Why is rehabilitation important in prisons

Such an evaluation is necessary to determine 1 t he actual effect that the program has on recidivism and 2 i f the effect is significant enough to justify its continuation. Such a program evaluation is critical for two reasons. It is also important that the risk and need assessments used to classify inmates be validated whenever there is a significant change in the inmate population because the assessments were typically created using population information from prior years.

Validation is a process in which the assessment is tested to ensure that it is correctly classifying inmates. It is possible that assessments designed for inmate populations from prior years may no longer accurately categorize the current population.

This is because CDCR 1 o ften falls short in adhering to the key principles for reducing recidivism, 2 d oes not effectively use all of its rehabilitation program slots, and 3 h as a flawed approach to measuring program performance. Figure 7 p rovides a summary of our findings, which we discuss in more detail below.

This suggests that these programs could potentially be successful at reducing recidivism in California as well. Without such an assessment, it is difficult to ensure that the programs are operating in a manner that maximizes a reduction in recidivism. For example, it is unclear whether the anger management programs are consistently employing the treatment techniques found to be effective elsewhere.

This raises questions about how effective the current programs are at reducing recidivism. This study found that inmates who participated in the CTE programs were around 3 p ercentage points less likely to recidivate than those who did not. However, the assessment assumes that the CDCR programs will have the same effect on recidivism as the programs implemented elsewhere.

Please see the nearby box for a more detailed description of the Results First Initiative and the limitations of its evaluation. The Results First Initiative will compare the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation CDCR rehabilitation programs—beginning with its substance use disorder programs—against an inventory of programs that have been evaluated elsewhere and shown to reduce recidivism.

It is currently unclear whether the risk and need assessments used by CDCR accurately classify its current inmate population. This means both assessments currently being used do not take into account the significant changes in the inmate population that have occurred in recent years—such as the r ealignment, which shifted responsibility for tens of thousands of lower level offenders to county jail and probation departments. Moreover, CDCR does not currently have a policy requiring these assessments to be regularly revalidated to account for significant changes in the inmate population that may occur in the future.

Some of the major changes include:. As mentioned previously, many inmates are on waitlists for rehabilitation programs. Despite this, not all programs are fully enrolled—meaning many slots are vacant because CDCR has not assigned an inmate to fill them. Moreover, even in cases where inmates are enrolled in programs, they often do not attend classes every day the program is offered. For example, some prisons reported difficulty recruiting and retaining sufficient teachers for some programs.

If inmates are not able to regularly attend their rehabilitation programs, they are less likely to be released with all their rehabilitative needs met, which makes them more likely to recidivate. Lack of Sufficient Performance Metrics. Currently, the department collects some rehabilitation statistics—such as the number of hours offenders attend programs and the number of offenders who achieve certain educational benchmarks.

Such metrics could help illustrate 1 h ow effectively the department uses state resources, 2 w hether inmates complete programs consistent with their needs, and 3 w hether the department should change how it operates its programs. Misleading Metrics. In addition, some existing performance measures are misleading. We note that rehabilitation programs vary in length, such as from three months for some CBT programs to over a year for some CTE programs.

Based on our review of the programs, as well as the key principles identified in existing research as being important to reducing recidivism, we identified several shortcomings with the programs.

Our specific recommendations are summarized in Figure 9 and discussed in greater detail below. The Legislature could eliminate funding for a program if CDCR is unable to show that program is research based within a specified timeframe.

This would give CDCR time to identify or complete the necessary evaluations. As discussed previously, to be evidenced based, a program must be implemented with fidelity in addition to being researched based. This will ensure that CDCR programs continually incorporate the best practices that have been demonstrated to be successful. We believe that OIG is best positioned to conduct these fidelity assessments given their existing role in independently monitoring and evaluating various CDCR programs and procedures.

We would note that there are existing tools developed by researchers available to conduct these fidelity assessments. While being evidence based increases the likelihood that programs are effective at reducing recidivism, it is critical to measure the actual effect programs have on recidivism. We estimate that such a study could cost a couple of millions of dollars annually for a number of years. As such, the Legislature would be better positioned to determine where limited rehabilitation funding can best be utilized to achieve the greatest benefit to the state in terms of reduced crime and costs.

Establish a Risk and Needs Assessment Committee. In order to ensure that CDCR uses risk and need assessments that appropriately categorize its inmate population, we recommend the Legislature establish a review committee to select the most effective assessment tools and ensure that the selected tools are independently validated on a regular basis. As discussed previously, rehabilitation programs are most effective when they are tailored to provide the treatment needed to address identified inmate risks and needs.

Thus, it is important to ensure that the tools used to identify such risks and needs remain valid and accurate. Our proposed review committee would be similar to one currently used by CDCR to oversee the use of an assessment tool specific to sex offenders.

Based on the costs of operating that committee, we estimate that establishing and operating a risk and need assessment review committee could cost around a million dollars annually. While the specific makeup of the committee and number of members could vary depending on legislative priorities, we recommend that the committee include representatives from CDCR, research experts, and stakeholders experienced with reducing recidivism.

Appointments could be made by both the Legislature and the Governor to ensure that the interests of both are represented. This collective knowledge could help the committee ensure that it selects tools that 1 c an effectively assess the inmate population and 2 c an be implemented and used accurately. This would help ensure that finite rehabilitation program funds are used to maximize recidivism reduction. We note that the inmates required to attend basic education programs due to low literacy scores or SUDT programs due to substance use rules violations could continue to attend, as these programs have other goals in addition to recidivism reduction.

Based on this plan, the Legislature could determine whether legislative action—such as specifying how slots are to be allocated—is necessary. We recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR to conduct an assessment of all existing CDCR facilities to determine what level of resources would be needed at each institution to provide sufficient programs to allow all offenders to be released with all needs met.

This assessment would identify 1 t he number of inmates with particular rehabilitation program needs at each institution; 2 r ehabilitation slots not currently being used; 3 c urrent facility or staffing shortages preventing full utilization of existing slots; 4 f acility and staffing resources needed to support the programs needed by the population; and 5 t he maximum number of slots each prison can reasonably support given space, staffing, and time constraints.

Currently, CDCR receives funding for rehabilitation programs regardless of whether or not inmates attend programs. CDCR would only receive its complete funding allocation if a certain level of attendance is maintained.

For example, CDCR could potentially allocate additional welding slots to those prisons that are able to successfully recruit and retain instructors. During the inmate assignment process, those inmates for which welding meets a rehabilitative need would then be assigned to those prisons. This would help limit the number of slots that are not utilized due to instructor shortages. Additionally, the Legislature could consider whether to provide some level of funding stability to protect program service levels against fluctuations in attendance rates.

For example, the Legislature could consider providing funding based on an average of multiple years instead of attendance in a single year or could consider providing the highest of two years of funding. Providing funding in this manner would give the department greater incentive to thoughtfully decide how to allocate and use its rehabilitation resources. Washington: National Institute of Justice; U.

S Department of Justice. Antwerpen; Apeldoorn; Portland: Maklu. She has published articles and books on community participation, citizen security and social conflict, among other topics, on both a national and international level. She has participated in citizen security programmes in several countries of the region and has advised several governments and the Organization of American States. She has also acted as a consultant for the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme, among other regional and multilateral organisations.

Online training: Corrections Learning Academy. What Works: Crime Reduction Toolkit. The opportunity that emerged from chaos. Respect for the rule of law at the core of the Justice portfolio. Justice and Peace: Challenges and advancements in times of pandemic. Justice and beyond: Council of Europe working on setting global benchmarks on artificial intelligence.

Making changes on several fronts: infrastructure, personnel, health and digital. The New European Bauhaus: an opportunity to revisit the way we think about prisons. Smart Prison: A historical digital leap in Finnish prisons. Video calls in prisons: current needs and challenges after the pandemic.

Core Correctional Skills The training kit. Prisons and the mentally ill: why design matters. Reading The importance of rehabilitation: What works? Criminal Justice Reform. Alternative Measures and Pre-Trial Detention. But it does reduce their employment by 20 percentage points.

Fathers are eight years older on average and significantly more likely to be employed prior to incarceration than defendants in general, which helps explain the heterogeneous effects for fathers versus other defendants. We look at two child outcomes: The probability the child commits a crime up to 10 years later and school grades. Ordinary least squares estimates reveal that children of incarcerated fathers are 1 percentage point more likely to be charged with a crime, relative to a mean of 13 percent, and show no effect on school grades.

We also use our judge stringency instrument to explore the effect of incarceration on both preexisting criminal networks and brothers. Our analysis yields three main findings. Likewise, having an older brother incarcerated reduces the probability his younger brother will be charged with a crime by 32 percentage points over the next four years. Second, these peer effects are concentrated in networks where the links between individuals are likely to be active and salient, defined as living close b y geographically and having network ties for recently committed crime.

For the brother network, the spillover passes only from older to younger brothers, and not the other way around. More generally, we find no spillover effects for other family members such as sisters and spouses.

Third, bias due to selection on unobservables matters. While ordinary least squares estimates show positively signed spillover effects for both networks, the instrumental variables estimates find that incarceration of a defendant has a strong preventative effect on network peers. A policy simulation that increases average judge stringency by 1 standard deviation illustrates the relevance of these spillover effects. Failing to account for incarceration spillover effects provides misleading projections of total policy impact and post-reform recidivism rates, as the network reductions in future crimes committed are larger than the direct effect on the incarcerated defendant.

The Norwegian prison system increases job training, raises employment, and reduces crime, mostly due to changes for individuals who were not employed prior to imprisonment.

While there are no discernible spillovers to children, there are large spillovers for both criminal networks and brothers that provide additional benefits in terms of crime reduction.

However, prison reform is more affordable than it may initially appear in the United States, and could even save money if prison sentences were shortened. The United States is an outlier in incarceration rates, with sentence lengths that are roughly five times longer than the international average. Our calculations suggest that a European-style prison system, with its higher costs but shorter sentences, would result in significant US cost savings.

Moreover, to the extent that prison increases post-release employment, this would indirectly reduce expenditures on safety net programs and possibly increase tax revenue. And while it is difficult to monetize the benefits from fewer crimes being committed, the gains from reduced victimization are likely to be large.

Gordon B. He currently is a professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego and began his career at the University of Rochester. Gordon and his wife, Katherine, have four daughters, all of whom enjoy the sunshine of San Diego and traveling abroad. Magne Mogstad is the Gary S. Griffin Department of Economics at the University of Chicago. His work is motivated by the broad question of how to address market failures and equalize opportunities.

Countless policies — taxation, subsidized education, social insurance — have been implemented in an effort to achieve those objectives. This is made possible by combining theory and econometric methods with large administrative datasets that can be linked to supplementary data sources.

Mogstad has published extensively in leading scholarly journals. He is a current coeditor of the Journal of Political Economy , and he previously served as a coeditor of the Journal of Public Economics and a foreign editor of The Review of Economic Studies.

He is a recipient of the Alfred P. NBER periodicals and newsletters are not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely with appropriate attribution.

More in this issue.