| 摘要 | For years, policymakers have been scratching their heads for a solution to persistently high rates of re-offending among incarcerated individuals. Several prisoner rehabilitation programs have promised big returns on public investment, but few have produced substantial results. In the 1970s, sociologist Robert Martinson looked on these results and argued “nothing works” in rehabilitating correctional populations. Forty years and billions of dollars later, persistently high recidivism rates seem to echo his gloomy sentiment.
Fortunately, there is some good news. A large number of studies have demonstrated that there are, in fact, a few specific interventions that can reduce the likelihood that someone will return to prison. How well these interventions work varies considerably based on the person and context in which the services are delivered. While certain types of programs may work for one person, they can be ineffective, or even produce harm, in others. The “who,” “how,” and “when” may be just as important as the “what” in correctional programming.
In a new paper, AEI Academic Advisor and Minnesota Department of Corrections Director of Research Grant Duwe addresses these issues, outlining the available research on effective delivery of correctional programming and offering a framework for criminal justice officials and policymakers to consider.
Duwe’s paper centers on a few key recommendations. First, the amount of programming that someone receives should be related to their risk of recidivism. In other words, the more likely it is that someone will return to prison, the more programming they should receive, and vice-versa. Criminal justice research has consistently shown that higher-risk prisoners require longer and more focused interventions to achieve results, while smaller dosages are more likely to lead to positive outcomes in low-risk prisoners.
Second, re-offending rates generally decrease the more someone participates in programming, suggesting that it is better for an individual to participate in a program rather than sit idle in prison. Unfortunately, many prisoners are still “warehoused,” meaning they do not participate in any sort of programming whatsoever, and many other individuals only participate in a limited amount of programming.
Third, while programming can be helpful at any time, it seems to be especially useful toward the end of someone’s incarceration period. This allows program benefits to extend further into the reentry process and also creates more opportunity for a continuation of care from the prison into the community. Duwe is careful to note that programming early in the prison process can be effective, too. However, limited resources demand prioritization. If a correctional facility only has the funds for one or the other, Duwe suggests providing services toward the end of someone’s sentence.
Finally, some experts posit that the sequence or order of service delivery is related to the effectiveness of certain programs. Many prisoners have multiple “risk factors” and will need to participate in multiple programs in order to be prepared to reenter into society. Duwe suggests that policymakers and practitioners should be thoughtful in determining the best order of service delivery, perhaps focusing on cognitive factors like criminal thinking before addressing educational needs, employment, or substance abuse.
The “nothing works” criminal justice paradigm is based on the flawed premise that a single intervention can make all the difference. The reality is that re-entry is as complex as the life of each person who is making the transition from prison to society. Duwe’s work is helping us to move away from the “unicorn” approach — finding the “one thing” that will create success — to a more supple, person-centered approach. Doing so may be part of moving us from the despair of “nothing works” to a question: “What will work for you?” |
