Photo by Tim Hüfner on Unsplash
Simran Adhikari
University of New Haven
There has been a lengthy shift in beliefs about incarceration and rehabilitation, with modern efforts focused on determining what works and what does not in corrections. From Robert Martinson’s “nothing works” view, to questioning whether rehabilitation is even an attainable goal for criminal offenders, the debate has evolved. How does having a system of extreme punishment and harsh treatment reduce crime rates or prevent people from reoffending? How does denying formerly incarcerated people access to government benefits, housing opportunities, and jobs help them reintegrate successfully into society? These questions have been part of the criminal justice discussion for many years.
After several decades of relying on strict punishment and incarceration, in the 21st century the United Sates criminal justice system moved back toward rehabilitation. Based on contemporary research, more people advocated for enhanced rehabilitative efforts, to include programs where individuals are encouraged to reflect on their behavior, have their risks and needs identified, and receive services supported by research as being effective. Using this approach, instead of being isolated and punished, individuals are treated humanely and supported by addressing the root causes of their actions.
Incarceration has long-lasting consequences, not only for those who are imprisoned, but also for their families. The harm extends beyond the individual. When it comes to low-risk offenders, it is important to question whether strict punishment prevents future crimes or if it helps at all. Modern research on evidence-based practices encourages the use of alternative programs focused on treatment rather than incarceration. Many studies have shown that such evidence-based policies and programs reduce recidivism rates.
This paper explores contemporary evidence-based practices and policies aimed at shifting from an emphasis on incarceration to rehabilitation. It examines the benefits of treatment-focused alternatives such as cognitive behavioral therapy, the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model, and various forms of community-based supervision. Based on recent studies and research, this paper highlights both new and established evidence-based practices, as well as contemporary reform efforts.
Context of the Problem
Studies have found that incarceration rates in the U.S. increased significantly from 79 per 100,000 residents in 1925 to 96 per 100,000 residents in 1970. By 2018, this rate had surged to 655 per 100,000 residents, reflecting an increase of more than 550% (Altman & Coe, 2022). The consequences of incarceration include criminogenic effects, as negative experiences inside prisons have unintended consequences on the offender (Cook & Haynes, 2021). These consequences include poor physical, mental, and cognitive health.
Youth exposed to incarceration, particularly the harsher punishment of the adult prison environment, are more likely to re-offend, and reoffending takes place sooner among such youth (Kurlychek et al., 2024). Moreover, studies have found that adults with incarcerated parents are more prone to depression (Jones et al., 2024), while individuals in pretrial detention are reported to experience more violence than people in prison (Anderson et al., 2024). Finally, older adults are even more affected by the prison environment and the limitations imposed (Novisky et al., 2025). Even though research shows that locking up large numbers of people does not make communities significantly safer, many prisons became dangerously overcrowded in recent decades, with taxpayers spending substantial money to support large numbers of inmates (The Sentencing Project, n.d.).
Ideally, sentencing and corrections aim to protect the community, and policymakers strive to prescribe punishment and treatment so that offenses are not repeated. As suggested by deterrence theory, punishment is imposed to deter wrongdoers in the future and to ensure that other people know the consequences of wrongdoing (Freiburger & Iannacchione, 2011). The direct effects of incarceration depend upon the prison environment and the capabilities of inmates to adapt to that environment. With an increase from roughly 500 prison facilities to nearly 1700 prison facilities between 1970 and 2010, an annual imprisonment of 2 million Americans occurred (Eason et al., 2024). Of the state prisoners released in 2005 across 30 states, five out of six, or about 83%, were rearrested at least once within the subsequent nine years (Alper, 2018). Many studies look for the reasons why so many former inmates end up back in trouble, but they usually treat ‘incarceration’ as a vague, one-time event. This ignores how varied prison experiences can be and how often some people go to prison (Porter & DeMarco, 2019).
Adapting to prison is hard and can lead to harmful habits that make life after release more difficult. While not everyone is deeply affected, most people are changed by the experience. Prison can carry long-term effects from the isolation, strict routines, and lack of normal social interaction (Haney, 2002). Even in the best situations, people who were formerly incarcerated face many challenges to their health and well-being when they return to the community —challenges that go beyond the risks they faced while in prison (Novisky et al., 2021). Furthermore, a large amount of research shows that the public often has negative opinions about people who have been in prison or jail. Even people who support criminal justice reform can hold harsh views toward those with a criminal record. Studies exploring why people feel this way show that political beliefs and the type of crime someone committed, such as whether it was violent or non-violent, often influence public attitudes (Binnall et al., 2022).
In past decades, state spending on corrections rose sharply, from around $11 billion in the early 1980s to over $47 billion by 2008. Corrections also became the second-fastest-growing part of state budgets (after Medicaid), increasing by over 300% between 1987 and 2008 (Francisco & Street, n.d.). Studies show that it costs about $625,000 per day, or $228 million a year, to keep people in prison for technical violations of their supervision. For those jailed for “victimless” crimes, the daily cost is around $590,000. States also spend about $2.5 million each day to house 50,494 inmates who could qualify for a shorter sentence. To estimate the savings from releasing some of these inmates early, officials looked at 1,941 people who were expected to finish their sentences within the next 5 months. If they stayed in prison until the end of their terms, it would cost about $7.1 million. Because the U.S. depends heavily on putting people in prison to fight crime, it now has the highest incarceration rate in the world. This approach has made the criminal justice system very expensive for federal and state governments (Orrick & Vieraitis, 2015).
Evidence-Based Strategies to Shift from Incarceration to Rehabilitation
Over the past 30 years, behavioral scientists have established many proven programs and strategies that help prevent and treat common mental and behavioral problems in children and adolescents. If evidence-based approaches are used widely and effectively, society can greatly reduce these issues. More importantly, evidence-based programs can help more young people grow up with the skills and values needed to become responsible, caring, and contributing adults (Biglan & Ogden, 2008). The current evidence-based practices (EBP) movement can be traced to medicine in the mid-1800s, when scientists started using research, data, and discoveries to figure out which treatments worked, based on patient results. In the 1980s and early 1990s, criminal justice researchers began reviewing which programs were effective, but they did not yet focus on specific programs or how strong the supporting studies were. More recently, the way programs are evaluated in criminal justice has improved, and it has become easier to share information so others can repeat successful efforts.
In criminal justice, the main goal of EBP is to reduce ongoing criminal behavior through proven treatments (Orchowsky, 2014). This shift recognizes that simply locking people up does not effectively reduce crime or help individuals rebuild their lives. As a result, alternatives to incarceration are becoming more common. Programs such as community-based supervision, reentry support services, and specialized courts (e.g., drug courts and mental health courts) are being used to address the root causes of criminal behavior. These approaches focus on helping individuals overcome issues like substance abuse, mental health challenges, and lack of education or employment opportunities. Rehabilitation-focused programs aim to support individuals in becoming productive members of society, reducing the likelihood of reoffending, and ultimately creating safer and healthier communities.
The push for more accountability in government led to greater interest in evaluating how well criminal justice programs work. Federal agencies like the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) began focusing more on using evaluations to guide decisions. The private sector also joined in, with groups like the Campbell Collaboration reviewing research on what works in crime and justice (Littell & White, 2018). A new journal, Experimental Criminology, was launched to highlight studies using rigorous research methods, including randomized experimental designs.
Another major force in this effort was the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, created by the Council for Excellence in Government. This group worked to ensure that government decisions were based on solid evidence, especially studies using randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of evaluation research. These efforts helped to shape federal guidelines, influence laws, and increase funding for research (Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, n.d.).
In 2004, top officials from the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Education met to discuss how to promote evidence-based policies for crime and drug issues. They noticed that different agencies were using different systems to judge program effectiveness, causing confusion (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023). To address this situation, they formed a group called the “What Works Working Group” to create a clear, shared strategy. After 10 months of work, the group produced a framework to rank programs based on two things: the quality of the evidence and how prepared the programs were to be used widely (Chemers & Reed, 2005).
Evidence-based programs and practices are grounded in research, data, evaluation, and outcome measurement to assess the effectiveness of treatment. These approaches are designed to address the complex needs of offenders and reduce reoffending. Rather than locking up every offender and hoping they will change, evidence-based treatments are tailored to the individual’s specific needs and the nature of the crime committed, which has been shown to effectively reduce recidivism. To illustrate, the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model focuses on connecting people to effective services, based on measured risk and needs, to help them learn how to control and change their criminal behaviors (Taxman, 2020).
Research has examined the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) as a tool for predicting recidivism among justice-involved youth in Mississippi (Dembo et al., 2024). This study assessed how well the SAVRY tool predicted whether young people in Mississippi’s juvenile justice system would get into trouble again. It used data from over 2,000 youths between 2016 and 2021. The study found that SAVRY worked better when its questions were grouped into five main areas: mental health and behavior issues, problems at home, school difficulties, lack of support and parenting, and past non-violent offenses with peer and substance issues. This study discovered that boys were more likely to reoffend if they had trouble in school, had bad influences, or had behavior problems. For girls, mental health and behavior issues were the strongest predictors of reoffending. Younger youth were more likely to reoffend than older youth. The tool worked equally well for youth of different races. Overall, the study indicated that SAVRY is a helpful tool for juvenile courts, especially when it is used in a way that considers each youth’s specific situation and needs.
Studies also have evaluated the Emotional Management Program (EMP), designed to help male juvenile offenders improve their emotional regulation and reduce aggressive behavior (Dellar, 2024). Findings from the study show that youth who completed had significant improvements in emotional regulation and reductions in aggression. Even non-completers showed some progress, though it was not statistically significant. The study supports the EMP as a valuable tool in youth rehabilitation efforts, particularly for reducing recidivism and improving self-control in young offenders.
In the 1980s and 1990s, New Jersey’s prison population grew quickly, partly due to more people being sent back to prison for breaking parole rules. To ease this pressure, in 2001, the state started using intermediate sanctions for people who violated parole without committing new crimes. A study looked at how two New Jersey programs, Day Reporting Centers (DRCs) and Halfway Back (HWB), help reduce repeat offenses among people on parole (Ostermann, 2009).
It found that those in DRC or HWB programs were less likely to be rearrested, reconvicted, or sent back to prison compared to those released without supervision. The results show that support programs focused on rehabilitation, like job training and counseling, work better than punishment alone.
Electronic monitoring (EM) started in the 1960s to help young offenders with their rehabilitation, but it was not widely used at that time. Its use grew around the year 2000 when the military enabled civilian Global Positioning System (GPS) devices to become more accurate. This led to a rapid increase in the use of GPS tracking for offenders (Gies et al., n.d.). By 2009, about 44,000 tracking devices were being used in the U.S. Today’s devices are smaller, more affordable, and can be customized to fit different needs (GPS Monitoring Practices in Community Supervision and the Potential Impact of Advanced Analytics, Version 1., 2016). GPS monitoring can help track offenders in real time, making sure they follow rules while allowing them to live in the community, work, and receive treatment, while potentially saving taxpayer money and improving supervision. The ICCA recommends using GPS mainly for high-risk offenders and combining it with support services like job training or addiction treatment. They also stress the need for trained staff and better research to fully understand its impact (ICCA Policy Position on the Global Positioning Satellite System Monitoring, 2014).
DWI courts are special courts that focus on helping people who have been caught driving while intoxicated (DWI). These courts do not just punish offenders; they also provide treatment and close supervision to help them change their behavior. Judges and prosecutors in these courts are trained to handle DWI cases. The main goal is to address the offender’s alcohol problems and make sure they take responsibility for their actions. DWI courts usually work with people who have past DWI offenses or very high blood alcohol levels (0.15 g/dL or more) (DWI Courts | NHTSA, n.d.). A study analyzed and examined the impact of a DWI court in South Texas. Findings suggest that by the end of the program, alcohol and drug use, self-reported crime, and mental health issues significantly improved (Carey & Luo, 2020).
Finally, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) is a program that helps people who use drugs and face low-level charges, such as shoplifting or drug possession, to avoid arrest. Instead of a formal arrest, police can refer individuals to LEAD, which connects them to treatment and support services. The program focuses on harm reduction and uses a respectful, person-centered approach (Gilbert et al., 2023). Seattle’s LEAD program has been found to be effective, as well as cost-saving, compared to traditional prosecution and incarceration, benefiting both the participants and the criminal justice system (Collins et al., 2019).
Conclusion
The shift from an emphasis on incarceration to evidence-based rehabilitation is an important transformation in the criminal justice system. As discussed above, studies have shown that incarceration alone does not deter crime, nor does it effectively reduce recidivism. Instead, incarceration adds to the challenges faced by the individual. Adopting and adapting to evidence-based practices is necessary to not only address the underlying causes of criminal behavior but also equip individuals with the training and support needed to reintegrate into society. Research also has been done on Norway’s prison system, which focuses on rehabilitation, and it has shown positive results in people’s lives. Although this system is considered expensive, in a country like the U.S., where people stay in prison five times longer than in other countries, shortening prison time and investing in rehabilitation could save money in the long run. It could also improve public safety and reduce reoffending (Dahl & Mogstad, 2020).
There are various evidence-based programs and treatments currently being used to reduce recidivism, lower the prison population, and shift the focus from punishment to rehabilitation. By focusing on rehabilitation, the criminal justice system is moving toward helping offenders reintegrate into society successfully, rather than simply incarcerating them. This shift not only improves individual outcomes but also promotes public safety and reduces the long-term costs of incarceration.
By investing in a rehabilitation model over incarceration, policymakers can improve public safety, reduce correctional costs, and foster a more equitable and humane criminal justice system. The involvement of organizations, government agencies, and collaborative movements has been crucial in advancing reforms toward rehabilitation. As the movement to shift from incarceration to rehabilitation continues, the focus should be on expanding evidence-based programs, tailoring interventions to individual needs, and building people’s trust in the rehabilitation model as an important alternative to incarceration.
References
Alper, M. (2018). 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-year Follow-up Period (2005-2014).
Altman, M. C., & Coe, C. D. (2022). Punishment Theory, Mass Incarceration, and the Overdetermination of Racialized Justice. Criminal Law & Philosophy, 16(3), 631–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-021-09618-0
Anderson, C. N., Cochran, J. C., & Montes, A. N. (2024). How punitive is pretrial? Measuring the relative pains of pretrial detention. Punishment & Society, 26(5), 790–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745231218702
Baidawi, S., & Trotter, C. (2015). Psychological Distress Among Older Prisoners: A Literature Review. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 5(1–3), 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/1936928X.2015.1075166
Biglan, A., & Ogden, T. (2008). The Evolution of Evidence-based Practices. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 9(1), 81–95.
Binnall, J. M., Scott-Hayward, C. S., Petersen, N., & Gonzalez, R. M. (2022). Taking Roll: College Students’ Views of Their Formerly Incarcerated Classmates. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 33(3), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2021.1962932
Campbell Systematic Reviews—Wiley Online Library. (n.d.). Retrieved May 18, 2025, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/18911803
Carey, M. T., & Luo, F. (2020). Intended and unintended benefits of specialty courts: Results from a Texas DWI court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 59(5), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2020.1745979
Chapa, R. (2023). Implementing Evidence-Based Recidivism Reduction Program in Wyoming State Penitentiary: A strategic approach to enhancing rehabilitation and public safety. Corrections Today, 85(5), 52–56.
Chemers, B. M., & Reed, W. (2005). Increasing Evidence-Based Programs in Criminal and Juvenile Justice: A Report from the Front Line. European Journal on Criminal Policy & Research, 11(3/4), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-005-3484-6
Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy | Tackling US Social Problems Through Evidence About “What Works.” (n.d.). EvidenceBasedPolicy. Retrieved May 2, 2025, from https://www.evidencebasedpolicy.org
Collins, S. E., Lonczak, H. S., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2019). Seattle’s law enforcement assisted diversion (LEAD): Program effects on criminal justice and legal system utilization and costs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(2), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09352-7
Cook, A., & Haynes, S. H. (2021). Imprisonment pains, reentry strains, and perceived likelihood of reoffending. Criminal Justice Studies, 34(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2020.1771332
Dahl, G. B., & Mogstad, M. (2020). The Benefits of Rehabilitative Incarceration. NBER Reporter, 1, 18–21.
Dellar, K. (2024). Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Emotional Management Programme for Male Adolescent Offenders in Custody. Youth Justice, 24(3), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/14732254231223645
Dembo, R., Gardner, S. K., Robertson, A. A., Wareham, J., & Schmeidler, J. (2024). SAVRY Predictive Validity of Mississippi Justice-Involved Youth Recidivism: A Latent Variable Approach. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 49(5), 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-024-09766-8
DWI Courts | NHTSA. (n.d.). [Text]. Retrieved May 4, 2025, from https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/alcohol-impaired-driving/countermeasures/other-strategies-behavior-change/dwi-courts
Eason, J. M., Campbell, M. E., Ghasemi, B., & Huey, E. (2024). Punishment is purple: The political economy of prison building. Punishment & Society, 26(5), 967–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745231218521
Francisco, S., & Street, L. (n.d.). PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA.
Freiburger, TinaL., & Iannacchione, BrianM. (2011). An examination of the effect of imprisonment on recidivism. Criminal Justice Studies, 24(4), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2011.625699
Gies, S. V., Gainey, R., Cohen, M. I., Healy, E., Yeide, M., Bekelman, A., & Bobnis, A. (n.d.). Monitoring High-Risk Gang Offenders with GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program Final Report.
GPS Monitoring Practices in Community Supervision and the Potential Impact of Advanced Analytics, Version 1. (2016).
Haney, C. (2002). The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison Adjustment.
ICCA Policy Position on the Global Positioning Satellite System Monitoring. (2014). Journal of Community Corrections, 24(1), 11–12.
Jones, A., Buntman, F., Ishizawa, H., & Lese, K. (2024). The Mental Health Consequences of Parental Incarceration: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Longitudinal Study of Adolescents through Adulthood in the United States. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 49(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09689-2
Kurlychek, M. C., Kijowski, M. C., & Gagnon, A. M. (2024). The Long-Term Consequences of Imprisoning Our Youth: The Lasting Impact of Time Spent in Adult Jails and Prisons. Social Problems, 71(1), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spab078
Littell, J. H., & White, H. (2018). The Campbell Collaboration: Providing Better Evidence for a Better World. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517703748
Novisky, M. A., Nowotny, K. M., Jackson, D. B., Testa, A., & Vaughn, M. G. (2021). Incarceration as a Fundamental Social Cause of Health Inequalities: Jails, Prisons and Vulnerability to COVID-19. British Journal of Criminology, 61(6), 1630–1646. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab023
Novisky, M. A., Prost, S. G., Fleury-Steiner, B., & Testa, A. (2025). Linkages between incarceration and health for older adults. Health & Justice, 13(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00331-x
Orchowsky, S. (2014). An introduction to evidence-based practices. Justice Research and Statistics Association Washington, DC.
Orrick, E., & Vieraitis, L. (2015). The Cost of Incarceration in Texas: Estimating the Benefits of Reducing the Prison Population. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9265-3
Ostermann, M. (2009). An Analysis of New Jersey’s Day Reporting Center and Halfway Back Programs: Embracing the Rehabilitative Ideal Through Evidence Based Practices. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670802640958
Porter, L. C., & DeMarco, L. M. (2019). Beyond the dichotomy: Incarceration dosage and mental health*. Criminology, 57(1), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12199
Program Profile: New Jersey Halfway Back Program | CrimeSolutions, National Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Retrieved May 4, 2025, from https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/new-jersey-halfway-back-program
Taxman, F. (2020). Violence Reduction Using The Principles Of Risk-Need-Responsivity. Marquette Law Review, 103(3), 1149.
The Sentencing Project. (n.d.). The Sentencing Project. Retrieved May 4, 2025, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/about/
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2023). HHS Historical Highlights. https://www.hhs.gov/about/historical-highlights/index.html
Vera Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved May 4, 2025, from https://www.vera.org/who-we-are/about-us
Wildeman, C., Turney, K., & Schnittker, J. (2014). The Hedonic Consequences of Punishment Revisited Criminology. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 104(1), 133–164.