Discuss what works and what doesn't work in reducing recidivism

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In trying to answer the question "What works?" most research has led to the conclusion that punishment alone, in the absence of some form of human intervention or services, is unlikely to have much of an effect on recidivism. Evidence has also shown that although treatment is more effective than punishment in reducing recidivism, not all treatment programs are equally effective. Furthermore, what works for one offender might not work for another. The constellation of individual offender characteristics will drive treatment needs.

It is critical to target offenders with the highest probability of recidivism and to provide the most intensive treatment to the highest-risk offenders. Interestingly, intensive treatment directed at low-risk offenders can actually increase recidivism.

Evidence has also shown that targeting for change in criminogenic needs, as opposed to noncriminogenic needs, can have a much greater effect in reducing recidivism. This means programs that focus on changing antisocial attitudes, distancing offenders from antisocial friends, treating substance abuse and helping offenders control impulsive behavior are far more effective in preventing further offending than are those that try to build up an offender's self-esteem, creative abilities (art therapy) or physical conditioning, all of which are noncriminogenic needs.

The most effective interventions are cognitive and behavioral in nature:

The current belief is that a dual approach—working to reduce risk factors while building the skills and competencies that improve resiliency—holds the most promise for effective delinquency prevention (Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice 2007, 4). To this end, the OJJDP has, since 1996, actively sought and funded programs that show empirical evidence of effectively preventing youth crime and delinquency. This effort is known as the Blueprints for Violence Prevention Initiative.