Although not as old as some of the older ideologies, rehabilitation is not a new concept. Rehabilitation is the ideology of helping individuals who have committed crimes change their behavior through interventions, treatment, therapy, education, and training in order to help them reenter society.

Rehabilitation has taken different forms in the United States. At one time, society considered people who commit crimes to be out of touch with God. One of America’s earliest prisons was designed to enhance incarcerated individuals’ connection with God. The Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, opened in 1829 and included outside reflection yards so individuals could look up to God for penance.

To see more about this prison, check out The Eastern State Penitentiary [Website].

Reformatories were another type of correctional facility but with a focus on rehabilitation. The reform movement tried to rehabilitate the individual through more humane treatment, to include basic education, religious services, work experience, and general reform efforts. This was done in an effort to reform individuals, thus allowing them to come back to society. The Elmira Reformatory in Elmira, New York, seen in figure 8.3, was one of the earliest efforts of the reform ideal, and many prisons built in the United States were based on this reformatory.

Rehabilitation has also included medical approaches. Incarcerated individuals were viewed as sick and in need of medical cures. This medical approach, while less common, is still used in some areas today. As of November 2021, in the United States, six states and one territory included the use of testosterone-inhibiting medications as a treatment for individuals convicted of sex offenses being considered for early release.

Rehabilitation as an ideology has its critics. Many see it as being soft on individuals who have been convicted of committing crimes. There are several examples that suggest rehabilitation is ineffective in some cases. For example, in 1974, Robert Martinson reviewed more than 230 programs and concluded that, “With few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been undertaken so far have had no appreciative effect on recidivism” (Martinson, 1974). This report caused many policymakers to turn to more punitive ideologies. However, it did prompt some researchers to ask more detailed questions about why rehabilitation was not working, including critical questions about measurement of outcomes, evaluation of specific rehabilitative programs, and attempts to understand outcomes for individuals involved in the justice system. The answers to these questions became the principles of effective intervention that are the cornerstone of modern rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation is the only one of the four main ideologies that most comprehensively attempts to address the current goals of corrections: punishing the offender, protecting society, and rehabilitating the offender. Certainly, all four ideologies address the first two goals: punishment and societal protection. However, the goal of rehabilitating the offender is not addressed in retribution, deterrence, or incapacitation. But ignoring rehabilitation comes at a cost. In this chapter’s section on jails and prisons, you will read about the challenge of relying heavily on these facilities. About 95 percent of people released from prison had little or no rehabilitative support while incarcerated (Bureau of Justice, 2004). And yet there is the expectation that individuals leaving prisons will not commit crimes in the future.

The question is: What have we done to help change them so they do not reoffend? Without the incorporation of some form of rehabilitation, the answer is fairly clear: nothing.

Understanding Risk and Needs in Rehabilitation

Today’s rehabilitative efforts still carry punishment and societal protection as goals, but the focus of rehabilitation is on changing individuals’ behaviors so that they do not recidivate. To change behavior, corrections professionals need to understand what causes some individuals to be at risk for offending and what causes some individuals to be at higher risk for offending than others. Risk factors include items like prior criminal history, antisocial attitudes, antisocial or pro-criminal friends, a lack of education, family or marital problems, a lack of job stability, substance abuse, and personality characteristics like mental health issues and antisocial personality.

While we can’t change the number of prior offenses someone already has, all of these other items can be addressed. These are considered as criminogenic needs. Criminogenic needs are items that, when changed, can lower an individual’s risk of offending. This is a core component of Paul Gendreau’s principles of effective intervention and is at the heart of most modern effective rehabilitation programs (1996). Thousands of individuals have been assessed on these items, which has helped to develop evidence-based rehabilitation practices. When these criminogenic needs are addressed, higher-risk individuals demonstrate positive reductions in their risk of offending.

Cognitive behavioral therapy has been noted as one of the most effective approaches to changing criminogenic needs. It is based on the concept that behaviors can be changed by changing the thinking patterns behind them or before they are exhibited. Criminal behavior is based on cognition, values, and beliefs that are learned through the interactions and observations of others. This is important when rehabilitating individuals from prison, where antisocial ideas, peers, values, and beliefs may dominate the institution.

For a more detailed explanation, please see What is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy? [Website]

Eras of Corrections

In the U.S. correctional system, history continues to repeat itself through various eras of corrections. From the late 1700s to the present, policymakers, government officials, and the community at large have changed how the system impacted those who have committed crimes or been accused of committing them.

Over the years, various approaches have been taken to address issues within the corrections system, yet challenges persist across generations. For instance, from 1790 to 1825, the focus was on incarcerating individuals to encourage repentance before God. Later, there was a shift towards mass incarceration. This was followed by a period emphasizing the reform and education of individuals, which eventually became financially burdensome. Consequently, there was a move towards an industrial model where incarcerated individuals worked to sustain the facilities themselves.

In the past century, there has been a cyclical pattern ranging from punitive punishment to treatment-oriented approaches to community-based solutions to simply warehousing individuals. These shifts have depended on the prevailing attitudes of the community and policymakers at different times. In the upcoming chapter, you will explore how these changes have affected communities. Specifically, you will delve into how these punishment philosophies have disproportionately impacted communities of color over time, shedding light on implications for the field of criminal justice.

To learn more about how some of these historical eras have impacted certain groups, review the American History, Race, and Prison [Website] article.

Licenses and Attributions for Rehabilitation

Open Content, Shared Previously

“Philosophies of Punishment” is adapted from “8.1. A Brief History of the Philosophies of Punishment”, “8.2. Retribution”, “8.3. Deterrence”, “8.4. Incapacitation”, and “8.5. Rehabilitation” by David Carter in SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System by Alison S. Burke, David Carter, Brian Fedorek, Tiffany Morey, Lore Rutz-Burri, and Shanell Sanchez, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Modifications by Megan Gonzalez, revisions by Roxie Supplee, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 include editing for clarity.

Figure 8.3. “Elmira Reformatory (circa 1897)” by TWENTY-SECOND YEAR BOOK OF THE New York State Reformatory FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1897 is in the Public Domain.