Both public polls and polls of incarcerated individuals and facility staff suggest that rehabilitative programs are more beneficial to incarcerated individuals than punitive measures (Giordano 2013). After understanding what rehabilitation for incarcerated individuals really means, those who believe in external causes of crime felt that rehabilitation was more beneficial than a punitive response (Flaco and Turner 2013). External causes of crime stem from the inequities mentioned earlier. Research has shown that local jail sentences, as opposed to state or federal prison sentences, result in lower rearrest rates (Bird et al. 2023). It is important to note that prisons are usually designated for longer sentences that often result from more serious convictions (Bird et al. 2023). Veysey et al. (2011) noted that change for offenders is possible; change is based on a variety of factors that include the individual, the support system, and the actual interventions. This suggests that rehabilitative programs are beneficial; while they may not necessarily reduce incarceration rates, they have the potential to change individuals.
Other literature suggests that support systems, both within the correctional facility and outside of it, play a crucial role in the effectiveness of rehabilitative programs. Prison climate can be defined as “perceptions of the environment- social, emotional, organizational, and physical- shared by the staff and inmates within its walls” (Williams et al. 2019: 1355). Prison climate directly relates to support systems as incarcerated individuals often turn to one another and staff within the facility for support. Williams et al. (2019) found that a supportive prison climate might be important to the improvement of rehabilitative services. Dewey and Prohaska (2021) also note that a positive prison climate can reduce rates of reoffending.
Creating social capital is one way in which the prison climate can be improved. Social capital is what holds the community together and allows for prison society to function smoothly (Hawes 2017). In his conclusion, Hawes (2017) makes the claim that the social capital gained in prison can be used to improve communities and overall society by creating reciprocity. For incarcerated individuals, their community is those who live and work within the correctional facility. By creating a community in which individuals respect one another, the overall prison climate could be improved, which would lead to more effective rehabilitative programs.
Bryonn Bain Prison Ed at DC by Iedit4life. CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED.
The effectiveness of rehabilitative practices can be connected back to labeling theory. Labeling theory is connected to the looking-glass self and symbolic interactionism, as it is reflexive and people act upon the meanings they have created for labels (Asenico and Burke 2011). Specifically, people will create an understanding of how others are interacting with them and how they are seen. This belief then influences the way an individual will behave, whether it is to support the created perception or to refute it (Barmaki 2019). The difference between calling someone a “criminal” versus a “drug user” can be impactful. Asenico and Burke (2011) found that the label “criminal” was internalized and then placed within one’s identity whereas the label “drug user” was not internalized. This is important, as it shows how program supervisors’ labeling of incarcerating individuals can influence how effective the program is. If a substance abuse course refers to individuals as criminals they may be more resistant to change as they may internalize the label and apply it to their identity. However, referring to the individuals as drug users does not get internalized and may therefore allow for the program to be more effective (Ascnico and Burke 2011). Restivo and Lanier (2015) also support this claim, finding that a connection to education and a less degrading approach led to fewer individuals reoffending.