Prison rehabilitation programs for men

Prison Rehabilitation for Men and Women

Despite barbaric origins in the exacting medieval dungeons and torture chambers, prisons have become a vital part of modern life. With a booming population and greater expectations of government to actuate a successful and coherent society, crime and its punishment is of paramount importance. As the French philosopher Michel Foucault asserted, the 18th Century prison system shifted punishment from the discipline of the body to the discipline of the "soul." While the last two decades have seen a rise in incarceration, they have also witnessed a key discussion in the viability of the issues surrounding it.

Four different goals of incarceration and corrections are commonly espoused: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Each of these goals is the recipient of varied level of public and professional support, but the rehabilitation is both the most common and lofty goal. By defining criminals as those either willingly defiant or incapable of accordance with the social mores of the public, rehabilitation serves the integral purpose of preparing those incongruent with societal expectations to reunite with the greater world and operate effectively therein. If the majority of offenders become reformed individuals less inclined to commit further crimes, the overall governmental objective to protect society is achieved through indirect crime reduction. Yet, while there is general agreement that rehabilitation is a by-product of the prison system, controversy arises in discussing not only its viability and sustainability, but its application between the genders.

Concern over the success of the criminal justice systems has shifted most specifically to the role of rehabilitation in the welfare and future of convicted offenders. Strategies have transformed from a systemic isolation of the prisoner that summarily denies access to the realities of social life to a more conducive process of integration. Critics, however, argue that prisoners are able to become the new "welfare moms," learning sustained, easy reliability on the system meant to make them operable aspects of the public again. Social activists critique the conceptual foundation of rehabilitation that regards the offender as "sick," therefore curable; they warn that prison is not the equivalent of a doctor's prescription for the flu. Ultimately, however, the public, and the government that it elects and respects, is faced with a simple equation: expelling offenders from society as actualized by capital punishment, or treating those who may be helped in order to re-enter society.

According to the Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE), there were approximately 1.7 million people in American prisons and jails in 1998, a figure dramatically increased from 744,000 in 1985. By 2002 the statistics again blossomed, this time to 2,015,475 people; of these, 1,264,437 were under State jurisdiction and 737,912 in Local jails, and the rest were under Federal jurisdiction. The Justice Department further suggested that the rates of incarceration defined 411 prisoners incarcerated per 1000,000 residents across the United States, making their treatment of the utmost social concern.

Come 2003, the numbers were still jumping, filling America's correctional system to the absolute maximum. By June 30, 2004, 2,131,180 prisoners were held nationwide, a 2.3% increase from midyear 2003. Nationally, the estimates grew to 486 prison inmates per 100,000 residents. The most recent statistics, however, yield the most surprising facts: the troubling gender dichotomy in incarceration rates. The U.S. Department of Justice reported than in 2004, the number of women under the jurisdiction of State or Federal prison authorities increased 2.9% from midyear 2003, significantly larger than the 2.0% increase in men.

The National Corrections Reporting Program released in 2004 an itemized discussion of the 2001 statistics of the U.S. correctional system by gender. These publications revealed not only that the most violent offenses were committed by men, with extremely larger incidence of murder, non-negliegent manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, kidnapping, rate, and sexual assault. Women were more prone to property offenses and drug abuse.

As the numbers of inmates increase, so do the fiscal expenses associated with their care. According to the Department of Justice, Local governments spend more on criminal justice than do State or Federal governments, a statistic incongruent with the levels of incarceration. Despite the burden placed on local governments, direct expenditures for criminal justice functions have been increasing dramatically. Rehabilitation programs in jails form a decisive part of the $167 billion spent on police protection, judicial and legal activities, and corrections; a $600 per capita expense. Officials estimate that these large numbers boil down to about $300 per day per inmate. Another interesting statistic was also revealed: regardless of offense, women experienced a greater parole and release rate than men.

With prison expenses and population on the rise, the issues surrounding incarceration gain a new relevancy. If the public were to reject the theories behind rehabilitation and instead embrace capital punishment on a more elementary level, these expenses would increase dramatically. While many states refute the legality of the death penalty, those that integrate it into their punishment system experience a great fiscal expense than a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Since 1974, roughly 7,000 death sentences have appreciated, while only 784 inmates had been executed as of June, 2002. The security of the U.S. legal system and the provision of constitutional rights allow for an extraordinary amount of time for those sentenced to death to seek appeal at the expense of the public that, on a purely financial basis, rehabilitation becomes the most viable solution to dealing with public offenders.

Despite gender, rehabilitation requires the recognition and support of basic issues for inmates. Each demand a parity in work and leisure programs, as well as education provision in addition to the increasingly relevant issue of mental health treatment. Inmates of all genders struggle with multiple problems and disorders that demand equally treatment, as well as simultaneous treatment of concurrent disorders and problems as established by "baseline" assessment. Additionally, rehabilitation programs generally consist of several basic programmatic similarities to address the inmates' needs: programs for living skills, substance abuse, literacy and continued learning programs, and abuse and trauma treatment programs.

In addition to these basic problems, the current Bush administration has put a new emphasis on the role of Faith-based prison rehabilitation programs. In 2002, Texas became the first state to embrace the Brazilian-led trend for faith-based rehabilitation, a target program for male audiences far less "rehabilitated" than the female population. The Texas Journal of Corrections revealed that, when tracing two different sets of male inmates following their release from prison, those involved in vocation-based rehabilitation programs witnessed a greater rate of recidivism than those involved in faith-based programs. The rates were astounding: 16% of those involved in the faith-based programs were re-arrested, while 36% of those in vocational programs were. Then Gov. George Bush approved the Prison Fellowship's InnerChange Freedom Initiative in the Texas prison system in 1997 and has since not only supported but approved its use at the national level.

Programs differ from state to state, but those adopted by most states, including North Carolina, New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, and California, call for soon-to-be-released prisoners eligibility for Vocational Rehabilitation Offender Programs. These programs are based on a successful inmate vocational evaluation, geared to assess the prevocational and vocational training of the prison before incarceration and his or her role in the existing prison work station. The Departments of Correction frequently combine with community colleges, particularly in North Carolina, to offer on-the-job training to eligible inmates. Additional specialized training, job development, and job placement services accompany involvement in the program, and many systems provide further transportation, clothing, tools, and maintenance for inmates nearing release. "Eligibility" is certified by those who are mentally and physically able to hold employment, and those expected to "benefit in terms of employability from the provision of vocational rehabilitation services."

The sustainability of these programs is at the heart of the criminal justice system. As President Bush stated, "We know from long experience that if [former prisoners] can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit more crimes and return to prison... America is the land of the second chance, and when the gates of prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life." As such, the Congress carefully allots for the provision of educational programs to reach the inmates of America's prisons, where illiteracy and sub-par education are rampant. While Blakely v. Washington undercut the very sentencing guidelines at the correctional system's foundation, it also brought rise to the importance of education in prisons. As such, the Literacy, Education, and Rehabilitation Act of 2004 was introduced to the House; LERA calls for a cost-effective means by which to educate the pool of illiterate, incarcerated individuals, whose lack of everyday academic skills significantly hinders their ability to operate in the public environment.

While illiteracy is as common in the male incarcerated population as the female, educational rehabilitations are more frequently targeted to women than men. An integral part of the Living Skills programs for women, cognitive skills training, the national Parenting Skills program, and the Leisure Education Program support the female prisoner on her path to release. Correctional Services of Canada says that these programs are the result of acknowledge the woman as "her own beset expert," and are built on the premise that "earning to make informed choices and then accepting the consequences of them will enable these women to take control of their lives." There, a Literacy and Numeracy Program created just for female inmates aims to foster skills required for basic employment and civic involvement.

The State of Florida reported in 2001 that the recidivism rate for inmates who received a GED was 29.8%, significantly lower than the 34.4% attributed to those who failed to complete the educational program. That rate of return essentially translated into 100 inmates not returning to prison of the 1,788 who received their GED. The State reported that avoiding their re-incarceration saved approximately $1.9 million dollars.

With the growth of so many gender-specific programs, the rationale for addressing incarceration causes on a sexed-base paradigm is questioned. Because the severity of the crimes committed is so diverse between the two genders, system scholars and advocates for prison change have addressed the qualifications for differential treatment. Many studies reveal a higher level of responsivity to rehabilitation for women, supportive of their higher rates of discharge and parole. Additionally, the arguments of Claren and McClellan support the distinctive features of female offenders that reveal different needs, particularly those addressing mental health and parenting skills.

A study of the New York Bedford Hills Correctional Facility indicated that women who attended college while incarcerated recidivated at a rate of about 7.7%, greatly reducing the 29.9% rate of those who did not. The Folsom Prison in California reported that none of its inmates who received a bachelor's degree while incarcerated recidivated. While educational programs further the concept of decreased manual labor programs in the female rehabilitation scheme, gender roles are reinforced - perhaps by necessity - throughout the corrections system.

The stereotypical social roles of woman as mother and homemaker are not only supported by the prison system but seemingly successfully encouraged. Women prisoners are more frequently assigned roles in laundry and kitchen duties and are encouraged in their procurement of handicraft and domestic skills. These creative skills have witnessed a new-age transformation for women in prisons, including activities as diverse as training guide dogs. Not only do these skills provide viable career skills in niche communities for female inmates after release, they are also aimed to be compatible with the familial responsibilities. Mother-Child programs further foster inmate understanding of real-world needs, but despite the wide variety of unique and seemingly pricey services for women, they tend to be less expensive to rehabilitation than men.

Gearing rehabilitation programs specifically to women is not only cost-effective, but also achieves the greater public good of lower rates of re-incarceration, a statistic indicative of successful re-absorption of an inmate into society. As such, activists call for greater awareness of the public for the specific needs of female prisoners, as Martha Stewart did during her sentence at "Camp Cupcake":

beseech you all to think about these women -- to encourage the American people to ask for reforms, both in sentencing guidelines, in length of incarceration for nonviolent first-time offenders, and for those involved in drug-taking. They would be much better served in a true rehabilitation center than in prison where there is no real help, no real programs to rehabilitate, no programs to educate, no way to be prepared for life "out there" where each person will ultimately find herself, many with no skills and no preparation for living."

Ultimately, the lower rates of recidivism for women hail the success of gender-specific programs.

With the rehabilitation of women so increasingly more accurate than that of men, the nature of their programmatic paradigms is called directly into question.

The difference is marked: women witness programs specifically geared to their needs, while men face the age-old traditions of incarceration that, tempered with their proclivity to more serious crimes, result in higher rates of re-incarceration and further brushes with the Law. However, these problems not only indicate a troubling increase in severe crimes committed by men, but solicit a reanalysis of the programs used in male prisons for rehabilitation from both cost analysis and public good perspectives.

Alderstein, David M. "In Need of Correction: The 'Iron Trangle' of Prison Litigatoin Reform Act." Columbia Law Review. Vol. 101, No. 7. (Nov., 2001.) p. 1681-1708.

Bondeson, Ulla. Prisoners in Prison Societies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Pub., 1989.

Browne, Julie. "The Labor of Doing Time." 2004. California Coalition for Women Prisoners. April 5, 2004. http://womenprisoners.org/fire/000160.html

Cass, E.R. "Responsibility for Prison Conditions." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951) Vol. 22, No. 4. (Nov., 1931) p. 586-588.

Coles, Michael. "The Cost of Capital Punishment." The Ultimate Field Guide to the U.S. Economy. New York: New Press, 2003. p. 138.

Pollok, J. Women, Prison, and Crime. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomas Learning, 2002.

Day, Susie. "Cruel but Not Unusual: The Punishment of Women in U.S. Prisons." July 2001. Monthly Review. April 5, 2004. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1132/3_53/77150229/p1/article.jhtml

Duncan, Martha Grace. Romantic Outlaw, Beloved Prisons; the Unconscious Meanings of Crime and Punishment. New York: New York University Press, 1996.

Edwards, John a. "Rehabilitation Potential in Prisoner Inmates as Measured by MMPI." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Political Science." Vol. 54, No. 2. (Jun. 1963), p. 181-185.

Gravett, Steve. Coping with Prison: A Guide to Practitioner on the Realities of Imprisonment. London: Cassell, 1999.

Howells, Kevin. "Treatment, management and rehabilitation of women in prison: relevance of rehabilitation principles." 2001. Australian Institute of Criminology, Conference on Women in Corrections. April 5, 2004. http://www.google.com.pk/search?q=cache:XWVKiuWv79IJ:www.aic.gov.au/conferences/womencorrections/howells.pdf+rehabilitation+of+men+and+women+prisoners&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Hughes, Timothy. "Sentence Length, Time Served in Prison, by Offense, and Gender." Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001.

Irwin, John. Jail: Managing the Underclass in American Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.

Jacobs and Charmichael, David and Jason T. "The Political Sociology of the Death Penalty: A Pooled Time-Series Analysis." American Sociological Review. Vol. 67, No. 1. (Feb., 2002.) p. 109-131.