What do Offenders Want?

The voices of offenders are often left out of the "what works" debate. Studies that have actually consulted with known offenders have revealed that convicts are often not fond of rehabilitation or treatment efforts within the correctional environment - especially in the context of programs that emphasize personal risk or psychological perspectives (Ward and Maruna, 2007: 15). At the same time, many people who are or were in prison have expressed positive attitudes towards treatment strategies that focused on "self-change, empowerment, and desistance" (M. Kay Harris, 2005 as cited in Ward and Maruna, 2007: 15-16).

Consider the names of following types of correctional therapy: "cognitive-behavioral programming" and "reasoning and rehabilitation." These are examples of terms that highlight the need to change an individual who is somehow "wrong" or "deficient" or "pathological." Many offenders reject these negative labels. Thus, the negative connotations associated with many treatment programs can impact how they are received or interpreted by offenders and ultimately hinder program effectiveness. This notion is in line with research that suggests that effective rehabilitative treatment is most likely to occur when participation is voluntary (Latimer, 2001: 244).

In her qualitative study of 20 young men and women who had undergone rehabilitative treatment, Hoffman (2004) notes that all participants expressed that "the momentum and desire to change has to come from within" (Hoffman, 2004: 108). Thus, when designing programming and policy, it is important that the outcome is appealing for those whom we want to change. Perhaps consultation or collaboration with the people who are most directly affected by programming would help to create the most appropriate treatment services - services that are more consistent with the specific rehabilitation needs of individual offenders. Nothing that we try to do can be successful without their cooperation.

Research on Current Treatment Programs and Upcoming Treatment Models

As mentioned earlier in this report, there are many programs that have not received extensive evaluation. This is not to say that these programs do not have the potential to be promising, only that evaluation has yet to be completed. It is imperative that programs are evaluated with the utmost methodological rigor in order to ensure that youth are receiving optimal treatment and/or to make necessary adjustments. The process of evaluation and redesign was a key factor in the creation of the "promising programs" discussed above. For example, a program that needs more evaluation is the Good Lives Model of rehabilitation (GLM). It has much in common with Andrews et al.'s RNR model, but approaches treatment from a different viewpoint (Ward and Maruna, 2007: 172-173). It would be fair to say that the main difference is that the GLM presents treatment options as a glass half full instead of half empty. Whereas RNR looks to deficiencies and areas that essentially need to be repaired in individuals, GLM focuses on positive aspects and encourages change through a different lens. This and other appealing programs in the growing field of positive psychology should be the aim of future research.

Summary of What Works in Rehabilitation

According to the literature previously cited in this section of the report (Andrews and Dowden, 2005; Andrews et al., 1990; Cullen, 2005; Dowden and Andrews, 2000; Greenwood, 2006; Howell, 2003; Jones and Wyant, 2007; Landenberger and Lipsey, 2005; Latimer, 2001; Lipsey, 1999; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998; Lipsey and Cullen, 2007; Loeber and Farrington, 1998; Lösel and Schmucker, 2005; MacKenzie, 2002; Ward and Maruna, 2007; Webster, 2004), and other sections of the report (specifically deterrence and incarceration/incapacitation), there are some common themes that can be extrapolated in terms of what works for rehabilitation. The following is a summary of what works and what doesn't in rehabilitation.