penitenciaria de El Salvador.

40.

Mustaf

Ibrahim

Mohammed

(2020). E-government adoption: A systematic review in the context of developing nations. International Journal of Innovation, 8(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v8i1.16479

41.

National Center for State Courts. (n.d.). State court web sites. National Center for State Courts. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from https://www.ncsc.org/Information-and-Resources/Browse-by-State/State-Court-Websites.aspx

42.

Pantoja Vera

Guzmán Cáceres

. (2011). Impacto del “Programa de reinserción social” sobre la reincidencia de hombres adultos condenados por delitos. Ministerio del Interior y Seguridad Pública, Subsecretaría de Prevención del Delito, Departamento de Reinserción Social. http://www.dsp.gob.cl/filesapp/Informe%20evaluacion%20de%20impacto%20preliminar%20Programa%20reinsercion%20social%202011.pdf

43.

Peillard

A. M. M.

Correa

N. M.

Chahuán

G. W.

Lacoa

J. F.

(2012). La reincidencia en el Sistema penitenciario Chileno. Fundación Paz Ciudadana.

44.

Porrúa

(2013). E-Government in Latin America: A review of the success in Colombia, Uruguay, and Panama. In Bilbao-Osorio

Dutta

Lanvin

(Eds.), The global information technology report 2013 (pp. 127–136). World Economic Forum.

45.

Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. (Ed.) (2013). Informe regional de desarrollo humano: Diagnóstico y propuestas para América Latina. 2013–2014: Seguridad ciudadana con rostro humano. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo.

46.

Rosenbaum

D. P.

Graziano

L. M.

Stephens

C. D.

Schuck

A. M.

(2011). Understanding community policing and legitimacy-seeking behavior in virtual reality: A national study of municipal police websites. Police Quarterly, 14(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611110392722

47.

Sanhueza

G. E.

Brander

(2017). Política criminal y ejecución penal en Chile, una rehabilitación problemática. In Irrazabal

Dallorso

Cesaroni

Costa

(Eds.), Gestión de la inseguridad, violencias y sistema penal. Tren en Movimiento.

48.

Servicio Penitenciario Federal. (n.d.). Instituto de Criminología. Retrieved July 20, 2020, from http://www.spf.gob.ar/www/instituto-de-criminologia

49.

Sherman

(1998). Ideas in American policing: Evidence-based policing. The Police Foundation.

50.

Singh

J. P.

Desmarais

S. L.

Hurducas

Arbach-Lucioni

Condemarin

Dean

Doyle

Folino

J. O.

Godoy-Cervera

Grann

R. M. Y.

Large

M. M.

Nielsen

L. H.

Pham

T. H.

Rebocho

M. F.

Reeves

K. A.

Rettenberger

de Ruiter

Seewald

Otto

R. K.

(2014). International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(3), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.922141

51.

Slater

Tiggemann

Hawkins

Werchon

(2012). Just one click: A content analysis of advertisements on teen web sites. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(4), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.08.003

52.

Smith

L. V.

Blake

J. J.

Graves

S. L.

Jr Vaughan-Jensen

Pulido

Banks

(2016). Promoting diversity through program websites: A multicultural content analysis of school psychology program websites. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(3), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000149

53.

The Carey Group. (2011). Checklist: Building and sustaining an EBP organization. https://thecareygroup.com/documents/Checklist%20Building%20and%20Sustaining%20an%20EBP%20Organization.pdf

54.

The World Bank Group. (2020a). International comparison program (ICP). The World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/icp

55.

The World Bank Group. (2020b). Purchasing power parities and the real size of world economies: Results from the 2017 international comparison program. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

56.

Tonry

M. H.

(2004). Thinking about crime: Sense and sensibility in American penal culture. Oxford University Press.

57.

United Nations. (Ed.) (2016). United Nations E-Government Survey 2018: Gearing E-Government to support transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies. United Nations.

58.

United States Courts. (n.d.). Court website links. United States Courts. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/federal-courts-public/court-website-links

59.

Walmsley

(2017). World pre-trial/remand imprisonment list (3rd ed.). Institute for Criminal Policy Research. https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wptril_3rd_edition.pdf

60.

Walmsley

(2018). World prison population list (12th ed.). Institute for Criminal Policy Research. https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl_12.pdf

61.

Ward

Mann

R. E.

Gannon

T. A.

(2007). The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: Clinical implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.03.004

62.

Warf

(2014). Geographies of e-Government in Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of Latin American Geography, 13(1), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1353/lag.2014.0015

63.

Welsh

B. C.

Farrington

D. P.

(2011). Evidence-based crime policy. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of crime and criminal justice. Oxford University Press.

64.

West

D. M.

(2000). Assessing E-Government: The internet, democracy, and service delivery by state and federal governments. World Bank.

65.

West

D. M.

(2008). State and Federal electronic government in the United States, 2008. Brookings Institution.

66.

World Prison Brief. (2018). World prison brief data. https://www.prisonstudies.org/world-prison-brief-data

67.

World Prison Brief. (2020). World prison brief data. https://www.prisonstudies.org/world-prison-brief-data

68.

Yeaton

W. H.

Wortman

P. M.

(1993). On the reliability of meta-analytic reviews: The role of intercoder agreement. Evaluation Review, 17(3), 292–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841x9301700303

69.

D. X.

Parmanto

(2011). U.S. state government websites demonstrate better in terms of accessibility compared to federal government and commercial websites. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 484–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.001