Practice Profile: Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

Evidence Rating for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types

Date: This profile was posted on February 11, 2020

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Practice Goals/Target Population

Rehabilitation programs are designed to reduce recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system, and programs are typically provided in conjunction with some form of sanction (e.g., incarceration or probation). Therefore, most programs are delivered within correctional settings while the person completes his or her sentence, or in community settings following the their release (i.e., probation or parole-based programs). Community-based settings may be delivered in inpatient facilities such as psychiatric hospitals and outpatient treatment centers, or in supportive residential housing such as halfway houses. In addition, some rehabilitation programs (such as drug courts) serve as alternatives to incarceration, diverting them into services in the community rather than into correctional facilities.

Practice Components

Rehabilitation programs do not generally follow a common, well-defined treatment protocol (Lipsey and Cullen 2007). Instead, interventions and services may vary significantly by program. All programs address at least one of the risk factors commonly associated with offending (such as mental health status, substance use, education level, or employment status). For example, a drug court program may provide a person who has been convicted of an offense with treatment only to address substance abuse issues related to his or her offending. More commonly, however, rehabilitation programs combine multiple services: for example, a drug court program that provides an individual not only with substance abuse treatment, but also with individual counseling and vocational training.

The general types of treatment services provided by rehabilitation programs include group work (structured via protocol or psychoeducational content); cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or CBT-like components (thinking skills, relapse prevention, or anger management); counseling (group, individual, mentoring); academic work (GED or college classes); employment-related (work-release, job placement, vocational training); supportive residential (therapeutic community, halfway house); drug court or other specialized court; multimodal, mixed treatments (individual case management); intensive supervision (reduced probation or parole); or restorative interventions (mediation, reparations, community service, victim-offender conferencing).

Practice Theory

Effective rehabilitation programs typically use treatment methods that are based on behavioral and social learning theories of change. Behavioral theory suggests that individuals are conditioned to behave in a certain way based on experiences with reinforcement and punishment (Skinner 1965). In contrast, social learning theory posits that people learn behaviors from one another, through observation, imitation, and modeling (Bandura 1997). Therefore, rehabilitation programs are designed to reduce criminal behaviors through the positive reinforcement of conventional behaviors learned through observation or modeling (Lipsey and Cullen 2007). For example, a program may help a participant learn how to manage his or her anger by modeling appropriate responses instead.

Meta-Analysis Snapshot
	Literature Coverage Dates	Number of Studies	Number of Study Participants
Meta Analysis 1	1970-2014	801	0

Meta Analysis 1

Lipsey (2019) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effect of rehabilitation programs on reducing recidivism for adults who have been convicted of an offense. Studies were included in the review if they 1) involved a qualifying psychosocial intervention or treatment designed to, implicitly or explicitly, reduce criminal behavior or improve skills, mental health, or social functioning; 2) included a sample that comprised at least 50 percent convicted persons and 60 percent adults of a mean age of 18 or older; 3) compared outcomes for at least one participant group of at least 10 individuals receiving treatment with those in at least one qualifying control group of at least 10 individuals; 4) included participants who were randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions, or matched on or compared on baseline variables that included at least one pretest criminal history/risk variable or two relevant personal demographic characteristics; 5) reported at least one outcome variable for recidivism or other outcomes indicative of successful intervention such as employment, mental health, or substance use; and 5) were conducted during or after 1950 in the United States or another English-speaking, culturally similar country (e.g., Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand).

Relevant published and unpublished studies were identified through a systematic search of several electronic databases as well as hand searches of major criminal justice journals that publish intervention studies or research reviews of intervention studies. The bibliographies of relevant review articles and prior meta-analyses were also searched subsequently, as were the reference lists in all eligible or near-eligible studies. The search resulted in a sample of 801 eligible studies from 1956 to 2014.

The 801 studies included 282 randomized controlled trials, 500 quasi-experimental designs, and 15 that were coded as “other.” Of the 801 studies, 321 were published in journals, 248 were technical reports, 168 were dissertations or theses, 48 were books or book chapters, and 16 were “other.” More than half (n = 481) were published after 1990, and most of the studies (n = 652) were conducted in the United States, followed by Canada (n = 62), United Kingdom (n = 61), and Australia or New Zealand (n = 26).

The primary intervention types included structured, psychoeducational, group work (n = 118); residential treatment or halfway house (n =116); cognitive behavioral therapy (n = 113); counseling/mentoring (n = 61); work or vocational training (n = 90); drug court or other specialized court (n = 53); intensive supervision (n = 34); academic work such as GED or college classes (n = 24); restorative, mediation, or community service (n = 20); multimodal, mixed treatments, case management (n = 104); and other (n = 68). Most of the programs were delivered in correctional facilities (n = 388), followed by on probation (n = 173), and during parole or aftercare (n = 156). Some programs did not take place under criminal justice supervision, including diversion programs (n = 60). For the remaining programs, the level of supervision was not clearly stated (n = 24).

Most of the studies reported on all-male samples (n = 393), about 247 studies included males, and 69 studies included female-only samples. In 569 studies, the average age range of participants was reported as being 20 to 39.9 years. The predominant race or ethnicity (greater than 60 percent) of the samples was reported as white (in 212 studies), Black (in 116 studies), Native American (in 10 studies), other (in 10 studies), and Hispanic (in 7 studies). In 435 of the studies, the predominant race or ethnicity could not be determined.

The studies primarily measured outcomes related to recidivism, substance use, employment, mental health, anger/hostility, or aggression/violence. Some studies contributed effect sizes in more than one outcome category. When studies reported outcomes for more than one variable in a given construct category (e.g., recidivism for different offense types), only the broadest effect size was included in the analysis (e.g., recidivism for all offenses). However, this CrimeSolutions practice review focused on the outcome of recidivism. Recidivism was calculated using a random effects inverse-variance weighted mean effect size.

Date Created: July 17, 2024

Rating Process

Learn how this and other practices are rated

Practice Snapshot

Age: 18+

Gender: Male, Female

Race/Ethnicity: White, Black, Hispanic, American Indians/Alaska Native, Other

Targeted Population: Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Offenders, High Risk Offenders, Prisoners, Serious/Violent Offender

Setting (Delivery): Other Community Setting, Courts, Inpatient/Outpatient, Correctional, Residential (group home, shelter care, nonsecure)

Practice Type: Academic Skills Enhancement, Alcohol and Drug Therapy/Treatment, Alternatives to Detention/Jail, Alternatives to Incarceration/Prison, Cognitive Behavioral Treatment, Conflict Resolution/Interpersonal Skills, Court Processing, Day/Evening Treatment, Diversion, Electronic Monitoring/GPS, Gender-Specific Programming, Mental/Behavioral Health Treatment/Therapy, Mentoring, Probation/Parole Services, Residential Treatment Center, Restorative Justice, Therapeutic Communities, Vocational/Job Training, Wraparound/Case Management

Unit of Analysis: Persons

Practice Profile: Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

Notice

Practice Summary

Practice Description

Practice Goals/Target Population

Practice Components

Practice Theory

Meta-Analysis Outcomes

Meta-Analysis Methodology

Cost

Other Information

Evidence-Base (Meta-Analyses Reviewed)

Additional References

Related Programs