Module 6
Faith-based Re-Entry and Parole
a. Faith-Based Organizations
Some theorize that because faith-based and community-level organizations
typically have close ties to the communities they serve, they can be more efficient
than traditional government agencies in helping those in need and should therefore
have greater access to federal social service funds.
The rationale behind the federal government’s establishment and subsequent
expansion of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
(WHOFBCI) was multifaceted and rooted in addressing societal challenges through
innovative means. Recognizing the pivotal role that faith-based organizations (FBOs)
and community initiatives play in fostering positive change within communities
across the nation, the government sought to leverage their resources, expertise, and
reach to address pressing issues, particularly in areas such as prisoner reentry
programming and services.
The WHOFBCI's establishment marked a significant shift in how the
government approached social and community issues, emphasizing collaboration with
non-governmental entities to achieve shared goals. By creating centers within five
cabinet departments, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the government aimed
to institutionalize and streamline the engagement of FBOs in key policy areas, such as
prisoner reentry, where their unique perspectives and approaches could make a
tangible difference.
One of the central tenets supporting the expansion of the WHOFBCI was the
recognition of the diverse array of services and support that FBOs offer to individuals
transitioning from incarceration back into society. These organizations often possess a
deep understanding of the challenges faced by formerly incarcerated individuals and
are well-positioned to provide tailored programming that addresses their specific
needs, ranging from job training and housing assistance to mental health support and
substance abuse treatment.
Moreover, the expansion of the WHOFBCI signaled a commitment to
fostering greater inclusivity and diversity in the provision of social services,
acknowledging that no single approach or entity can fully address the complex needs
of communities nationwide. By partnering with FBOs, the government sought to tap
into their grassroots networks, cultural competence, and ability to engender trust
within communities, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and accessibility of prisoner
reentry initiatives.
Furthermore, the rationale behind the expansion of the WHOFBCI extended
beyond immediate social impact to encompass broader goals of promoting civic
engagement, strengthening community resilience, and advancing principles of
religious freedom and pluralism. By actively involving FBOs in the policymaking
process and supporting their efforts on the ground, the government aimed to foster a
more inclusive and collaborative approach to addressing societal challenges, while
also upholding constitutional principles of separation of church and state.
In essence, the establishment and expansion of the WHOFBCI represented a
strategic and forward-thinking approach to governance, recognizing the invaluable
contributions of faith-based and community organizations in promoting social justice,
fostering community empowerment, and facilitating successful prisoner reentry. By
harnessing the collective wisdom, resources, and goodwill of these organizations, the
government sought to create a more resilient, compassionate, and equitable society for
all its citizens.
FBOs and other community groups have historically played a critical role in
supporting incarcerated and paroled prisoner populations. Rossman (2002) states,
“Currently, thousands of faith-based and community organizations provide emergency
and long-term shelter, job training, substance abuse treatment, and mentoring for ex-
offenders and their families, all of which may ease the former prisoner’s reintegration
into the community”.
In tandem with the recent surge in efforts to expand the roles of churches,
temples, mosques, and various faith institutions in delivering a diverse array of social
services, there has emerged a burgeoning interest in the systematic examination of the
efficacy and impact of faith-based reentry programs and related services. This
increased attention reflects a broader recognition of the potential synergies between
religious organizations and the government in addressing complex social issues, such
as prisoner reentry, while also underscoring the importance of evidence-based
practices and outcomes measurement in shaping policy and programming.
The growing interest in evaluating faith-based reentry programs stems from
several interconnected factors. Firstly, there is a growing acknowledgment of the
unique strengths and assets that faith-based organizations bring to the table, including
their deep-rooted connections within communities, values-driven approach to service
delivery, and capacity for holistic support that addresses not only the practical needs
but also the spiritual and emotional dimensions of individuals' lives.
Moreover, as faith-based organizations increasingly assume a more prominent
role in the provision of social services, there is a corresponding need for rigorous
assessment and evaluation to ensure accountability, transparency, and quality
assurance. By subjecting faith-based reentry programs to systematic study,
policymakers, practitioners, and researchers can gain insights into their effectiveness,
identify best practices, and refine strategies for optimizing outcomes for individuals
transitioning from incarceration to community life.
Furthermore, the growing interest in studying faith-based reentry programs
reflects a broader trend towards evidence-based policymaking and program
development. In an era characterized by fiscal constraints and heightened demands for
accountability, decision-makers are increasingly seeking empirical evidence to inform
resource allocation, policy formulation, and service delivery in the realm of criminal
justice and social welfare.
Additionally, the exploration of faith-based reentry programs offers an
opportunity to bridge the divide between academic research and on-the-ground
practice, fostering collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and faith-based
organizations to generate actionable insights and innovative solutions. Through
rigorous evaluation methodologies, such as randomized controlled trials, quasi-
experimental designs, and qualitative case studies, researchers can assess the impact
of faith-based interventions on various outcomes, such as recidivism rates,
employment attainment, housing stability, and family reunification.
Moreover, the systematic study of faith-based reentry programs enables
stakeholders to identify promising practices, address gaps in knowledge, and
disseminate lessons learned to inform policy and practice at local, state, and national
levels. By building an evidence base around the effectiveness of faith-based
approaches to reentry, policymakers can make more informed decisions about
resource allocation, programmatic priorities, and partnerships with religious
organizations, thereby maximizing the potential for positive social impact and
community transformation.
In conclusion, the growing interest in the systematic study of faith-based
reentry programs reflects a broader recognition of the value proposition of religious
institutions in addressing complex social challenges, as well as a commitment to
evidence-based policymaking and program development. By rigorously evaluating the
effectiveness of faith-based interventions, stakeholders can enhance accountability,
improve outcomes, and leverage the strengths of religious organizations to promote
successful reintegration and rehabilitation for individuals involved in the criminal
justice system.
b. Faith-Based Prisoner Reentry Defined
Prisoner reentry is a broad term used to refer to the transition of ex-prisoners
from prison to their communities (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002) or the process of
leaving prison or jail and returning to society. This includes prisoners who are
released when they have served their maximum court-ordered sentence or who have
not completed their maximum court-ordered sentence and have been granted release
on the condition of a period of community supervision (parolees). It applies to people
released from prisons, jails, federal institutions, juvenile facilities, or even pretrial
detention. Although both adults and juveniles experience reentry, their experiences are
significantly different. We limit our discussion of prisoner reentry here to adult
reintegration.
Reentry entails planning for inmates’ transition to free living, including how
they spend their time during confinement, the process by which they are released, and
how they are supervised after they are released. Although reentry in its most basic
sense denotes a process, success is implied in its meaning. Reentry or reintegration is
treated as “the concept of rejoining and becoming a productive member of society”
(Taxman, 2004, p. 2), implying that reentry includes all activities and programming
conducted to prepare ex-offenders to return safely to the community and to live as
law-abiding citizens (Petersilia, 2003). Likewise, the U.S. Department of Justice
posits that reentry entails the “use of programs targeted at promoting the effective
reintegration of offenders back to communities upon release from prison and jail”
(U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). In this context, then, reentry can be viewed as the
prosocial integration of ex-prisoners into the community.
Prosocial suggests behavior in accordance with the law, as opposed to
antisocial, which can be described as “behavior in violation of the law,” or deviance
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). One might argue that what is now called reentry
programming, such as parole or probation, previously fell under the title community
supervision. However, explicit inclusion of prosocial community actors such as
family members, block group presidents, community watch group organizers,
community development corporation leaders, and clergy separates reentry programs
from community supervision programs. Increasingly, reentry programming, planning,
and policy are being addressed on many fronts, including a faith or spiritual
perspective used in spiritually or faith-based interventions or by FBOs. An overview
of the many complex issues surrounding the topic will help explain why this is so.
First, however, it is necessary to get a better understanding of FBOs in general.
Partnerships between government and FBOs in America are hardly new. In
one form or another, such partnerships have existed for hundreds of years. However,
broader participation of FBOs in the delivery of public service has been advancing
over the past two decades by program devolution. Program devolution, a component
of the New Federalism, is used to describe the shifting of responsibility for social
programs from the federal government to the states. It reflects the view that placing
program authority closer to the point of service will permit locally tailored, more
effective services for poor families than standardized, uniform efforts controlled from
Washington. As program administrators look outside the capitol for solutions,
nongovernment organizations, such as community-based organizations and FBOs, are
seen as valuable resources that can address a variety of social needs and should be
financially supported in their work.
To be considered an FBO, an organization must be connected with an
organized faith community, such as an organized religion. The terms faith-based and
spiritually based are used interchangeably; they both refer to personal and public
practice of religious activities and acts of worship, such as prayer, reading of sacred
texts, and belief in religious dogma or theology. According to one school of thought,
the connections of organizations to a faith community or organized religion occur
when an FBO is based on a particular religious ideology and draws staff, volunteers,
or leaders from a particular religious group. Other characteristics that qualify an
organization as faith-based are its religiously oriented mission statement, receipt of
substantial support from a religious organization, or initiation by a religious
institution. Likewise, spiritually or faith-based interventions are also religiously
oriented and usually involve some religious practices (e.g., prayer, meditation, reading
of sacred texts, and other acts of worship). Such defining characteristics are valuable
because they help to distinguish FBOs from secular organizations, yet they also mask
the numerous distinctions that can be found between faith-based organizations. A
small local congregation and the national Salvation Army, for example, are both FBOs
that draw staff and volunteers from a particular religious group. However, these FBOs
differ substantially in the scope and scale of their service provision.
FBOs can be distinguished from one another according to a number of factors,
such as the size of the organization, the size of the organization’s geographic service
area, and the religious intensity of the organization. Of particular interest for this is
the level of religious activities offered by FBOs. Examples of religious activities
include prayer at meetings, worship as a program activity, and the inclusion of
religious teaching. Smith and Sosin (2001) suggest that FBOs directly sponsored by a
denomination or other religious organizations are more closely connected to a faith
tradition than those that are not.
The challenges of reentry are many, and so are the social implications.
Therefore, there are enormous opportunities for programs and interventions to
enhance the public safety, health, and cohesion of the communities that are at the
center of this cycle by improving reentry outcomes for ex-prisoners. The literature has
shown that institutions of faith can and do play a significant role in easing what
proves to be a very complicated problem in America.
c. Statement of the Problem
The United States has a higher per capita incarceration rate than any other
industrialized democratic nation. According to Lynch (2002), although there is no
difference in the propensity to incarcerate violent criminals, no other nation treats
people who commit nonviolent (especially drug) crimes as harshly as does the United
States. With more than 4% of the population being incarcerated at least once in their
life, the process of transitioning from prison or jail back into the community has
become an epidemic social problem.
The faith-based community finds itself in a pivotal position, being
increasingly called upon to address the multifaceted challenges associated with mass
incarceration and the subsequent reentry process. These issues can be
comprehensively understood within the context of two overarching categories, each
encompassing a range of interconnected factors and complexities that demand a
holistic and nuanced response from religious institutions and communities.
Firstly, the issue of mass incarceration represents a systemic failure with far-
reaching social, economic, and moral implications. Rooted in a confluence of
historical, political, and socioeconomic factors, the phenomenon of mass incarceration
has led to the over-representation of certain demographic groups, such as racial
minorities and low-income individuals, within the criminal justice system. This
disproportionate impact reflects systemic inequalities in law enforcement practices,
sentencing policies, and access to legal representation, exacerbating existing
disparities in wealth, opportunity, and social mobility.
Moreover, mass incarceration is not solely a product of punitive policies and
practices but also reflects broader societal attitudes towards crime, punishment, and
rehabilitation. The "war on drugs," mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and the
privatization of prisons have contributed to the exponential growth of the incarcerated
population, resulting in overcrowded correctional facilities, strained resources, and a
revolving door of recidivism. This punitive approach to criminal justice often
overlooks the underlying social determinants of crime, such as poverty, lack of
educational opportunities, mental health issues, and substance abuse, perpetuating a
cycle of incarceration and marginalization.
Secondly, the challenges associated with prisoner reentry represent a critical
juncture in the criminal justice continuum, where individuals face numerous barriers
to successful reintegration into society. From securing stable housing and employment
to accessing healthcare, education, and social support, formerly incarcerated
individuals confront a myriad of obstacles that impede their ability to lead productive
and fulfilling lives post-release. Stigmatization, discrimination, and social exclusion
further compound these challenges, hindering efforts to break the cycle of recidivism
and promote desistance from criminal behavior.
Within this broader framework, the faith-based community is uniquely
positioned to address the root causes and consequences of mass incarceration and
reentry by drawing upon its moral imperatives, theological principles, and ethical
teachings. Faith-based organizations and institutions have a long-standing tradition of
advocating for social justice, mercy, and redemption, grounded in values of
compassion, forgiveness, and human dignity. As such, they play a vital role in offering
spiritual guidance, moral support, and practical assistance to individuals impacted by
the criminal justice system, as well as their families and communities.
Furthermore, the faith-based community possesses a wealth of resources,
networks, and expertise that can be mobilized to address the underlying drivers of
crime and incarceration, such as poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity. By
providing educational programs, job training, mentoring, counseling, and
reintegration services, religious organizations can help individuals rebuild their lives,
restore their sense of self-worth, and reintegrate into society as productive and law-
abiding citizens.
In conclusion, the challenges of mass incarceration and prisoner reentry
represent complex and interconnected issues that require a comprehensive and
collaborative response from all sectors of society, including the faith-based
community. By addressing the root causes of crime and incarceration, promoting
restorative justice principles, and supporting individuals in their journey towards
rehabilitation and redemption, religious institutions and communities can contribute to
the creation of a more just, compassionate, and inclusive society for all.
The first is structural factors, such as legislation (e.g., harsh sentencing
guidelines) and the lack of both prerelease and postrelease programming and
supervision, which result in a cycling of men and women in and out of the criminal
justice system. The second is cultural factors, such as those that create an environment
for social disorganization and disorder by weakening family relationships and other
social ties. A more systematic review of such structural factors is presented, and the
following section addresses structural factors that deal with racial disparity as it
pertains to FBOs.
d. Structural Factors
It is estimated that nearly 10% of Black men and 3% of Hispanic men in their
late 20s and early 30s were in prison at the end of 2001 (Beck, Karberg, & Harrison,
2002). More than 20% of Black men will experience a prison term before reaching the
age of 35, compared with fewer than 3% of White men. Furthermore, about 33% of
parole entrants are White, 47% are Black, and 16% are Hispanic. Hence, about two
thirds of all returning prisoners are racial or ethnic minorities, compared with less
than one third in the general population.
Indeed, many communities of color are disproportionately affected by the
challenges of mass incarceration and prisoner reentry, and it is within these very
communities that faith-based organizations (FBOs) and congregations often play a
central and dynamic role. Their active involvement in the life of the community,
combined with their moral authority and commitment to social justice, positions them
as critical actors in addressing the multifaceted needs of individuals impacted by the
criminal justice system.
Communities of color have long borne the brunt of systemic inequalities
within the criminal justice system, experiencing higher rates of arrest, conviction, and
incarceration compared to their white counterparts. This overrepresentation is rooted
in a legacy of structural racism, discriminatory policing practices, and unequal access
to economic opportunities and educational resources. As a result, communities of
color face heightened levels of social and economic marginalization, making them
particularly vulnerable to the cycle of crime, incarceration, and recidivism.
In the face of these challenges, FBOs and congregations have emerged as
beacons of hope and resilience, providing a wide range of support services, advocacy
efforts, and community outreach initiatives to address the unique needs of individuals
and families affected by mass incarceration. These religious institutions serve as
trusted spaces for healing, empowerment, and transformation, offering spiritual
guidance, moral support, and practical assistance to those navigating the complexities
of reentry and rehabilitation.
Moreover, FBOs and congregations often serve as pillars of strength and
solidarity within communities of color, fostering a sense of belonging, collective
identity, and social cohesion that is essential for resilience and resistance in the face of
adversity. Through their engagement in social justice advocacy, community
organizing, and grassroots activism, religious leaders and congregants mobilize
resources, amplify voices, and challenge systemic injustices that perpetuate cycles of
poverty, violence, and incarceration.
Furthermore, the leadership and participation of FBOs and congregations in
addressing issues such as reentry reflect a deep sense of moral obligation and
theological imperative to uphold the dignity, worth, and inherent goodness of every
individual, regardless of their past mistakes or circumstances. Rooted in principles of
compassion, forgiveness, and redemption, these religious organizations offer a vision
of justice that is restorative rather than punitive, transformative rather than retributive.
In addition to providing direct services and support to individuals reentering
society, FBOs and congregations also play a crucial role in advocating for systemic
reforms and policy changes aimed at reducing mass incarceration, promoting
alternatives to incarceration, and addressing the root causes of crime and recidivism.
Through partnerships with community organizations, government agencies, and other
stakeholders, religious leaders and activists leverage their moral authority and
grassroots networks to advance legislative initiatives, mobilize public opinion, and
effectuate meaningful change at the local, state, and national levels.
In conclusion, the active engagement of FBOs and congregations in
addressing the challenges of mass incarceration and prisoner reentry within
communities of color reflects a commitment to social justice, solidarity, and collective
liberation. By offering holistic support, advocating for systemic change, and
embodying principles of compassion and redemption, religious organizations and
communities contribute to the creation of a more equitable, inclusive, and
compassionate society for all.
The United States has largely abandoned the religious-based rehabilitative
model used by the first Quaker-instituted penitentiary in Philadelphia, a model based
on the view that effective imprisonment disciplines a person while promoting healing
and growth so that the ostracized person may reenter society and be welcomed as a
productive citizen. A person who is able to understand and acknowledge his or her
crime may choose to make restitution for it. However, rehabilitation was replaced as
the core mission of corrections with programs designed to deter and incapacitate.
Petersilia (2003) maintains that “even in states that continued treatment programs,
many were retained primarily as a means of keeping inmates manageable rather than
methods to reduce recidivism” (p. 13). Legislators looked more favorably on
programs that could generate goods and services that the states needed than on
education and work programs that might reform inmates.
Logan's assertion from 1993 encapsulates a historical perspective on the role
and purpose of prisons that has evolved over time, reflecting shifting ideologies and
approaches to criminal justice. While his statement emphasizes the traditional
function of prisons as institutions of punishment and control, it also highlights a
broader debate surrounding the responsibilities and aspirations of correctional
facilities in modern society.
The notion that prisons should primarily serve as instruments of punishment
and containment has deep roots in punitive models of justice that prioritize retribution
and deterrence over rehabilitation and reintegration. Within this framework, the
primary goal of incarceration is to incapacitate offenders and protect society from
further harm, rather than facilitating their personal transformation or social
reintegration. This punitive mindset often manifests in harsh sentencing policies,
restrictive prison conditions, and limited opportunities for rehabilitation or restorative
justice.
However, in recent decades, there has been a growing recognition of the
limitations and shortcomings of punitive approaches to criminal justice, particularly in
addressing the underlying causes of crime and reducing recidivism. Scholars,
practitioners, and policymakers have increasingly emphasized the importance of
rehabilitation, reintegration, and community reentry in promoting public safety,
reducing incarceration rates, and fostering individual accountability and redemption.
The shift towards a more rehabilitative and restorative paradigm of prison
management reflects an understanding that punitive measures alone are insufficient to
address the complex needs of individuals involved in the criminal justice system.
Research has consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of evidence-based
interventions, such as education, vocational training, mental health treatment, and
substance abuse counseling, in reducing recidivism and promoting successful
reintegration into society.
Moreover, the recognition of prisons as integral components of the broader
criminal justice system has prompted efforts to enhance their capacity for reform,
rehabilitation, and reentry programming. From the implementation of cognitive-
behavioral therapy and substance abuse treatment programs to the expansion of
educational and vocational opportunities behind bars, correctional facilities are
increasingly adopting a more holistic and person-centered approach to inmate
rehabilitation.
Furthermore, the emergence of restorative justice principles and practices has
further challenged the traditional punitive paradigm by prioritizing healing,
accountability, and community engagement in the aftermath of harm. Restorative
justice approaches seek to repair the harm caused by crime, address the needs of
victims and offenders, and rebuild relationships within communities through dialogue,
mediation, and restitution.
In light of these evolving perspectives and practices, the role of prisons is
increasingly seen as multifaceted, encompassing not only punishment and control but
also rehabilitation, reintegration, and community restoration. While ensuring safety
and security within prison walls remains paramount, there is a growing recognition
that prisons have a responsibility to promote positive change, facilitate personal
growth, and prepare individuals for successful reentry into society.
In conclusion, Logan's assertion from 1993 reflects a traditional view of
prisons as institutions primarily tasked with punishment and control. However, in the
context of contemporary criminal justice discourse, there is a broader recognition of
the need for prisons to fulfill a more expansive mandate that encompasses
rehabilitation, reintegration, and restorative justice principles. By embracing a more
holistic and person-centered approach to corrections, prisons can play a pivotal role in
promoting accountability, healing, and social transformation within communities.
e. Faith-Based Prisoner Reentry
Religious education and training programs have always been a part of state
prison systems, which offer different levels of religious and rehabilitative services to
offenders. Until recently, however, these rehabilitative programs received very little
attention and resources because of constitutional restrictions concerning the
separation of church and state and because of widely held perceptions of religion.
Lukoff, Turner, and Lu (1992) point out that in theory, research, and practice, mental
health professionals have tended to ignore or pathologize the religious and spiritual
dimensions of life. This trend has begun to reverse somewhat with the deletion of
“religiosity” as pathology in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the move to increase the competence and
sensitivity of mental health professionals in dealing with spiritual issues. Religious
programs also did not receive much attention because of the lack of research
evaluating such programs. Although there has been more scientific research over the
past decade, policy changes at the federal level and federal funding to support state-
level efforts require a closer examination of faith-based partnerships as they begin to
serve as alternatives to traditional, secular efforts.
FBOs are increasingly given the opportunity to provide a variety of
rehabilitative services to corrections facilities, either voluntarily or contractually.
These services often include religious and moral teachings and incorporate religious
practices, such as reading of sacred texts, meditation, and prayer, in addition to the
more commonly offered anger management and substance abuse counseling, job and
life skill education and training, and housing assistance. Religious practices, which
research suggests may be associated with fewer inprison disciplinary problems, may
also be associated with better physical and mental health among prisoners. Many of
those incarcerated, nearly one third, are reported to have serious physical or mental
illnesses. Some studies show that prisoners who identify themselves as religious have
fewer physical and mental health problems overall than those who do not identify
themselves as religious (Johnson & Larson, 1998). Because mental and physical
illnesses can prevent ex-offenders from successfully reintegrating into society after
their release, the connection between religion and health is an important avenue for
research.
As a consequence of a growing trend that began with devolution and
continued with the creation and expansion of “charitable choice” and the Office of
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, there are many examples of faithbased
organizations providing and partnering with governments to provide reentry services.
The effect of this trend can be seen as prisons and jails are increasingly looking at
faith-based programs to cut costs, help reduce recidivism, and address the problems
associated with the record number of offenders. This trend, coupled with the growing
political and social demands to address the issues of prisoner reentry, has led many
states and local governments, as well as the federal government, to consider faith-
based providers for reentry programming. However, there are still many questions
about the effectiveness of and processes used in faith-based interventions and service
delivery.
A range of religious services and activities are offered in America’s prisons
and jails. At a minimum, every prison has at least one chaplain available for inmate
counseling. At the other end of the spectrum, some states are experimenting with 24-
hour, 7-day-a-week intensive Bible-based rehabilitation programs. It is important to
note that Christianity is the dominant religion in American prisons, as in American
society, but Islam and various Native American religions also have a strong presence.
According to Read and Dohadwala (2003), although Muslims make up just 2% of the
general population, they account for 20% of the prison population. In some areas, the
proportion of Muslims is as much as half of the total prison population. Little is
known about the rehabilitative effects of Christian-oriented incarceration programs,
however, and even less information is available about the effects of other religion-
based programs.
In 2002, the Serious and Violent Offender Initiative (SVORI), funded by the
U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Justice, and Labor, was launched as a comprehensive, collaborative
federal effort to improve reentry outcomes in the areas of criminal justice,
employment, education, health, and housing. SVORI programs target supervised
populations, including juvenile and adult high-risk offenders, substance abusers, and
those with mental illness or dual diagnoses, as well as serious and violent offenders,
who were often excluded from previous programming efforts (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2002). Through the initiative, federal funding is used to initiate or
supplement existing programs (e.g., education, job and life skills, substance abuse)
and to encourage partnerships between state and local agencies so that needed
services are provided to prisoners returning to the community. Ultimately, the
initiative ensures that funding will be provided to develop, implement, enhance, and
evaluate reentry strategies that will ensure the safety of the community and the
reduction of serious, violent crime. The states and the District of Columbia were
given $2 million each, which was disbursed to 69 state and local collaboratives, such
as labor and education departments or programs. These collaboratives were selected
to receive more than $100 million to develop or expand SVORI programs offering
integrated supervision and services to offenders.
f. A Faith-Based Reentry Case Study: Rest Philly
Although city and county jails are characterized by short terms of
incarceration, officials at these institutions are increasingly becoming aware of the
need to provide reentry programming and planning. The Philadelphia Prison System
(PPS), for example, operates a number of programs for inmates. Some programs, such
as Rational Emotive Spiritual Therapy (REST) Philly, actually recruit for enrollment,
whereas others, such as the Options program, have court-ordered participants whose
participation is a mandatory part of their sentence. Inmates who are awaiting trial or
sentencing are entitled to participate, but sentenced inmates have priority in entering
programs. In the most recent report available, about 35% of inmates in the PPS had
been sentenced; the remainder were awaiting trial (Philadelphia Prison System, 2002).
Inmates interested in participating in a program usually make a request through their
assigned social worker, who might recommend a specific program, or through other
prison staff. The social worker then does the necessary administrative paperwork to
enroll the inmate. Through a series of interviews with PPS staff, Roman, Kane,
Turner, and Frazier (2006) identified six main programs offered in the PPS:
OPTIONS, Pennypack, PLATO, JEVS, PhilaCor, and REST.
Research shows that not all inmates are given the option to participate in such
programs, however. In a report published by the Urban Institute in which 200 inmates
were asked questions about reentry planning and preparedness, only 21–50% of those
surveyed said they were given the opportunity to participate in some type of reentry
program (Roman et al., 2006). Roman and colleagues attribute this low percentage to
a number of reasons: the significant movement between facilities within the PPS; the
short stay—about 80 days— for most inmates in the PPS; the selectivity of some
programs, such as PhilaCor, which looks for inmates with specific vocational or trade
skills; and the fact that some of those in the survey sample were housed in a
neighboring facility outside Philadelphia, where the programs were not offered. Also,
almost all programs have a waiting list if the program is full, which means the inmate
may not be able to participate if he or she is released before an opening occurs. Of
those given the opportunity to participate in a program, 63–82% said they accepted
the offer. It is important to note that the participation rate was highest for those
mandated to enter a program.
REST Philly includes a three-phase reentry program, the Inmate Restoration
and After-care Program (IRAP). REST Philly also provides spiritually based
counseling in settings other than prison (e.g., there are programs to help people
overcome substance abuse and other addictions, grief, and other emotional or
psychological challenges) (McKinney, 2004b). IRAP is the three-phase program used
in the PPS. Phase I of IRAP is an in-prison faith- or spiritual-based group counseling
intervention that includes 13 weeks of 90-minute counseling sessions, as discussed
previously. Phase II consists of aftercare orientation and preparation groups, and
Phase III involves aftercare support services for released inmates McKinney’s IRAP
reentry model is similar to the model created by the National Institutes of Justice to
assess the federally funded SVORI. The goal of the model is to provide a roadmap for
a successful reentry journey that begins when inmates are housed in jails and prisons
and follows them upon their release, guiding them as they transition from correctional
institutions to complete stabilization in the community. The model takes into account
the issues that are common to most ex-prisoners reintegrating into society and seeks
to incorporate that knowledge into its three phases. For example, the first two phases
of IRAP usually begin while the inmate is still incarcerated. Phase I ends before
release, and Phase II continues after release. In addition, sometimes Phase II begins
after release.
In this phase, inmates or ex-prisoners work before and immediately after their
release from correctional institutions. Services provided in this phase can include
education, monitoring, mentoring, life skill training, assessment, job skill
development, and mental health and substance abuse treatment. As mentioned earlier,
these services may be provided in both Phase I and Phase II depending on when
inmates are released. IRAP graduates of Phase I are prepared to reenter and
reintegrate into society as a whole and into the faith community in particular. In many
cases, this includes providing the Philadelphia Defender’s Association with
information to petition the court for an inmate’s early release. Also, after an inmate
selects a faith sponsor, that is, a member of a congregation (e.g., church, mosque,
temple, or synagogue), REST Philly visits with the sponsor to make him or her aware
of the inmate’s request and to enroll the sponsor in the program. For each inmate,
REST Philly also identifies a faith partner: a trained mentor of the same faith tradition
as the ex-prisoner. The faith partner contacts the person selected by the inmate,
usually a family member, who agrees to serve as the primary support system in Phase
III.
The theoretical framework of the REST Philly model of prisoner reentry,
IRAP, hinges on symbolic interactionism, social capital, and spiritual capital. Each of
these theories can explain the process in each phase of the reentry model. However, in
the first stage symbolic interaction is the primary theory. Likewise, social capital is
dominant in Phase II, and spiritual capital in Phase III. The participation of local
congregations of different faith traditions is paramount at each stage of the model.
However, the focus of this case study is the theoretical process by which ex-prisoners
use spirituality or faith to meet the challenges of reintegration, which is seen primarily
in Phase I during the 13-week faith-based cognitive–behavioral intervention.
Churches, mosques, synagogues, and other faith-based institutions are often
the single best source of volunteers in a community. These institutions are often
considered the most comprehensive service provider—and the most credible,
established, and respected institution—in underserved communities, where people
released from prison and jail most often return. As of 2003, REST Philly had trained
volunteers from 103 congregations in the Philadelphia area as faith counselors,
mentors, and partners who have committed to supporting ex-prisoners. These
volunteers provide a single point of contact through which released offenders may
access a network of resources and role models. The structure of congregations can
provide valuable efficiencies to corrections administrators. Corrections staff can train
clergy to work in the prison setting and then trust those leaders to educate their
parishioners and to support volunteers with their work in the institution and with
prisoners released to the community.
g. Symbolic Interaction and a Divine Other
Symbolic interactionism, one of the major theoretical perspectives in
sociology, has a long intellectual history and was used by Pollner (1989) to postulate
an explanation of how religious involvement may work. Both Weber (1946) and Mead
(1968) emphasized the subjective meaning of human behavior, the social process, and
pragmatism. However, Blumer (1939), who studied with Mead at the University of
Chicago, is responsible for coining the term symbolic interactionism and formulating
the most prominent version of the theory. The theory focuses on the subjective aspects
of social life rather than on objective, macrostructural aspects of social systems. The
theory, which is based on the image of humans rather than on the image of society,
postulates that humans are pragmatic actors who must continually adjust their
behavior to the actions of other actors. We can adjust to these actions only because we
are able to interpret them (i.e., to denote them symbolically and treat the actions and
those who perform them as symbolic objects). This process of adjustment is aided by
our ability to use our imagination to rehearse alternative lines of action before we act.
The process is further aided by our ability to think about and react to our own actions
and even ourselves as symbolic objects. Thus, humans are active, creative participants
who construct their social world rather than passive, conforming objects of
socialization.
Pollner (1989) points out that people may construct divine relationships much
as they build social relationships, engaging a divine other in a quest for solace and
guidance. A divine personification may be experienced through identification with
various figures portrayed in religious texts. People may resolve problematic situations
more easily by defining them in terms of a biblical figure’s plight and by considering
their own personal conditions from the vantage point of the God role. These emphases
on symbols, negotiated reality, and the social construction of society lead to an
interest in the roles people play. Goffman (1959) discusses roles dramaturgically,
using an analogy to the theater, with human social behavior seen as scripted and with
humans as role-taking actors. Role taking is a key mechanism of interaction, for it
permits us to take the other’s perspective, to see what our actions might mean to the
other actors with whom we interact. Also emphasized in symbolic interaction is the
improvisational quality of roles, with human social behavior seen as poorly scripted
and with humans as role-making improvisers. Role-making, too, is a key mechanism
of interaction, for all situations and roles are inherently ambiguous, thus requiring us
to create those situations and roles to some extent before we can act.
Pollner (1989) proposes that this creation can be religious in nature and uses
the term divine interaction to describe the engagement of a divine other in personal
religious practices such as praying, meditation, and reading and studying sacred texts.
He asserts that research has focused quite naturally on the support that derives from
interaction with concrete others in “real” relationships. Yet reference group theory and
the symbolic interaction perspective underscore that not all relations are concretely
“real” (Rosenberg & Turner, 1981). Symbolic interactionism, for example, postulates
that human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols, by interpretation, or by
ascertaining the meaning of another’s actions. There is evidence that people
participate in “divine relations” as well as social relations and that divine relationships
may approximate concrete social relationships in intensity. These divine relations or
interactions are also linked to improvement of one’s coping skills. People may feel
that with the support or consent of a divine other they can control or manage life
events (Pollner, 1989). Furthermore, in addition to providing a resource for resolving
problematic situations, divine interaction may enhance well-being by shaping the
sense of self and providing an emotional vehicle for change.
Divine interaction may bolster individual self-esteem and self-efficacy. A new
awareness of one’s self, as intimately known and valued by a divine other, could well
increase one’s sense of self-worth and create the perception of enduring significance
beyond one’s physical self and life. In addition, the perception of unconditional divine
forgiveness of sins may mitigate personal guilt feelings and enhance the perception
that life’s challenges are manageable through personal partnership with a more
powerful force. In addition to providing a resource for resolving problematic
situations, divine interaction may enhance well-being by shaping the sense of self and
providing a source of empowerment, creating a feeling “that with the support of a
divine other they can control or manage life events”.
As a source of new cognitions in problematic situations, a source of
empowerment and enhancement of the self, and a contributor to a sense of
meaningfulness, interactions with a divine other may be expected to have a significant
effect on psychological well-being. An analysis of artwork, poetry, and letters from
inmates suggests that incarceration has a profoundly negative impact on psychological
well-being and can be extremely dangerous. Like life on the playground, where the
strongest child rules when there is no adult supervision, life in prison has a complex
social hierarchy. Emotions must be carefully guarded and carefully expressed.
Inmates lose their personal identities and are referred to by their ward addresses or
intake numbers rather than by their given names. As documented in Goffman’s (1961)
study of asylums, these circumstances cause inmates to experience a cauldron of
emotions, which can have deleterious effects on their psychological well-being,
leading to weakened emotional stability, sociability, and sense of purpose as well as
low self-esteem and confidence. Although these theories explain how a faith-based
reentry intervention and aftercare program may work, there is little research on the
efficacy and the process of these programs.
h. Major Transitions of Parole
The Urban Institute paper “Does Parole Work?” raised a number of questions
about the efficacy of parole supervision (Solomon, Kachnowski, & Bhati, 2005).
(Although the discussion is focused on parole, it pertains to all community
supervision.) Regardless of the data used in the study, which has been the subject of
much discussion (e.g., the data reflected supervision in the early 1990s, they pertained
to only 14 states, and they included California, which has unique patterns), the report
illustrates that parole supervision based on monitoring and face-to-face contacts has
little saliency. In other words, parole does not reduce the recycling of offenders
through the criminal justice system and may even contribute to it. And the use of
antiquated supervision technologies has little effect on offending behavior,
specifically on recidivism.
The findings of this study come as no surprise. Parole supervision in the 14
states under study involved face-to-face contacts that were intensified to monitor the
conditions of the offender. Few agencies used risk instruments to determine the
supervision level or even to identify the criminogenic needs that affect criminal
behavior. Conditions were assigned to hold the offender accountable. The numerous
intensive supervision experiments in the 1990s basically found that the number of
contacts did not reduce recidivism or technical violations and often did not increase
access to services. In this type of monitoring or contact, offenders are given a number
of conditions, the parole agent monitors the conditions, and the offender often fails to
meet the expectations. These failures increase the number of revocations, resulting in
increasing incarceration rates.
The burden of the monitoring protocol is on the offender as the sole party
responsible for meeting the assigned conditions. The offender is responsible for
paying supervision fees (even if the offender is unemployed or underemployed or
cannot afford basic life essentials such as rent and food), finding treatment (even if
services are not readily available in the community), becoming sober immediately
after a long period of alcohol or drug use, and finding a sober, crime-free place to live
(even if other members are under community supervision or have substance abuse
problems). All these scenarios illustrate how the supervision system can be
unforgiving toward the offender and the communities that many offenders reside in.
That is, monitoring generally provides the offender with little assistance in learning
how to be responsible or accountable.
Adding conditions to the standard parole and probation orders in the late
1980s–1990s has had a number of unintended consequences. The first and most
obvious is the increased potential for technical violations that might result in
incarceration. With added conditions of drug testing, electronic monitoring, house
arrest, curfews, or other new tools, offenders have more chances for not being
compliant or failing to meet expectations. Most parole agencies recognize that the
effectiveness of these new tools is likely to be tied to the ability for offenders to learn
to change their ways. Unfortunately, funds are available for the monitoring tools but
seldom for the accompanying behavioral interventions that would help offenders learn
to change their ways.
Second, monitoring has translated into more parole agencies adopting an
enforcer model, coupled with law enforcement technologies. Many parole and
probation agencies assumed a law enforcement perspective that included arming their
staff, with 41 states allowing parole officers to be armed (Fuller, 2002). For some
organizations this raised the profile of the probation and parole staff, including access
to benefits afforded law enforcement (e.g., retirement systems, which are usually
better than those of other state employees, and salary enhancements for clothing). It
also forced the organizations to participate in law enforcement–type training,
particularly certification for gun use. And it reinforced the commitment to rigorous
enforcement of conditions as a form of accountability for the offender. The graduated
sanction movement in the early 1990s reinforced this mentality, with a focus on
responding to violations and the importance of accountability.
Some parole officers subscribed to the law enforcement perspective, whereas
others continued to straddle the gap between law enforcement and social work. Some
rigorously enforced the conditions, whereas others did not. And some officers suggest
that they become frustrated with offenders and their actions, contributing to an
acrimonious climate for supervision. Parole officers and offenders often get into
verbal tugs of war that generally have negative results. Sanction guidelines (Burke,
2001) were developed to assist the parole staff in working productively with offenders
to sanction behavior before pursuing revocation. But, like other guidelines in the
criminal justice system, these are difficult to implement because the staff resist the
structure that the guidelines impose (e.g., it affects their professionalism, they want to
individualize responses, they believe that the guidelines give the offender too many
chances, and they do not agree with the premise of the guidelines).
The intermediate sanction experiments have generally found that increasing
the intensity of supervision through a variety of external controls has not improved
offender outcomes. In fact, similar results are likely to occur for enhanced technical
violations because of the detection that results from increased visibility of the
offender. In the early 1990s new programs were developed that included drug courts,
“breaking the cycle” and other seamless efforts, diversion to treatment (both front-end
and back-end), and enhanced programs that built on traditional community
supervision. Most of these programs emphasized treatment, drug testing, and
sanctions. Overall, research has found that the provision of high-quality treatment
services reduces recidivism.
Although the research over the last three decades has many limitations, it
provides guidance to improve criminal justice public policy and supervision practice.
Much of the relevant research derives from studies in substance abuse treatment,
education, and vocational training outside traditional correctional and criminal justice
settings. The research identifies themes that should be incorporated into current
policies and practices: The supervision period should be short, with clearly defined
goals and objectives that speak to punishment and reparation of harms (for low-risk
offenders) and habilitation (for moderate- to high-risk offenders); informal social
controls (e.g., families, friends) are more effective in controlling behavior than formal
government agencies; many external control tools (e.g., curfews, drug testing) merely
fuel the churning process and have limited efficacy in improving offender outcomes
(which suggests that it might be advisable to limit the use of such tools for most
offenders); treatment-based interventions should be reserved for moderate- to high-
risk offenders who have clearly addressable criminogenic needs for which clinical or
pharmacological programming would be appropriate; and clarifying expectations to
the offender, limiting the use of discretion, and developing rapport with offenders are
key program components that can improve offender outcomes. All of this can be
translated into a behavioral management approach that supervision staff can use with
offenders, particularly for moderate- to high-risk offenders who are susceptible to the
churning wheel.
Overall, the research suggests that efforts should be devoted to reducing the
overarching umbrella of the correctional system for the clear purpose of focusing
supervision resources on offenders and communities in the greatest need. Stated
simply, core resources should be devoted to moderate- to high-risk offenders,
particularly those who reside in highly disadvantaged geographic areas (e.g., high
concentrations of poverty, higher levels of instability), as a means to improve public
safety and community well-being. Such a policy would require the criminal justice
system to diversify responses in a manner that concentrates efforts on offenders who
are likely to return to the community (as are most) and who are likely to have problem
behaviors. Other offenders would be handled in ways that benefit the community and
that entail less intensive restrictions and interventions. This is particularly true of the
low-risk offenders, for whom punishment and reparation goals might be more
appropriate.
i. Seamless Systems of Care
Evaluations of drug treatment programs have consistently found that
participation in such treatment reduces substance abuse and recidivism (Anglin &
Hser, 1990; Hubbard et al., 1989). In various individual program evaluations and
meta-analyses, therapeutic communities and cognitive–behavioral models have
consistently shown more positive results than other approaches, such as counseling,
reality therapy, or other services (Taxman, 1999). However, controloriented
interventions (e.g., electronic monitoring, house arrest) generally create short-term
results in reducing recidivism (Petersilia, 1999). The two key variables of successful
interventions are the type of intervention and the length of time in treatment. Both
have been shown repeatedly to be critical factors affecting recidivism reduction
potential.
Although drug treatment programs for offenders have been shown to be
effective, such programs are generally threatened by system factors that dilute the
impact of a single treatment program, and supervision can expect results that are more
likely to occur over time. In community supervision, most often the supervision
agency is a bridge to the treatment community through referrals to treatment programs
or funding of treatment programs for offenders. In either case, it is recognized that
community supervision agencies and public health agencies usually work together to
achieve the best outcome from the offender’s involvement in treatment programs. In
fact, certain actions by the supervision agency can increase offenders’ access to and
retention in treatment programs (Taxman, Shepardson, & Byrne, 2004; Thanner &
Taxman, 2003). The linkages support the need to develop boundaryless systems of
care that engage public health and criminal justice agencies in efforts to reduce
recidivism. For example, client selection is a common problem for correctional
programs because it is important to identify offenders who will benefit from the
services. Another typical problem is that the offender spends too little time in prison
or jail to benefit from the full duration of a treatment program. Another important
selection issue is the fact that program eligibility criteria are often ambiguous, making
it difficult to identify the characteristics of offenders who are likely to benefit from
the treatment program. Treatment programs need special correctional staff, which
often places excessive demands on a correctional institution. Aftercare is often desired
but seldom materializes because it entails crossing organizational boundaries to link
offenders to treatment services in the community. Most of the issues raised by Farabee
and his colleagues (1999) were also uncovered in the present process evaluation.
The integrated system of service delivery is characterized by several distinct
core components, including client-focused policies, delivery systems based on a
continuum of care, and the use of coerced treatment, behavioral contracts, and
graduated sanctions with clients, as well as the prioritization of system resources.
Each of these core components is implemented with the cooperation of both criminal
justice and relevant public health agencies.
In his discussion of integrated services, Moore (1992) suggests that each
agency would participate in key decisions about the client, including placement in
appropriate services, modification of treatment plans based on client progress, the
transition to other services when deemed appropriate, and eventual discharge from the
system. Rather than mere coordination of services and efforts around these issues,
there would be an integration and synthesis of both agency policies and operational
practices. In the system approach to service delivery the initial focus must be on
building the infrastructure needed to support the functions of each agency. In order to
accomplish this, policy development must focus on such issues as client assessment,
referral, placement, tracking, and monitoring; service planning; transition through
services; and eventual discharge. In terms of the criminal justice and treatment
system, such boundary-spanning activities, especially as related to the initial
development of integrated policies, appear to be an essential next step in the evolution
of effective treatment delivery systems.
In addition to changes in various agencies’ operational practices, a focus on
building and monitoring specific interagency policies would be useful to ensure that
these implementation and policy issues are addressed adequately. A coordinated effort
is needed between the state treatment agency and correctional agencies to ensure the
long-term success of these treatment programs outcomes. A full commitment is
needed from state agencies to ensure that the continuum of care is seamless (e.g.,
treatment behind the walls, treatment in the community, supervision and sanctions,
and drug testing), supported by an integrated approach to major policy decision
making. This would help to eliminate some of the difficulties that occur during the
implementation of continuum-of-care models, such as prisons transferring offenders
before they have completed jail-based programs or a lack of involvement by
supervision agencies in transitional planning. Although they are labor intensive in the
short term, in the long run this type of integrated treatment approach is likely to
improve the quality of services delivered, which in turn will improve client retention
and outcomes.
j. The Behavioral Management Approach
Many supervision agencies recognize that putting behavioral management
systems in place entails other organizational changes and enhancements. Change
strategies are needed to facilitate behavioral management goals and to develop new
resources in the criminal justice system to achieve these goals. And as part of efforts
to improve reentry programs and change the nature of supervision, a need exists to
ensure that the supervision system addresses behavioral management goals. For
example, useful goals are to ensure that offender accountability includes officer
responsibility to obtain recommended services, to use assessment tools to define
supervision tools, and to ensure that officers and offenders are provided incentives to
reduce recidivism.
An important part of the behavioral management model is to recognize that the
key element in offender change is the alliance with the supervision officer. Offenders’
attitudes and behavioral outcomes can be influenced by their interactions with
supervision officers and treatment providers. Interpersonal communication styles are
often dismissed as factors that affect the correctional milieu. Palmer (1995) and Bonta
and Gendreau (1990) state that nonprogram elements, such as agent decorum and
interaction style with offenders, are critical to positive offender outcomes. Andrews
and Kiessling (1980) determined that after receiving intensive training on strategies of
interpersonal communication and anticriminal modeling and reinforcement, parole
and probation officers were more effective in reducing recidivism than officers who
did not use these techniques. In a recent review of audiotaped interviews of officers
and offenders, researchers found poor adherence to some of the basic principles of
using assessment tools to guide supervision conditions (Bonta, Rugge, Scott,
Bourgon, & Yessine, 2008). Officers spent much of the time on enforcement issues
such as complying with the conditions of probation; insufficient attention was given
to the offender’s progress in obtaining services and the offender’s attitudes, including
antisocial attitudes, and peer and social supports for crime.
The observation from Bonta et al. (2008) underscores a significant missed
opportunity within the criminal justice system: the failure of officers to utilize face-to-
face interactions with offenders as a means of imparting prosocial modeling,
providing differential reinforcement, or addressing criminal thinking patterns. These
interactions represent crucial moments for intervention, where officers have the
potential to influence behavior, promote positive change, and foster rehabilitation
among justice-involved individuals.
Prosocial modeling involves demonstrating and reinforcing behaviors that are
socially desirable, constructive, and law-abiding. By modeling empathy, respect, and
accountability in their interactions with offenders, officers can serve as role models
and catalysts for positive behavioral change. Moreover, by providing praise,
recognition, and rewards for prosocial behaviors, officers can reinforce and
incentivize constructive choices, thereby promoting a culture of compliance and
cooperation within correctional settings.
Similarly, attending to criminal thinking patterns involves identifying and
challenging distorted beliefs, attitudes, and cognitive distortions that contribute to
antisocial behavior and criminal conduct. Through targeted interventions such as
cognitive-behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, and skills training, officers
can help offenders recognize and address the underlying factors driving their criminal
behavior, such as impulsivity, entitlement, and distorted risk perceptions. By
promoting cognitive restructuring, problem-solving skills, and moral reasoning,
officers can support offenders in developing more adaptive coping mechanisms and
prosocial decision-making strategies.
Furthermore, the adoption of motivational interviewing as a tool within
correctional agencies represents a promising shift towards a more person-centered,
collaborative, and empowerment-based approach to offender management.
Motivational interviewing is a client-centered counseling style that aims to elicit
behavior change by exploring ambivalence, enhancing intrinsic motivation, and
building self-efficacy. By engaging in open-ended questioning, reflective listening,
and empathy, officers can facilitate meaningful conversations with offenders, explore
their values, goals, and motivations, and empower them to make positive choices and
take ownership of their rehabilitation journey.
Moreover, motivational interviewing can assist officers in developing
motivation-enhancing strategies that are tailored to the individual needs, strengths,
and circumstances of each offender. By fostering a supportive and nonjudgmental
atmosphere, officers can create opportunities for self-reflection, goal-setting, and
problem-solving, thereby increasing offenders' readiness to change and willingness to
engage in rehabilitative interventions.
Incorporating motivational interviewing into officer training and professional
development programs can enhance officers' communication skills, cultural
competence, and therapeutic rapport-building abilities, thereby improving the quality
and effectiveness of their interactions with offenders. Moreover, by embedding
motivational interviewing principles into institutional policies, procedures, and
practices, correctional agencies can promote a culture of collaboration, empathy, and
empowerment that is conducive to positive outcomes for both officers and offenders.
In conclusion, the failure of officers to utilize face-to-face interactions with
offenders as a means of imparting prosocial modeling, providing differential
reinforcement, or addressing criminal thinking represents a missed opportunity for
intervention within the criminal justice system. By embracing motivational
interviewing as a tool for opening communication lines and developing motivation-
enhancing strategies, correctional agencies can empower officers to foster positive
change, promote rehabilitation, and contribute to safer, more humane, and more
effective correctional environments.
The importance of the relationship to outcomes is reported in a recent study by
Skeem, Eno Louden, Polaschek, and Camp (2007). They used instruments to measure
relationship components for probationers with mental health disorders on three
dimensions: caring–fairness, trust (indicative of a behavioral management approach),
and toughness–authoritarianism (law enforcement approach) and therapeutic alliance,
and they found that treatment alliance was unrelated to offender outcomes.
The findings you've mentioned underscore the significant impact of behavioral
management techniques versus traditional law enforcement approaches on the success
of interventions within the criminal justice system. The observation that every 1-point
increase in an officer's toughness score is associated with a 94% increase in the odds
of revocation highlights the critical importance of the strategies employed in
managing and interacting with individuals involved in the justice system.
Behavioral management techniques encompass a range of evidence-based
practices aimed at modifying behavior, promoting positive change, and reducing
recidivism among justice-involved individuals. These techniques often prioritize
therapeutic interventions, cognitive-behavioral approaches, and skills development
programs designed to address the underlying factors contributing to criminal behavior,
such as substance abuse, mental health issues, and antisocial attitudes. By focusing on
rehabilitation, skill-building, and individualized treatment plans, behavioral
management approaches seek to empower individuals to make positive choices and
lead law-abiding lives upon reentry into society.
In contrast, traditional law enforcement approaches tend to emphasize punitive
measures, coercive tactics, and strict adherence to rules and regulations. While these
approaches may serve a deterrent function and ensure compliance with institutional
policies, they often fail to address the root causes of criminal behavior or provide
meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration. Moreover, the use of
overly harsh or authoritarian tactics can exacerbate tensions, foster resentment, and
undermine trust between justice-involved individuals and authority figures, leading to
increased resistance, defiance, or recidivism.
The stark contrast between behavioral management techniques and law
enforcement approaches highlights broader debates within the criminal justice field
regarding the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation, coercion
and support, and accountability and redemption. Increasingly, there is a growing
recognition of the need to adopt more humane, evidence-based, and person-centered
approaches to justice that prioritize the well-being, dignity, and agency of individuals
involved in the system.
Moreover, the findings regarding the impact of an officer's toughness score on
revocation outcomes underscore the significance of interpersonal dynamics,
communication styles, and relational factors in shaping the success or failure of
interventions within the criminal justice system. Officers who adopt overly
authoritarian or punitive attitudes may inadvertently contribute to a climate of
hostility, resistance, or disengagement among justice-involved individuals, thereby
undermining efforts to promote positive change and facilitate successful reentry into
society.
In response to these challenges, there is a growing emphasis on training and
professional development programs aimed at enhancing the skills, competencies, and
cultural competence of law enforcement officers and criminal justice practitioners. By
equipping officers with the knowledge, tools, and techniques necessary to effectively
engage with diverse populations, build rapport, de-escalate conflicts, and support
rehabilitation efforts, agencies can enhance the effectiveness, legitimacy, and fairness
of their interactions with justice-involved individuals.
In conclusion, the contrast between behavioral management techniques and
traditional law enforcement approaches highlights the critical importance of adopting
evidence-based, person-centered, and trauma-informed practices within the criminal
justice system. By prioritizing rehabilitation, empowerment, and accountability,
agencies can promote positive outcomes, reduce recidivism, and enhance public
safety while upholding the principles of dignity, fairness, and respect for all
individuals involved in the justice system.
The working relationship between officers and offenders is often the unstated
component of evidence-based corrections. Researchers have recognized that
organizational attention must be given to addressing this milieu to facilitate the
implementation of sound practices and to achieve gains in offender outcomes. These
relationships are important in creating an environment where offenders feel they can
trust the officer and to have some desire to comply with the conditions of release.
Turning decades of enforcement-style supervision into a working hybrid that can
change offender behavior cannot be ignored in this evolution of probation and parole.
