Download OFFENDER REHABILITATION AND REFORM and more Exercises Community Corrections in PDF only on Docsity!
The United States has now achieved a milestone unprecedented in its history. The Pew Center on the States (2008) report estimates that 1 in 99 Americans are incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons today. This represents over 2.3 million adults. If one considers not only those incarcerated on a given day, but also those who are admitted to prisons and jails in a given year, the numbers are staggering. Over 12 million Americans are booked into jails alone in any given year (Veysey, 2010). While 1 percent of the population is horrific, these odds still represent a good bet to the average citizen. The non-incarcerated population may still rest assured that arrest and prison time will not intrude upon their lives. However, if one considers any time spent incarcerated, nearly 3 percent of adults (1 in 37) have been incarcerated (Bonczar, 2003). This 2001 statistic is expected to grow progressively worse over time. In fact, if incarceration rates remain the same, 6.6% of people born in 2001 will be imprisoned at some time in their lives (Bonczar, 2003). While we may think that we are not affected by mass imprisonment, correctional budgets, health and social services, and public safety all are increasingly overburdened.
Much of our sense of security comes from the recognition that persons arrested and sentenced to jails and prisons are not randomly selected from U.S. society. They are disproportionately poor people, and they are largely people who belong to ethnic minority groups. These facts allow mainstream society to con- sciously and unconsciously assign them to the “them” category, reassuring the “us” category that we are morally superior. If there is in fact a “them,” then they are by necessity different from the “us.” It should come as no surprise, then, that our investigations of offender rehabilitation focus on their problems. We know that many offenders, particularly the incarcerated population, have serious health, addiction and mental health conditions. They also have poor educational and employment skills, marginal housing and often come from poor, violent neighborhoods and dysfunctional families.
Much of the responsibility for offender reform falls to community corrections agencies and focus largely on reentry issues. While reentry is the current buzzword, reentry is not new. Reentry is after all the reason parole was created many years ago. Like the early conversation about parole, the discourse of reentry centers largely on the lamentable and often deplorable conditions in which offenders find them- selves. Facing legal and structural barriers to success, formerly incarcerated people often have health and behavioral health problems that can create additional burdens and little social capital or personal resources that can assist in creating a normal life. It is a short logical step from the problem to the solution. Logically, if offenders have a particular set of identifiable problems, remedying those problems will reduce criminali- ty. This is, in fact, how most criminal justice organizations function. The gold standard of evidence-based correctional practice today is based upon standardized assessments that estimate each offender’s risk of future criminal behavior and his or her criminogenic needs (see Andrews and Bonta, 2010). These needs fall into several life domains, including the “big four,” comprised of history of antisocial behavior, (that is, past delinquent and criminal behavior), antisocial personality patterns (generally associated with the per- sonality tendencies to repeatedly engage in risky, dangerous and/or aggressive behavior and a disregard for others), antisocial cognition (that is, attitudes, values and beliefs that rationalize, excuse or directly support criminal behavior) and antisocial peers (that is, a preponderance of criminal peers over convention- al peers). These together with the other domains of difficulties in: (1) family/marital circumstances, (2) school/work, (3) recreation/leisure, and (4) substance use/mental health comprise the essence of what we believe causes criminal behavior and what we believe can reform offenders.
＊Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University-Newark, Center for Law and Justice, 123 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07866.
OFFENDER REHABILITATION AND REFORM
Bonita M. Veysey, Ph.D.＊
159TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
However, this assumes that these problems are directly and causally related to the offender’s criminal behavior ― in the past AND in the future. For example, while research has demonstrated that certain pre-existing problems, such as drug addiction or criminal peers, are related to criminal behavior, it is not clear that curing the addiction or isolating the individual from these friends, family members and acquain- tances will result in a crime-free lifestyle. The way into criminality isn’t necessarily the way out in reverse as if all we need to do is de-program (or deconstruct) the criminal. There is no greater truth than this: no one, neither the expert nor the individual offender, can erase the past; the experiences, memories and con- nections that make a person who he or she is today. No one can nor should hope to achieve a pure and innocent state. What we can do together is to embed the past in a life narrative that gives meaning and substance to the past; even uses the wisdom of past experience as expert knowledge to demonstrate an authentic change and give back to society.
Life contexts and the meanings we ascribe to them may explain much of how people transform their sense of self from criminal to conventional citizen. Correctional programming in many ways is no different than medical, psychiatric or substance abuse treatment. These formal interventions by nature are symptom focused, and therefore, deficit-based. Ameliorate the symptom, and the disease process is contained and managed, if not eliminated. Improving patient outcomes, integrative medicine focuses on the whole person and the role of social contexts in which illness processes are embedded. Twenty-five years ago, Dr. Arthur Kleinman (1988) stated that medicine plays two roles; control of disease processes and the management of the illness experience. More recently, Dr. Jack Coulehan (2005) similarly stated that medicine plays both an instrumental and symbolic role. Medicine provides direct medical interventions to produce positive health outcomes. More importantly, the diagnosis of illness and the ontological meaning of that illness are constructed in the physician/patient interaction. Coulehan goes on to say that how illness is embedded in the life narrative has important implications for recovery. Persons who believe they will recover or who have narratives that find positive meaning in the illness experience are more likely to survive life-threatening illnesses than those who don’t. While it is unclear what physiological mechanisms are at work to produce this puzzling result, this same phenomenon is repeatedly observed in other disci- plines whether it is called a placebo effect, a Hawthorne effect, or is ascribed to unmeasured personal char- acteristics.
To this point, one of the more interesting facts cited by the European correctional evidence-based practices proponents comes from the psychotherapy literature (McNeill et al., 2005). A meta-analysis of this literature found that 40 percent of “success” was attributable to personal factors, 30 percent to the therapeutic relationship, 15 percent to expectancy or a placebo effect, and 15 percent to the specific modality. Forty percent, the person-specific attributes, are typically considered random factors. While studies included in the meta-analysis varied on the person-specific constructs measured (e.g., locus of control, self-efficacy), there is no consistent set of variables. The “random” factors may, in fact, be systemat- ic elements that remain unmeasured largely due to a lack of consensus regarding the importance of these variables in personal change. However, the importance of what people bring to the change endeavor cannot be underestimated.
While this largest predictor set is the intangibles that people bring with them, the second most important is the human connection reflected in the therapeutic relationship. A further 15 percent can be attributed solely to the belief that change can happen; that is, the placebo effect or expectancy factor. This leaves the remaining 15 percent to the intervention itself. Yet in designing and implementing our correc- tional programs, we disregard individuals’ strengths, resources and desires (the 40 percent), don’t hire people who have excellent relational skills (the 30 percent), don’t believe that hope matters (the 15 percent), and rely on the remaining 15 percent to solve the problem. We throw away 85 percent of the resources that could be mobilized to support offenders in their reform.
Most of the discussion on offender reform focuses on programs operated by community corrections agencies. Traditionally community corrections has had two mandates: public safety through supervision and assisting offenders to remain crime free. Implicit in this is the ability to provide surveillance together with linkages to needed services. In many respects, community corrections agencies as they currently function are exactly the wrong context using the wrong people to achieve the wrong goals. Community corrections agencies across the US operate under a risk and needs model. Using validated risk instru- ments, criminogenic needs are targeted to reduce recidivism and improve community safety. Here’s the
159TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
The first critical component is empowering relationships. This is the linchpin of redemption, recovery and wellness. This is essentially the effect of the looking glass self, gazing through another’s eyes at the human value and positive possibilities of the self — where consistent positive regard may be interpreted by the individual, sometimes for the first time, that he or she is deserving of love and belonging. Being in this relationship gives people the confidence and courage to explore new roles and their attendant skills. Often, when someone has been involved with the correctional or treatment systems, his or her breadth of possible roles has been reduced to a very few, and he or she is often solely characterized by his or her status as an offender, addict or psychiatric patient. Taking on and practicing new roles that are valued by society, such as student, employee, volunteer or advocate, is the first step in assuming a new identity. Taking on a new role also means that the individual must learn the skills necessary to be successful in that role, including personal, educational, vocational and interpersonal skills. Further, having a role or roles that are valued both by the self and by society and developing and practicing the skills associated with that role build self-esteem and self-efficacy. Experiences in positive relationships and the development and practice of new skills and roles build confidence and change the way people view themselves and their own histories. This leads directly to recontextualization that we define as the ability of individuals to reframe their experiences and redefine themselves through a new life narrative. These last three compo- nents, valued social roles, skills development, and recontextualization, are at the heart of identity transfor- mation. A new person rises from the proverbial ashes using their past negative experiences as wisdom and sources of strength as well as a way to recast their narrative toward a meaningful life through giving back and as a way to justify their right to a fresh start.
Effective Correctional Programming Based upon Desistance Theories Reflecting for a moment on the essential differences between correctional programming that is based upon traditional theories of criminality and those based upon desistance theories, these following things appear central. First and foremost, traditional theories emphasize what’s wrong with a person. The as- sumption is that if we can correct the deficits, we can produce a good citizen. The knowledge of how to reform resides with the correctional or clinical expert. The end goal is the cessation of criminal behavior.
Desistance theories, on the other hand, suggest that to truly reform, the individual must choose and practice a new identity to become a pro-social conventional person. This means that programming must identify and support the assets, resources, and personality characteristics that can be mobilized in the ref- ormation process. The only true expert in plotting the course to reform is the individual him- or herself. The end goal of this process is self-determined, whether it is to own a business, be a good parent, own a home or be a mentor.
Let’s go back for a moment to the current gold standard of risk and needs assessment in the context of this model. Addressing the problems of antisocial history, personality, cognitions, and peers, of addictions, of deficits in home, work and leisure reduces the focus of transformation to a narrow point. Even if suc- cessful, the end result is a non-criminal criminal. That is, we have effectively stripped the person of all his or her negative aspects, but we have not given much attention to a replacement self. We can educate and give a person a job and stable housing, but if these things are not meaningful to the individual, how can they sustain themselves? Essentially, this brings a person halfway back to society. We need also to invest in creating opportunities for people to fulfill their hopes and dreams to be full participating members of society. Helping people to focus on a desired future self ― not the past self with all of its problems ― on what is necessary for success, and in making personal investments in the future will naturally move indi- viduals away from criminal peers, thinking and activities.
However, there are three predictable challenges that typically are encountered during a transformation process of this nature. First, when people make dramatic shifts in their primary identities, they may or may not be supported by their existing family and friendship networks. In order to sustain a new identity, a new network must be established with willing and hope-filled peers and partners. Second, available alter- native roles may be limited. The number and nature of alternative roles are largely dependent on roles known to the individual, and, therefore, the breadth of possible roles may be limited due to a lack of exposure. Roles also may be limited by society’s level of tolerance. We want people to stop being criminals, but we do not necessarily want them to teach in our schools or be our neighbors or bosses. Until we are truly willing to have formerly incarcerated people as our neighbors, friends, and colleagues AND trust them with our most valued assets, our children, we will never achieve full restoration. Third and relatedly,
RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 96
possessing a stigma of criminal (or addict or mentally ill person, for that matter) is a visible blemish on the fabric of the moral character. It is a small leap to form the link between immorality and lack of trustwor- thiness. Trustworthiness, however, is the collateral used to get a job, buy a house or babysit for a neighbor’s child. Stigma discredits the individual and reduces trust. Thus, any trust that is extended will be minor, and the person’s behavior in any new role will be highly scrutinized.
How can community corrections assist in the desistance process, then? I would like to suggest the following: (1) hire officers who have good interpersonal skills and truly believe that people can change; (2) invest in officer training, such as motivational interviewing techniques, to truly hear and support efforts to transform; (3) normalize the programming, that is, focus on developing strong connections to normal edu- cational and job training opportunities that are available to any citizen; (4) create leadership opportunities, such a peer mentors, who have the lived experience to guide and assist ― this helps both the mentor and the mentee; and (5) work with businesses, local leaders and community members to de-stigmatize persons with criminal records — perhaps through ad campaigns and speakers bureaus ― to give them a true second chance.
This means that we need to shift the fundamental scope of work in community corrections. If this is too much of a stretch, build partnerships with peer to peer or community programs that do this kind of work. The investment pays off quickly. People who get college educations have an extremely low rate of criminal involvement as do people who own businesses. They become tax paying citizens; they no longer need public support or incur public costs of incarceration; and they become resources for others in need of similar support.
References Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (Eds.). (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (5th Edition ed.). New Provi- dence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., LexisNexis Group.
Coulehan, J. (2005). Empathy and narrativity: A commentary on ‘Origins of healing: An evolutionary per- spective of the healing process.’ Families, Systems, & Health, 23, 261-265.
Ebaugh, H.R.F. (1988). Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Note on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Kleinman, A. (1988). The Illness Narratives: Suffering, Healing and the Human Condition. New York: Basic Books.
McNeill, F, Batchelor, S., Burnett, R., & Knox, J. (2005). 21st Century Social Work. Reducing Re-offending: Key Practice Skills. Glasgow, Scotland: Social Work Inspection Agency.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
The Pew Center on the States. (2008). One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Veysey, B.M. (2010). Management and treatment of women diagnosed with mental illnesses in US jails. In B.L. Levin, A.K. Blanch & A. Jennings (Eds.), Women’s Mental Health Services: A Public Health Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Visher, C.A., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89-113.
