Rehabilitation Based on the Empirical

Rehabilitation Based on the empirical evidence, does rehabilitation work to reduce offender recidivism? There has been a history of criticism of rehabilitation as a goal of the criminal justice system, based upon the premise that rehabilitation does not work. One of the most significant problems with this approach is that critics of rehabilitation decried its effectiveness without looking at the effectiveness of other programs, like punishment.

Once effectiveness became a criterion for judging post-conviction treatment of defendants, then one had to consider whether the alternatives to rehabilitation worked, as well as looking at whether rehabilitation works. Therefore, one needs to compare whether rehabilitation is more effective than alternatives at reducing recidivism. The empirical evidence demonstrates two points, which might be interpreted in different ways, depending on whom is doing the interpreting.

First, no single program is effective in all cases, and second, there are some positive results attained after rehabilitation, even if the pattern to these results was not recognizable by early researchers. Therefore, the empirical research supports the efficacy of rehabilitation programs, if those programs are conducted appropriately. Meta-analysis reinforces these results. Taken as a group, rehabilitation programs seem to reduce recidivism by about 10%.

Moreover, the best rehabilitation programs seem to reduce recidivism by about 25%.When researchers began to explore the myth that rehabilitation was a failure, what they found was that some rehabilitation programs are very successful. For example, Gendreau and Ross uncovered scores of treatment interventions that helped reduce recidivism, and that behaviorally oriented programs seemed to be especially effective in attaining this goal. Effective rehabilitation programs focus on criminogenic needs, which are factors or predictors that are related to offender recidivism, and factors or predictors that can be changed.

According to the theory of effective correctional treatment, what approach to rehabilitating offenders is most likely to work? According to the theory of effective correctional treatment, the approach to rehabilitating offenders that is most likely to work is four-pronged. First, is the needs principle. The needs principle says that interventions should target the known predictors of crime and recidivism for change. There are two types of predictors for recidivism: static predictors, such as criminal history, and dynamic predictors, such as antisocial values.

Those predictors that can be changed are the predictors that should be targeted by rehabilitation programs. The dynamic factors that can be changed are: antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs, and cognitive-emotional states, procriminal associates, isolation from anticriminal others, antisocial personality factors, and dysfunctional family relationships. Those are the factors that should be targeted in rehabilitation programs. Second, is the responsivity principle.

The responsivity principle provides that treatment services should be behavioral in nature, because of the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral and social-learning interventions in changing human behavior, particularly those behaviors that are linked to recidivism. "Reinforcements in the program should be largely positive, not negative. And the services should be intensive, lasting three to nine months and occupying 40% to 70% of the offenders' time while they are in the program" (Gendreau, 2011). Third is the risk principle. The risk principle suggests that treatment interventions should be used with higher-risk offenders, and target their.