| Pres. Trump signs "First Step Act" Image from Time Mag. |
By Michael Liebowitz
A Connecticut prisoner for some 25 years, Liebowitz was formerly housed at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, CT. He has been a free man since November 2022.
Since his release, he authored "View from a Cage: My Transformation from Convict to Crusader for Liberty" and currently hosts the podcast, "The Rational Egoist".
Today, he and the love of his life, Melissa, need our help. They haven't the resources to absorb the associated loss of income and the expenses that come from Melissa's cancer treatment. Please consider making a ten-dollar donation to help Melissa, her son and Michael. Donate here.
Along with Brett McCall, Liebowitz is also co-author of "Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime", available at Amazon. Dr. Stanton E. Samenow, PhD reviewed the work in a 3/12/21 article in Psychology Today magazine. In his review he writes, "I have found that Liebowitz and McCall are keen observers with a positive objective - to help others become more effective in helping people like themselves to change and become responsible human beings. This book is definitely worth a read."
Liebowitz is also a regular guest with Todd Feinburg on WTIC AM 1080. Podcasts of Todd's segments with Liebowitz can be heard, here.
Widespread Implementation of Evidence-Based Programs
Before delving into what I mean
by “evidence-based programs”, I think it will be helpful to first briefly
discuss the history of the idea that one of the purposes of prisons is to
rehabilitate offenders.
The
penitentiary system was created in the late 18th century and came
into prominence in the 19th. From
the beginning it was supposed that among the goals of incarceration was that of
reforming the character of criminals. Whether
through the “silent system” as at New York’s Auburn prison, or the “separate
system” at Pennsylvania’s Cherry Hill prison, it was thought that removing
offenders from society, making them labor, intensively, and teaching them
religion would get them to atone for their sins and alter their evil ways.
By
the late19th century it became clear that this model was failing,
and changes were soon enacted. Labor and
religion were still very much part of the prison experience, but new reforms,
such as indeterminate sentencing, were added to the mix. While never fully implemented in practice, the
idea of the indeterminate sentence was that there would be no specified period
of time to which criminals would be sentenced. Instead, they would be released when their
actions demonstrated that they were ready for society; this was thought to
provide offenders with the necessary incentive to reform themselves.
Parole,
probation, vocational education and rehabilitation programs developed in the
early 20th century, making up what came to be known as the
“rehabilitative ideal.” Then in 1954 the
American Prison Association became the American Correctional Association and
prisons became “correctional institutions.”
After
approximately 70 years as the dominant idea in criminal justice, the
rehabilitative ideal fell into disrepute. The 1960s and 70s were turbulent times
characterized by several high-profile assassinations, war, protests, and rising
crime rates. Many people lost faith in
society’s ability to reform offenders. A
perfect storm was in place for what was perhaps the most significant blow
against the rehabilitative ideal: Robert Martinson’s “nothing works” report.
A
plethora of studies have shown that certain types of programs, when implemented
properly, lead to significant reductions in recidivism.
In
1974 Martinson and his colleagues released the results of a study they had
conducted in which they concluded that; by and large, nothing works to reform
offenders. This conclusion soon assumed
the status of dogma, a dogma that has been difficult to shake. Never mind the serious methodological
weaknesses in the study; never mind the numerous studies that have shown the
“nothing works” position to be erroneous; and never mind that prior to his
death, Martinson himself partially reconsidered. The verdict was in: criminals were
incorrigible.
Criminal
sanctions and inappropriate human services increased recidivism . . .
What
does the evidence actually indicate? A
plethora of studies have shown that certain types of programs, when implemented
properly, lead to significant reductions in recidivism. One such study, or rather a meta-analysis of
studies, has been expanded to include 225 studies yielding 374 tests of how
judicial and correctional interventions impacted recidivism.
Comparisons
of these interventions were based on whether they adhered to 0, 1, 2, or 3
hypothesized effective principles of rehabilitation. The results were as follows: Criminal
sanctions and inappropriate human services increased recidivism by two
percentage points; human services adhering to one principle reduced recidivism
by two points; human services consistent with two principles decreased
recidivism by 18 points; and when adhering to all three principles, human
services reduced recidivism by 26 points. These results are undoubtedly impressive, but
what exactly are these effective principles of rehabilitation? Answering this question is where I now turn.
The
model that informs effective correctional practices is the Risk, Need,
Responsivity (RNR) Model of Offender Assessment and Treatment. “By the late 1980s it was becoming clear that
treatment could be effective in reducing offender recidivism, but it was
unclear why some treatments were more effective than others. When reviewing the offender rehabilitation
literature, D. A. Andrews, James Bonta and Robert Hoge (1990) observed certain
patterns associated with the more effective treatment programs.
They formulated three general principles for purposes of effective classification and correctional treatment: the (1) risk, (2) need, and (3) responsivity principles … “ Although other principles have since been added to the model, these three still make up its core.
According
to the risk principle, programs are most effective at reducing recidivism when
addressed to moderate-to-high risk offenders. Also, the intensity of an
intervention should match the risk level of the participant. Finally, it’s generally undesirable to mix
high and low-risk offenders, together.
The RNR model identifies eight central risk factors: 1) Criminal
history; 2) Pro-criminal attitudes; 3) Pro-criminal associates; 4) Antisocial
personality patterns; 5) Family/marital status; 6) School/work status or
attitude; 7) Substance abuse; 8) Leisure/recreation activities.
The
“need” principle posits that the factors most associated with criminal behavior
are the ones that should be targeted for intervention. Perhaps you have noticed that of the above
risk factors, only one, criminal history, is unchangeable, or “static”. The rest are changeable, or “dynamic”. The
seven dynamic risk factors are called “criminogenic needs”. Not only are these alterable, but they are the
“factors most associated with criminal behavior”. These characteristics make them appropriate
for interventions.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy,
addressed to criminogenic needs, has been especially successful at reforming
offenders.
The responsivity principle is
that interventions need to be appropriate to the characteristics of the
offender. Two types of responsivity are
encompassed by this principle; specific and general. Specific responsivity refers to the idea that
interventions should be adapted to factors unique to the individual, such as
age, gender and personality for instance. General responsivity means that certain types
of programs have been more effective than others in treating offenders.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy,
addressed to criminogenic needs, has been especially successful at reforming
offenders. Among the characteristics of
these programs are, that; therapists model pro-social behavior, participants
engage in role plays to practice acting appropriately, and offenders learn
cognitive restructuring. In the last,
the therapist teaches the offender to identify his antisocial and irresponsible
attitudes, values and beliefs and eliminate and replace them with their pro-social
and responsible counterparts. Of
particular importance is that offenders learn to take personal responsibility
for their lives. It’s up to them to
reform themselves and to maintain positive changes, once they’ve been achieved.
The offenders need to understand that no
one can do this for them and no one owes it to them to try.
An
example of a program that fits the “evidence-based” description is the
Reasoning & Rehabilitation (R&R) program created by Robert Ross. As part of the curriculum, group leaders
instruct offenders on how to replace deeply rooted antisocial thinking patterns
with those pro-social in nature. The
leaders also model pro-social behaviors so as to demonstrate to offenders what
those behaviors look like in practice.
R&R makes use of line-level correctional employees, the idea being
that their participation has the benefit of getting them to buy-in to the
program and become invested in the outcomes.
In
a study conducted in 1988 by Ross and others, R&R was compared to a “life
skills” program and regular probationers. Only 18.1% of R&R participants recidivated
compared to 47.5% of those who only took the life skills program and 69.5% of
the regular probationers who did not participate in any program.
A
1995 study by Porpino and Robinson found that R&R had its greatest benefit
when conducted in the community. “A
66.3% reduction in new convictions was observed for offenders treated in the
community compared with a 16.23% reduction among those from institutional
programs.”
Almost
as important as knowing what to do,
is knowing what not to do. When it
comes to rehabilitation programs, not all are created equal. Not all programs reduce recidivism, and some
actually increase it. Moreover, even
evidence-based programs sometimes fail to achieve positive results. So what are the types of programs that are
ineffective and why do good ones sometimes miss the mark? Let’s see.
Unfortunately,
in my 22 years of incarceration, the vast majority of programs in which I’ve
participated fit the criteria of ineffective approaches.
Ineffective
approaches to treating offenders include client-centered, non-directive
techniques; psychodynamic and insight-oriented methods; bibliotherapy and those
that target non-criminogenic needs such as self-esteem and anxiety. This last is vital. In order to be effective, programs must target
criminogenic needs. In fact, those that
spend the bulk of their time addressing non-criminogenic needs have been shown
to increase, rather than reduce, recidivism.
Unfortunately,
in my 22 years of incarceration, the vast majority of programs in which I’ve
participated fit the criteria of ineffective approaches. Consider, for example, the Alternatives to
Violence Project (AVP). The AVP
facilitators manual describes the program as experiential, i.e., nondirective. Rather than directly teach offenders how to
identify and alter their criminal thinking patterns, the program emphasizes
that “solutions” will come from the group. However, it is difficult for me to grasp how
responsible solutions are supposed to emanate from a group of irresponsible
failures who have spent their lives violating the rights of others and acting contrary
to their own long-term interest.
The
program further emphasizes childhood trauma, societal injustice, and their
impact on offenders. Consider the
following two exercises: Injunctions from Childhood, the purpose of which is
“To heighten awareness of how things that were said to us in childhood affect
our lives”, and Masks, the purpose of which is “To help surface the feelings
that surround social discrimination of all sorts and to inform a discussion
about the roots of violence/conflict that live in discrimination”. These are clearly “insight oriented”
exercises. And not only do they address
non-criminogenic needs, they also encourage offenders to blame factors outside
themselves for their destructive behavior, rather than take responsibility for
their own choices. This last is
particularly counterproductive. As many
experts have pointed out, viewing themselves as victims provides criminals with
a rationalization for their antisocial behavior.
The problem here, . . . is that raising an offender’s self-esteem without
altering his character leaves you with a criminal who feels comfortable with
his criminality.
Finally,
instead of telling offenders that their behavior is immoral and indefensible,
the program seeks to make them feel good about themselves, i.e., to raise their
self-esteem. In AVP’s opening talk, for
instance, the facilitators instruct the group that “Everyone is important and
everyone is valuable”; and, “We look for and affirm one another’s good
points”. The problem here, as numerous
researchers have noted, is that raising an offender’s self-esteem without
altering his character leaves you with a criminal who feels comfortable with
his criminality. I agree with those
researchers who maintain that offenders need to be made to feel guilty, rather
than good about themselves. The
discomfort of guilt will presumably provide offenders with the necessary
motivation to change.
Whether
it be from poor design or improper implementation, it is in my mind inexcusable
that so many correctional programs fail to reform offenders.
As
was mentioned above, even evidence-based programs sometimes fail to reduce
recidivism. The main reason this occurs
is because the program is delivered with a lack of “therapeutic integrity”,
which is the degree to which a program is implemented as it was intended to
be. A lack of therapeutic integrity can
occur for a variety of reasons, including inadequate training and a failure on
the part of the correctional staff to “buy into” the program: in order to
assure therapeutic integrity, it is imperative that staff be well-trained and
that the program be frequently monitored for quality control.
Whether
it be from poor design or improper implementation, it is in my mind inexcusable
that so many correctional programs fail to reform offenders. There exists now an abundance of available
evidence for “what works”. It’s time to
put theory into practice. Throughout the
country we need to implement cognitive-behavioral programs that address the
criminogenic needs of moderate to high-risk offenders.
(A brief note on education)
While
education has been shown to reduce recidivism, it has not been nearly as
effective as the cognitive-behavioral programs discussed above. Still, I believe it can be a valuable adjunct
to these programs. After all, the better
educated they are, the more employable ex-offenders are likely to be. And if they are able to find employment,
rehabilitative efforts have a better chance of succeeding. Thus, including vocational, general, and
higher education in a plan to reduce crime makes sense.
Typed from the author's hand written essay
by Linda Johnson and edited by William Boylan, Editor-in-Chief.
No comments:
Post a Comment
The South Central Bulldog reserves the right to reject any comment for any reason, without explanation.