LECTURE 3(Public Lecture)

Offender Rehabilitation and Reform
Bonita M. Veysey, Ph.D.
School of Criminal Justice
Rutgers University-Newark
Center for Law and Justice
123 Washington Street
Newark, NJ 07866

January 30, 2015

The United States has now achieved a milestone unprecedented in its history. The Pew
Center on the States (2008) report estimates that 1 in 99 Americans are incarcerated in U.S. jails
and prisons today. This represents over 2.3 million adults. If one considers not only thoseincarcerated on a given day, but also those who are admitted to prisons and jails in a given year,
the numbers are staggering. Over 12 million Americans are booked into jails alone in any given
year (Veysey, 2010). While 1 percent of the population is horrific, these odds still represent a
good bet to the average citizen. The non-incarcerated population may still rest assured that arrestand prison time will not intrude upon their lives. However, if one considers any time spent
incarcerated, nearly 3 percent of adults (1 in 37) have been incarcerated (Bonczar, 2003). This
2001 statistic is expected to grow progressively worse over time. In fact, if incarceration rates
remain the same, 6.6% of people born in 2001 will be imprisoned at some time in their lives(Bonczar, 2003). While we may think that we are not affected by mass imprisonment,
correctional budgets, health and social services, and public safety all are increasingly
overburdened.
Much of our sense of security comes from the recognition that persons arrested andsentenced to jails and prisons are not randomly selected from U.S. society. They aredisproportionately poor people, and they are largely people who belong to ethnic minority groups.
These facts allow mainstream society to consciously and unconsciously assign them to the “them”
category, reassuring the “us” category that we are morally superior. If there is in fact a “them,”
then they are by necessity different from the “us.” It should come as no surprise, then, that ourinvestigations of offender rehabilitation focus on their problems. We know that many offenders,
particularly the incarcerated population, have serious health, addiction and mental health1conditions. They also have poor educational and employment skills, marginal housing and often
come from poor, violent neighborhoods and dysfunctional families.
Much of the responsibility for offender reform falls to community corrections agencies
and focus largely on reentry issues. While reentry is the current buzzword, reentry is not new.
Reentry is after all the reason parole was created many years ago. Like the early conversation
about parole, the discourse of reentry centers largely on the lamentable and often deplorable
conditions in which offenders find themselves. Facing legal and structural barriers to success,formerly incarcerated people often have health and behavioral health problems that can create
additional burdens and little social capital or personal resources that can assist in creating anormal life. It is a short logical step from the problem to the solution. Logically, if offenders
have a particular set of identifiable problems, remedying those problems will reduce criminality.
This is, in fact, how most criminal justice organizations function. The gold standard of evidencebased correctional practice today is based upon standardized assessments that estimate each
offender’s risk of future criminal behavior and his or her criminogenic needs (see Andrews andBonta, 2010). These needs fall into several life domains, including the “big four,” comprised ofhistory of antisocial behavior, (that is, past delinquent and criminal behavior), antisocial
personality patterns (generally associated with the personality tendencies to repeatedly engage inrisky, dangerous and/or aggressive behavior and a disregard for others), antisocial cognition (thatis, attitudes, values and beliefs that rationalize, excuse or directly support criminal behavior) andantisocial peers (that is, a preponderance of criminal peers over conventional peers). These
together with the other domains of difficulties in: (1) family/marital circumstances, (2)school/work, (3) recreation/leisure, and (4) substance use/mental health comprise the essence ofwhat we believe causes criminal behavior and what we believe can reform offenders.

2However, this assumes that these problems are directly and causally related to theoffender’s criminal behavior—in the past AND in the future. For example, while research has
demonstrated that certain pre-existing problems, such as drug addiction or criminal peers, arerelated to criminal behavior, it is not clear that curing the addiction or isolating the individualfrom these friends, family members and acquaintances will result in a crime-free lifestyle. The
way into criminality isn’t necessarily the way out in reverse as if all we need to do is de-program(or deconstruct) the criminal. There is no greater truth than this: no one, neither the expert nor
the individual offender, can erase the past; the experiences, memories and connections that makea person who he or she is today. No one can nor should hope to achieve a pure and innocent state.
What we can do together is to embed the past in a life narrative that gives meaning and substanceto the past; even uses the wisdom of past experience as expert knowledge to demonstrate anauthentic change and give back to society.
Life contexts and the meanings we ascribe to them may explain much of how people
transform their sense of self from criminal to conventional citizen. Correctional programming inmany ways is no different than medical, psychiatric or substance abuse treatment. These formalinterventions by nature are symptom focused, and therefore, deficit-based. Ameliorate thesymptom, and the disease process is contained and managed, if not eliminated. Improving patient
outcomes, integrative medicine focuses on the whole person and the role of social contexts inwhich illness processes are embedded. Twenty-five years ago, Dr. Arthur Kleinman (1988)
stated that medicine plays two roles; control of disease processes and the management of theillness experience. More recently, Dr. Jack Coulehan (2005) similarly stated that medicine plays
both an instrumental and symbolic role. Medicine provides direct medical interventions to3

produce positive health outcomes. More importantly, the diagnosis of illness and the ontologicalmeaning of that illness are constructed in the physician/patient interaction. Coulehan goes on to
say that how illness is embedded in the life narrative has important implications for recovery.
Persons who believe they will recover or who have narratives that find positive meaning in theillness experience are more likely to survive life-threatening illnesses than those who don’t.
While it is unclear what physiological mechanisms are at work to produce this puzzling result,
this same phenomenon is repeatedly observed in other disciplines whether it is called a placebo
effect, a Hawthorne effect, or is ascribed to unmeasured personal characteristics.
To this point, one of the more interesting facts cited by the European correctional
evidence–based practices proponents comes from the psychotherapy literature (McNeill et al.,2005). A meta-analysis of this literature found that 40 percent of “success” was attributable topersonal factors, 30 percent to the therapeutic relationship, 15 percent to expectancy or a placebo
effect, and 15 percent to the specific modality. Forty percent, the person-specific attributes, aretypically considered random factors. While studies included in the meta-analysis varied on the
person-specific constructs measured (e.g., locus of control, self efficacy), there is no consistent
set of variables. The “random” factors may, in fact, be systematic elements that remain
unmeasured largely due to a lack of consensus regarding the importance of these variables inpersonal change. However, the importance of what people bring to the change endeavor cannot
be underestimated.
While this largest predictor set is the intangibles that people bring with them, the second
most important is the human connection reflected in the therapeutic relationship. A further 15
percent can be attributed solely to the belief that change can happen; that is, the placebo effect or
expectancy factor. This leaves the remaining 15 percent to the intervention itself. Yet in4designing and implementing our correctional programs, we disregard individuals’ strengths,
resources and desires (the 40 percent), don’t hire people who have excellent relational skills (the30 percent), don’t believe that hope matters (the 15 percent), and rely on the remaining 15
percent to solve the problem. We throw away 85 percent of the resources that could be mobilized
to support offenders in their reform.
Most of the discussion on offender reform focuses on programs operated by community
corrections agencies. Traditionally community corrections has had two mandates: public safety
through supervision and assisting offenders to remain crime free. Implicit in this is the ability toprovide surveillance together with linkages to needed services. In many respects, community
corrections agencies as they currently function are exactly the wrong context using the wrong
people to achieve the wrong goals. Community corrections agencies across the US operate undera risk and needs model. Using validated risk instruments, criminogenic needs are targeted toreduce recidivism and improve community safety. Here’s the catch. Many of the criminogenic
needs are related to personality structure. Humans are constantly in a state of flux, incorporating
new experiences and knowledge into a largely stable set of personality traits and their attendant
behaviors. All humans experience change. Every significant change is accompanied by a periodof adjustment and stress. Behaviors may change, but the essence of the person persists. However,
we believe that offenders must change core personality characteristics in order to remain crimefree. Somehow offenders are seen as essentially different and are expected to make dramaticchanges not required of others who make life transitions. Maruna (2001), in Making Good,
makes an interesting observation. Common personality characteristics that offenders exhibit, likeanti-authoritarianism and risk-taking, that are directly related to criminal behavior are the verysame characteristics that distinguish innovators whom we, as a society, highly value. The

5challenge, therefore, is not to try to change personality traits (which are difficult to change in any
event), but to maximize and redirect these traits toward positive behavior.
Corrections professionals find themselves in the unenviable position of being bothenforcer and helper. Some corrections staff persons are very good at engaging offenders in theirown change process; others are abysmally poor. No standard exists for interpersonal skills, nor isthere a priority placed upon hiring those with these skills. More importantly, the knowledge of
how offenders remain crime-free resides within the offender community, not in the expert
community. When asked offenders can describe exactly how they changed and what they needed
to sustain their change. Commonalities exist and generally reflect basic human needs; hope,people who believed in them, meaningful things to do. Rarely do the successful state thatsymptom or behavioral control was key. Sometimes they say that treatment or programming had
a positive effect, but often this had more to do with the relationship with the therapist or
parole/probation officer than problem reduction.
The greatest criticism of corrections–based efforts is that they operate under flawed andoften unacknowledged assumptions, including:(1) offenders are essentially different from all other human groups;(2) reducing problems will reduce criminal behavior;(3) if services are made available, offenders will use them; and(4) services actually accomplish what they are designed to do.
Even if we were to be able to create the perfect set of comprehensive and integrated services
targeted to what offenders want and need, “fixing” offenders’ problems only brings themhalfway back. Community corrections programs may accomplish the role exit component, but do
not address the role entry component. Telling someone to stop being criminal may work for a6period of time, but that person needs a replacement identity, and this identity may be chosen onlyby the individual who is in the process of change. Only offenders can accomplish the changes
necessary to become a productive member of society. No matter how coercive or punitive,corrections can’t do it nor can treatment. The most these organizations can do is create theenvironments and conditions in which change is likely to occur.
The Nature of Change
In my intellectual journey to understand how people overcome enormous difficulties intheir lives to find a place of healing and contentment, I have learned a few things. The first andmost important is that what people say helped them and what experts believe helps are two very
different things. Second is that overcoming problems is a human endeavor; the process is very
similar whether the change is from “criminal” to “citizen” or is from “married” to “divorced.”
I would like to propose a general model of identity transformation that can be applied
equally well to people who want to shed criminal identities and to those who want to leavebehind the identity of addict. It begins with the basic requirements that will allow for change tooccur, including satisfaction of basic needs (for example, housing, clothing, food) and emotional
and physical safety. No one can make substantial changes in their lives if their time is consumed
with meeting survival needs.
The first critical component is empowering relationships. This is the linchpin ofredemption, recovery and wellness. This is essentially the effect of the looking glass self, gazing
through another’s eyes at the human value and positive possibilities of the self - where consistentpositive regard may be interpreted by the individual, sometimes for the first time, that he or she
is deserving of love and belonging. Being in this relationship gives people the confidence andcourage to explore new roles and their attendant skills. Often, when someone has been involved

7with the correctional or treatment systems, his or her breadth of possible roles has been reduced
to a very few, and he or she is often solely characterized by his or her status as an offender,
addict or psychiatric patient. Taking on and practicing new roles that are valued by society, suchas student, employee, volunteer or advocate, is the first step in assuming a new identity. Taking
on a new role also means that the individual must learn the skills necessary to be successful inthat role, including personal, educational, vocational and interpersonal skills. Further, having arole or roles that are valued both by the self and by society and developing and practicing theskills associated with that role build self-esteem and self-efficacy. Experiences in positive
relationships and the development and practice of new skills and roles build confidence andchange the way people view themselves and their own histories. This leads directly torecontextualization that we define as the ability of individuals to reframe their experiences andredefine themselves through a new life narrative. These last three components, valued social
roles, skills development, and recontextualization, are at the heart of identity transformation. A
new person rises from the proverbial ashes using their past negative experiences as wisdom andsources of strength as well as a way to recast their narrative toward a meaningful life throughgiving back and as a way to justify their right to a fresh start.
Effective Correctional Programming Based upon Desistance Theories
Reflecting for a moment on the essential differences between correctional programmingthat is based upon traditional theories of criminality and those based upon desistance theories,
these following things appear central. First and foremost, traditional theories emphasize what’s
wrong with a person. The assumption is that if we can correct the deficits, we can produce agood citizen. The knowledge of how to reform resides with the correctional or clinical expert.
The end goal is the cessation of criminal behavior.

8Desistance theories, on the other hand, suggest that to truly reform, the individual mustchoose and practice a new identity to become a pro-social conventional person. This means that
programming must identify and support the assets, resources, and personality characteristics thatcan be mobilized in the reformation process. The only true expert in plotting the course to reformis the individual him- or herself. The end goal of this process is self-determined, whether it is toown a business, be a good parent, own a home or be a mentor.
Let’s go back for a moment to the current gold standard of risk and needs assessment in
the context of this model. Addressing the problems of antisocial history, personality, cognitions,and peers, of addictions, of deficits in home, work and leisure reduces the focus oftransformation to a narrow point. Even if successful, the end result is a non-criminal criminal.
That is, we have effectively stripped the person of all his or her negative aspects, but we have notgiven much attention to a replacement self. We can educate and give a person a job and stablehousing, but if these things are not meaningful to the individual, how can they sustain
themselves? Essentially, this brings a person halfway back to society. We need also to invest in
creating opportunities for people to fulfill their hopes and dreams to be full participating
members of society. Helping people to focus on a desired future self – not the past self with all of
its problems - on what is necessary for success, and in making personal investments in the future
will naturally move individuals away from criminal peers, thinking and activities.
However, there are three predictable challenges that typically are encountered during atransformation process of this nature. First, when people make dramatic shifts in their primary
identities, they may or may not be supported by their existing family and friendship networks. In
order to sustain a new identity, a new network must be established with willing and hope-filledpeers and partners. Second, available alternative roles may be limited. The number and nature of9alternative roles are largely dependent on roles known to the individual, and, therefore, thebreadth of possible roles may be limited due to a lack of exposure. Roles also may be limited bysociety’s level of tolerance. We want people to stop being criminals, but we do not necessarily
want them to teach in our schools or be our neighbors or bosses. Until we are truly willing tohave formerly incarcerated people as our neighbors, friends, and colleagues AND trust them with
our most valued assets, our children, we will never achieve full restoration. Third and relatedly,
possessing a stigma of criminal (or addict or mentally ill person, for that matter) is a visible
blemish on the fabric of the moral character. It is a small leap to form the link between
immorality and lack of trustworthiness. Trustworthiness, however, is the collateral used to get ajob, buy a house or babysit for a neighbor’s child. Stigma discredits the individual and reduces
trust. Thus, any trust that is extended will be minor, and the person’s behavior in any new role
will be highly scrutinized.
How can community corrections assist in the desistance process, then? I would like tosuggest the following: (1) hire officers who have good interpersonal skills and truly believe thatpeople can change; (2) invest in officer training, such as motivational interviewing techniques, totruly hear and support efforts to transform; (3) normalize the programming, that is, focus ondeveloping strong connections to normal educational and job training opportunities that areavailable to any citizen; (4) create leadership opportunities, such a peer mentors, who have the
lived experience to guide and assist –this helps both the mentor and the mentee; and (5) workwith businesses, local leaders and community members to de-stigmatize persons with criminal
records- perhaps through ad campaigns and speakers bureaus – to give them a true second
chance.

10This means that we need to shift the fundamental scope of work in community
corrections. If this is too much of a stretch, build partnerships with peer to peer or community
programs that do this kind of work. The investment pays off quickly. People who get college
educations have an extremely low rate of criminal involvement as do people who own businesses.
They become tax paying citizens; they no longer need public support or incur public costs ofincarceration; and they become resources for others in need of similar support.

11

References:
Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (Eds.). (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (5th Edition ed.).
New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., LexisNexis Group.
Coulehan, J. (2005). Empathy and narrativity: A commentary on ‘Origins of healing: An
evolutionary perspective of the healing process.’ Families, Systems, & Health, 23, 261265.
Ebaugh, H.R.F. (1988). Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Note on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kleinman, A. (1988). The Illness Narratives: Suffering, Healing and the Human Condition. New
York: Basic Books.
McNeill, F, Batchelor, S., Burnett, R., & Knox, J. (2005). 21st Century Social Work. Reducing
Re-offending: Key Practice Skills. Glasgow, Scotland: Social Work Inspection Agency.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
The Pew Center on the States. (2008). One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. Washington,
DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Veysey, B.M. (2010). Management and treatment of women diagnosed with mental illnesses in
US jails. In B.L. Levin, A.K. Blanch & A. Jennings (Eds.), Women’s Mental HealthServices: A Public Health Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Visher, C.A., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding
individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89-113.

12