Practice Profile: Faith-Based Correctional Interventions

This practice includes interventions that are designed to promote prosocial and religious messages, to change attitudes (including reducing criminal attitudes) and decrease institutional misconduct. This practice is rated Ineffective for reducing institutional misconduct and Ineffective for reducing antisocial beliefs.

Practice Goals

Faith-based interventions have been implemented in adult correctional facilities around the country, providing a wide range of services to incarcerated individuals. The overall goal of faith-based correctional interventions is to promote prosocial and religious messages, with the goal of changing their attitudes (including reducing criminal attitudes) and decreasing institutional misconduct.

Practice Theory

Faith-based correctional interventions are predominately based on two criminological theories: social control/social attachment (Hirschi 1969; Sampson and Laub 1993) and social learning (Andrews 1995; Bandura 1997; O’Connor and Perreyclear 2002). According to social attachment theory, the more attached an individual is to prosocial institutions, the less likely she or he is to engage in criminal activity. Using this theory as its framework, faith-based correctional programming suggests that religion provides them with an attachment to a prosocial institution that they value and relationships they do not want to jeopardize.

Social learning theory hypothesizes that behavior, both criminal and non-criminal, is learned. Within the context of faith-based correctional programming, the assumption is that they can learn prosocial behavior by forming a relationship with faith leaders who promote positive values and behavior and encourage a commitment to conventional activities (O’Connor and Perreyclear 2002).

Practice Components

These faith-based interventions take place within adult correctional facilities; however, the specific activities or components vary across programs. For example, some interventions are based on a formal curriculum, with programs lasting anywhere from 1 day to 18 months. Others are much less formal and based on an individual’s participation in church-related activities.

Despite these differences, common components of faith-based interventions include church leadership, faith education, spiritual seminars, bible study, spiritual counseling, and worship services. Programs are also facilitated by a variety of individuals, including chaplains, volunteers, religious leaders, and prison staff.

Additional Information

The meta-analysis by Schaefer, Sams, and Lux (2016) found that faith-based correctional interventions had no statistically significant effect on measures of institutional misconduct. However, the meta-analysis also showed that those who participated in faith-based correctional interventions had a statistically significant increase in antisocial beliefs, compared with those who did not participate.

Schaefer, Sams, and Lux (2016) conducted subgroup analyses to determine whether formally defined interventions (i.e., those that use a curriculum) have a differential impact on attitudes and institutional misconduct, compared with non-formal, faith-based interventions (such as attending church services). The analyses indicated that effectiveness differed between formal and non-formal interventions. Specifically, the authors found that formally defined interventions achieved greater effects on attitudes than programs that were less defined; however, the direction of the relationship was the opposite of what was anticipated. Individuals who participated in formally defined, faith-based interventions experienced a statistically significant increase in antisocial beliefs, compared with individuals who participated in programs that were non-formal. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences between formally and non-formally defined interventions on institutional misconduct.

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

Andrews, Don. 1995. “The Psychology of Criminal Conduct and Effective Treatment.” In J. McGuire (ed.). What Works: Reducing Criminal Reoffending. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley, 35–62.

Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.

O’Connor, Thomas, and Michael Perreyclear. 2002. “Prison Religion in Action and Its Influence on Offender Rehabilitation.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 35(3):11–33.

Sampson, Robert, and John Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.