108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

CURRENT TRENDS IN CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING IN
THE USA
Kenneth G. Adams*
ABSTRACT
Correctional programming has
undergone important changes over the past
two decades. These changes have been
instigated by rapid grow in prison
populations, worries over public safety andconcerns for reducing the cost ofincarceration. Despite a lack of faith in the
rehabilitative ideal, correctional
programming continues to flourish, albeit
in a form that is very different from thepast. This paper discusses recent trends
in correctional programming. Specifically,
it discusses legally mandated services,changing characteristics of inmate
populations, inmates with crime-related
problems and cost-saving measures.
I. INTRODUCTION
The faith and optimism that oncesurrounded the “rehabilitative ideal” in the
United States is largely extinguished.
Decades of evaluation research showing
negative results has left the public highly
skeptical of treatment and other forms ofprison programming. Prisons and jails
were once viewed primarily as places where
the business of rehabilitation was carriedout. Now they are now seen as places
where isolating offenders from society
furthers the goal of public safety. One
might think that as a result of this shift inpenal philosophy that correctional
programming is withering on thecontemporary vine. On the contrary, while
the patient is not always as robust as in
the past, correctional programming is alive* Associate Professor, School of Public andEnvironmental Affairs, Indiana University,U.S.A.

and well, and in some situations could beconsidered as flourishing. One reason isthat some services are mandated by law
and therefore cannot be eliminated.
Another reason is the American spirit ofpragmatism. Our practical view of theworld leads us to develop and search out
programs that do indeed work and to findcheaper and more efficient ways ofdelivering programs. We are always
looking for ways to alter the cost-benefit
equation to society’s advantage.
While correctional programming
continues to be a major activity of prisons,the face of these activities has changedr a d i c a l l y.
Indeed, correctional
programming is very different today ascompared to one or two decades ago. Threedevelopments - a rapidly growing andchanging inmate population, an emphasis
on public safety and a concern for costeffectiveness - have been primarily
responsible for the transformation incorrectional programming.
The United States has experienced
tremendous growth in the number of
persons under the custody of the criminal
justice system. Over the past decade anda half, the average annual rate of expansion
in correctional populations has been 7.6%.
Currently, there are more than five million
adults under custody, or about 3% of theadult population. Over one million adults
are confined in prisons and jails. Some
forecasts predict that by the year 2000 the
prison population will increase by halfagain. This situation means thatadministrators will continue to scramble
for resources to deal with an ever-growing
number of inmates. At the same time, thelarge influx of inmates has changed the315

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
characteristics of prison communities
because growth has not been even acrossthe board. Shifts in the composition of
inmate populations has created newchallenges for prison administrators who
are responsible for seeing that confinement
does not become a form of idle time-out
from society tediously spent.
A primary theme that underlies theprison boom is public safety. Americans
believe that incarceration, through themechanisms of deterrence andincapacitation, is an effective way of
reducing the crime rate. For manyobservers, declining crime rates coinciding
with rising incarceration rates is strong
proof that incarceration works as a crime
control strategy. Consequently, calls formore prisons and tougher laws that provide
for longer prison sentences served underharsher conditions continue unabated.
Also, correctional programs are being
judged individually in terms of how muchthey contribute to a safer society.
Another theme that underlies the prisonboom is strict economy. Americans arecoming to realize that incarceration isexpensive and that we may not be able toafford all of the prison capacity that wewould like to have. As a way of dealing
with this situation, economy and cost
efficiency are being emphasized in every
aspect of criminal justice administration.
Prisons administrators are becoming
obsessive in their determination to bring
down the costs of incarceration.
Correctional program administrators
increasingly are being asked to cut costs
and to justify a program’s existence interms of social and economic analyses.
In this essay, contemporary trends incorrectional programming are explored.
We will consider legal mandates fortreatment, changes in inmate
characteristics, offenders with crimerelated problems and pressures for costsavings.

316

II. LEGALLY MANDATEDSERVICES IN CORRECTIONSOffenders have legal rights to treatment
in certain circumstances. These rights, forthe most part, are limited to medical andmental health care. Nevertheless, a large
number of offenders receive services whilein the custody of correctional officials
because services are legally required.
Three categories of inmates that receive
legally mandated services and that present
exceptional challenges to correctional
programming are: mentally ill inmates,
inmates suffering from AIDS/HIV andinmates with disabilities that may beprotected under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A. Mentally Ill Offenders
Over the past several decades the UnitedStates has pursued a policy of moving
mental patients out of hospitals andpsychiatric institutions into nonresidential community-based treatment
centers. Many scholars suspect that as aresult of this policy ofdeinstitutionalization, an increasing
number of mental patients are finding theirway into the criminal justice system. This
shifting of clientele from the mental healthto criminal justice system is sometimes
referred to as transinstitutionalization.
Inmates with mental health problems
can present difficult challenges tocorrectional programming. Foremost,authorities must insure that necessary
psychiatric services are provided while theoffender is in custody. Some inmates may
require special living arrangements thatcombine a sheltered environment withsupportive services. For inmates withchronic and severe emotional problems, it
may be unrealistic to think in terms ofintegrating them into the prison
community. These inmates may have tospend their entire sentence, both within
and without prison, in special facilities. For

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
inmates with acute, episodic problems,prison staff periodically face the challengeof reintegrating the inmate back into theprison community after periods ofresidential treatment. This may be difficult
if the inmate has limited ability to copewith the regular prison environment. Also,
mentally ill inmates may suffer
discrimination at the hands of otherinmates and even correctional officers,
owing to callous attitudes based onstereotypes of mental illness.
As release approaches, correctional
officials face the challenge of arranging fora smooth transition back into thecommunity for mentally ill inmates. The
success of reintegration depends, in large
measure, on continuity of effective andappropriate psychiatric treatment.
Arranging for treatment, and then seeing
to it that the inmate participates in thetreatment, can be difficult. Also, these
inmates may require extra support services
to help offset the social, emotional andintellectual liabilities that can accompany
mental illness.
B. HIV/AIDSThe HIV/AIDS epidemic isunprecedented in recent modern history interms of its scope and deadliness.
Correctional administrators have been
especially hard hit in terms theconsequences of this epidemic because
offender populations contain a large
proportion of individuals who are high risk
for HIV/AIDS. According to the U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately
2.3% of all state and federal inmates are
infected with HIV. In New York, theincidence of AIDS in prisons in seven times
greater than in the general population.
In the early stages of the disease,correctional officials face the challenge ofidentifying those who are infected so thattreatment can be provided. Many prison
systems resist mandatory screening for
HIV/AIDS because of the social stigma that

attaches to the disease. Once the client
population is identified, the next challenge
is to provide treatment in a way thatminimizes adverse social consequences.
This challenge can be greater after releasefrom prison, because community healthagencies can be overwhelmed with local
demands for treatment. Also, the socialand physical consequences of the disease
may negatively impact plans for normal
reintegration.
In the advanced stages of the disease,the focus is on providing humane care toease suffering. In many prison systems,
AIDS is the leading cause of death among
inmates. One in three inmate deaths were
attributable to AIDS between 1991 and1995. In 1995 alone, 1,010 inmates in the
U.S. died of AIDS-related causes.
HIV/AIDS treatment has had a serious
financial impact on prison expenditures for
medical care. According to the Wall Street
Journal, the total lifetime cost of treating
HIV is about $119,000. When the high costof treatment is combined with the large
numbers of inmates suffering from thedisease, the financial consequences can be
staggering. For example, spending on HIV/AIDS treatment in the Illinois prison
system increased ten-fold in a three-year
period, jumping from $30,000 to $300,000
per month.
Some prison systems have implemented
early release programs for inmates in theadvanced stage of AIDS. In part, themotives are humanitarian. Inmates canspend their last few months in community
hospice settings where they can enjoy
greater contact with family and friends. In
large measure, however, the motives arepragmatic. Seriously ill inmates present
little threat to the community, and the
combined costs of security and treatment
are high. In returning inmates with AIDS
early to the community, the prison system
often attempts to transfer the financial
burden of treatment to someone else. To
the extent that the inmate’s quality of care

317

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
is compromised in this process,humanitarian rationales for the program
are undercut.
C. Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) prohibits discrimination in access toprograms and services solely on the
grounds of a disability. In pursuit of thisgoal, reasonable accommodation must be
made in attempting to provide programs
and services to the disabled. This year, theU.S. Supreme Court will review a Federal
Appeals Court affirmative ruling that theprovisions of the ADA apply to prison
inmates. If the lower court decision isupheld, prison officials will be required tomodify many prison programs in order toprovide access to inmates who are now
routinely denied participation. Thesechanges could be expensive and may bringincreased security risks. However,increased access to programs arguably will
facilitate the reintegration of theseoffenders into society upon release.
III. CHANGINGCHARACTERISTICS OF INMATEPOPULATIONS
Inmate populations can be viewed as acomposite of many different subpopulations, each with its own uniqueprogramming needs. As the size of various
sub-populations wax and wane, demands
for inmate services will shift accordingly.
Since recent growth in prison populations
has not been even across the board,changing characteristics of the inmate
clientele has had an important effect on thetypes of correctional programs being
offered.
A. Elderly Inmates
As a result mandatory sentences, longsentences, and increased restrictions onparole release, elderly inmates are rapidly
growing sub-population within prisons. In

318

state and federal prisons, the proportionof elderly inmates grew from 4.9% in 1990
to 6.8% in 1997. This change represents a
74% increase in 7 years.
The cost of incarceration is three times
greater for elderly inmates compared toyounger offenders. In particular, the costof medical care, which is considerably
higher, has become a major issue for prison
systems. Some correctional systems havedeveloped specially designed facilities in an
attempt to meet the needs of elderly
inmates. One such example is the Hocking
Correctional Facility in Ohio. The facility
contains 600 inmates, the majority of whom
are over fifty years old. Depending on thelife situation of the offender, traditional
prison programs may be irrelevant. For
example, an elderly inmate may have little
need for additional formal education or forvocational training. The challenge forcorrectional programming is to keep these
inmates active in meaningful andproductive ways, and specialized facilities
are better situated for this task. Suchfacilities not only can provide inmates withneeded services during incarceration, they
can prepare inmates better for release into
the community through specialized
programs.
Pre-release preparation and aftercare
are very serious concerns for older inmates.
If an elderly inmate has been in prison fora long time, the society to which he or she
returns will be much different than the one
left behind. Preparing an inmate for thistransition can be challenging. Dependingon their physical and mental condition,elderly inmates may not have the fulldegree of independence that younger
inmates have, so they may need assistancewith some of the daily tasks of life. Other
key aftercare concerns include access to
medical services and adequate nutrition.
Since elderly inmates do not represent
much of a threat to society, economic andpolitical pressures are building for the early
release of these offenders back into the108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
community. As with HIV/AIDS inmates,
the idea behind early release partly is totransfer the cost of medical care and othersupportive services to anotherorganization.
B. Young Inmates
Increasingly, juvenile offenders who
commit serious crimes are being tried andsentenced as adults by means of juvenile
waiver statutes. The pace of revisions overthe past decade in these statutes has been
phenomenal. These changes have had theeffect of subjecting ever-younger juvenile
offenders to adult sanctions, which often
result in placement with adult correctional
authorities. The pressures of juvenile
waiver statutes, on the one hand, andlonger mandatory sentences, on the other
hand, have squeezed correctional
programming at both ends of the age
spectrum with increasingly larger numbersof juvenile and elderly offenders. In termsof juvenile offenders, indications are thatthe problem will continue to get worse. The
U.S. Bureau of Census estimates that thesize of the juvenile population aged 15 to
19 years will grow by 15% in the near
future.
Youthful offenders present a distinct anddifficult set of challenges for correctional
programming. Aspects of physical, socialand emotional development differ
considerably for juveniles as compared toadults, and addressing this situation canbe a difficult task for correctional staff,
especially when youth are mixed withadults in the same institution. In
particular, youthful offenders often lackmaturity and good judgment. They also
may have problems with impulse and anger
control.
Provision of basic correctional programs,
such as education and job training, is morecritical for youthful offenders, both because
they are likely to have serious needs inthese areas, and because there ispotentially greater returns for successfulprogramming. Some young offenders may
still be of school age and therefore entitledto educational programs under the law.
Other young offenders may be in the earlystages of a work career. Care must be taken
to insure that educational and vocational
progress is not interrupted byinstitutionalization. Likewise, releasefrom prison is another critical juncture interms of continuity of programming. Lackof experience and immaturity may requirethat youthful offenders be provided withsupportive and directive services upon
release, if reintegration is to be successful.
C. Female Inmates
Another inmate sub-population that has
grown considerably during the prison boom
is female offenders. As a proportion of thetotal prison population, female inmates
went from 4.1% in 1980 to 5.7% in 1990 to
6.4% in 1997. Throughout most of theperiod of prison expansion, the rate ofincrease in female inmates has exceeded
the rate of increase for male inmates. For
example, the female population in thefederal prison system grew by 480% from1980 to 1994 compared to 313% for the
male population. In terms of numbers ofinmates, the female population increased
from 13,420 inmates to 64,403 inmatesduring this period.
In keeping with the generalcharacteristic of offender populations,
female inmates are disproportionately
drawn from minority groups and sufferfrom high rates of alcohol and drug abuse.
As compared to male inmates, female
inmates are more likely to havecommunicable diseases and to have ahistory of childhood or adult abuse.
Female inmates also differ notably frommale inmates in terms of problems createdby family demands. About 6% of female
inmates enter prison pregnant. For thisreason, infant nurseries are common infemale prisons. However, infants rarely
stay with their mother throughout the319

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
entire term of incarceration, and theseparation of mother and infant causes
anxiety during confinement. It also is
significant that about 67% of female
inmates have a child under 18 years of age
for which they are responsible. Again,
concerns about maternal responsibilities
may become visible during incarceration,
especially just prior to release. Family
visitation programs in prisons can help toalleviate some of these problems. Both prerelease programming and post-release
aftercare need to address the complexities
of motherhood for female inmates.
IV. OFFENDERS WITH CRIMERELATED PROBLEMS
Concomitant with the fall of therehabilitative ideal, there has been firm
rejection of the notion that all criminal
behaviors are the product of abnormal or
deviant processes that need correction. It
follows from this view that not every
offender is in need of treatment, andprisons today no longer try to rehabilitate
every inmate. Correctional programs thatare made generally available to inmates,
such as education and work programs, arejustified more on the grounds of keeping
inmates busy and out of trouble than for
any rehabilitative effects they might have.
Treatment programs that are designed
to rehabilitate inmates and reduce
recidivism have not disappeared from theinventory of correctional programming.
Rather, a greater degree of selectivity has
been implemented in defining the inmate
clientele. Treatment programs now target
inmates who have serious andconsequential deficits or who haveproblems that are clearly linked to criminal
behavior. The strategy is to concentrate
limited resources on situations where thepromise of reducing criminal recidivism isgreatest.

320

A. Drug Addiction
A link between drug addiction and crime
is firmly established in the criminologicalliterature. According to the National
Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse,
drugs or alcohol were a key element in thecrimes of 80% of inmates. Although theprecise nature of causal relationships
between drugs and crime is not fully
understood, it makes intuitive sense that
addicts will commit crimes in order tofinance expensive drug habits. Thus, if we
can eliminate the addiction, then the
motivation for some crime will be removed.
Arguments in favor of drug treatment
of offenders are gaining strong support
from program evaluation research. Several
recent evaluations are worthy of mention.
A study by the Federal Bureau of Prison
found that completion of a residential drug
treatment program reduced short-term
recidivism rates by about 75%. In
particular, inmates who received treatment
had a six-month recidivism rate of 3.3%
compared to 12.1% for inmates who did notreceive treatment. Furthermore, inmatesin the treatment group had a drug use
relapse rate of 20.5% for the first six
months compared to 36.7% for controls.
Another recent evaluation by RAND
argues for the cost-effectiveness of drug
treatment. The study concluded that forheavy drug users treatment produces thebest return compared to various otheroptions, including mandatory minimum
prison sentences. At a cost of about $6,500
per year, substance abuse treatment
appears to be a good investment. Thus, anaccumulating body of solid evidence
indicates that drug treatment is effective
in reducing criminal recidivism.
If we are to have a policy of making drug
treatment widely available to offenders,
substantial increases in resources will beneeded. For example, the Federal Bureauof Prisons runs 42 residential treatment
programs with a combined capacity of 6,000
inmates. However, about 30% of the federal

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
inmate population, which stands at about
110,000, have moderate to severe drug andalcohol problems. Thus, the potential client
population is about 33,000 inmates.
Clearly, the demand for drug treatment
among offender populations outstrips the
supply.
In the past, the U.S. has showed awillingness to spend considerable sums ofmoney on the drug problem, particularly
with regard to law enforcement. President
Clinton is currently seeking $17 billion fora variety of anti-drug-initiatives, a little
less than half of which is earmarked for
the Justice department. A new federal
development raises the possibility that
more funds will be made available fortreatment. President Clinton has proposedthat prisons test inmates for drug use on aregular basis to gauge the extent of drug
use in confinement. Thus, the war on drugs
has expanded its battleground into prisons.
A logical follow-up of the President’s
proposed policy of inmate drug use testing
is to expand treatment options to takeadvantage of periods of enforced drug
abstinence.
B. Alcohol Abuse
The relation between alcohol abuse andcrime is as strongly documented as thatbetween drug abuse and crime. According
to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
about 36% of offenders under correctional
supervision, or about 2 million offenders,were drinking alcohol at the time they
committed their offense. Yet, alcohol abuseremains an under appreciated factor in the
etiology of criminal behavior. Perhaps, thisis because alcohol, unlike drugs, is a legal
commodity, so that only its abuse, and notits use, is seen as problematic.
As drug abuse treatment becomes morewidespread in prisons, we can expect a spillover effect that will emphasize theimportance of alcohol abuse treatment.
Many offenders are polymorphous in theirdrug use, moving from one substance toanother as availability and interestchanges. Many drug addicts also abuse
alcohol, because it is readily available andinexpensive. At a policy level, it may not
make sense to distinguish too precisely
among various forms of substance abuse.
Well-developed treatments for alcoholabuse exist, and expanding thesetreatment options could bring benefits
similar to the expansion of drug treatment
programs.
C. Chronic Violence
Chronically violent officers are a
problem of utmost concern to society, as
well as to correctional officials who arecharged with their care. In the U.S., the“super-max” prison has emerged as theprimary strategy for dealing withpersistent violence. These facilities, which
are designed to house the “worst of theworst,” have become very popular.
Presently, there are 57 “super-max”
facilities in the U.S. being operated by 36
states and the federal government. Humanrights organizations have been extremely
vocal in their criticism of “super-max”
prisons, alleging that the conditions or
confinement are extremely harsh. The
incidence of mental illness in thesefacilities appears relatively high, further
heightening human rights concerns.
Most of these prisons are modeled after
the federal penitentiary in Marion, Illinois.
The inmate regime typically consists of 23hours a day of seclusion in a cell with 1hour of sequestrated recreation. In recent
years, there has been an increasing
reliance on technology to minimize inmate
interactions with other persons, including
correctional officers, as a way of increasing
safety. “Super-max” prisons are much more
expensive to operate than traditional
prisons; however only a small fraction of
the inmate population is subjected to theregime. Indiana has a total of 198 inmatesconfined at two super-max facilities out ofa total population of about 15,400 inmates.

321

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
We know very little about the effects of
the “super-max” regime on inmates.
Important questions of reintegration
remain unanswered. Most inmates in“super-max” facilities come from, andreturn to, general prison populations; justas they come from and then return to theoutside world. The characteristics ofinmates selected for confinement in “supermax” facilities, the circumstances
surrounding transitions in and out of thesefacilities, and the factors that contributeto successful reintegration into thecommunity, are not known.
D. Sex Offenses
Of the nearly 5 million convicted
offenders serving sentences in federal orstate prisons, 4.7% are convicted of sex
crimes. This group of offenders
traditionally has been the target oftreatment programs. The deliberately
predatory, highly compulsive and privately
erotic nature of many sex offenses suggeststhat psychological treatment is needed toprevent recidivism.
As a group, sex offenders have been thetargets of tougher laws over the past
several years. In Texas, longer sentences
combined with curtailment of parole
release has caused the number of sex
offenders to double in four years, jumping
from 6,262 inmates in 1991 to 11,782
inmates in 1995
Many new laws dealing with sex
offenders run counter to reintegration
goals. These statutes, which resulted fromseveral highly publicized cases of heinous
sex crimes, emphasize public surveillanceover anonymity in the interest of safety.
For example, some states require public
notification of the release of sex offenders,
as well as registration and tracking of their
whereabouts. Citizens may be proactively
informed that a sex offender has moved into
the neighborhood, or they may accesscomputer files that display the location ofsex offenders by geographic area. Such322

laws make it considerably more difficult toreintegrate sex offenders back into thecommunity.
Another development involves sexual
predator laws that provide for indefinite
terms of confinement in a mental hospital
after expiration of a criminal sentence.
These laws invoke the civil authority of thestate to protect the public from clear andpresent dangers. The sexual predator laws,
which are reminiscent of the preventive
detention laws and dangerousness civil
commitment laws popular in the 1960’s,
allow for psychiatric confinement until
such time that the person no longer
represents a threat to public safety. In
some cases, the term of confinement could
amount to a life sentence.
V. COST SAVINGS MEASURES IN
CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING
Along with huge growth in prison
populations, there has been a tremendous
increase in prison expenditures. In somestates, it is predicted that spending forcorrections will soon exceed that for
education. Much of the growth in spendingis tied to the construction and staffing of
new institutions. For example, the 1999
budget request for the federal prison
system includes a 7.4% increase for salaries
and expenses and a 62.3% increase forbuildings and facilities. As prison
expenditures skyrocket, government
officials and correctional administrators
are searching for ways to limit spending.
Areas that often are scrutinized for possible
savings involve non-security-related
expenses such as medical care, food,transportation and inmate programming.
A. Program & Staff Cuts
In an attempt to reduce costs, someprison systems have adopted a very simple
and direct approach: eliminate programs
and cut staffing. For example, between
1994 and 1995, New York State eliminated108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
most higher education programs for prison
inmates. In 1996, the state eliminated 263
program positions in prisons. The positions
included drug counselors and teachers. In
the following year, 155 additional positions
were eliminated.
There is popular support for theelimination of inmate programs because
prisons are perceived as being too
comfortable. In order to be effective,
punishment should involve discomfort, andso the public and many politicians havebeen pushing for a “no-frills” approach toleaner and tougher incarceration.
Correctional administrators, however,while generally supportive of the “no-frills”
approach, are careful to protect programs
that enhance security by keeping large
numbers of inmates productively occupied.
B. Technology
Technology is making strong inroads into
all aspects of modern life, and correctional
programming is no exception. The impact
of technology is perhaps most evident ineducation where computers, televisions
and video are being used to facilitate
distance learning and forms ofprogrammed learning. In general society,
it is anticipated that these newtechnologies will be cost-effective inbringing educational programs to large
numbers of students. Correctional officials
are prepared to capitalize on thisdevelopment in hopes of lowering existing
costs and offsetting the effects of program
cuts that may have occurred.
Computer technology can be used todeliver a wide array of instruction that
often can be adapted to meet individualized
needs. For example, a reading program canbe set up to accommodate inmates withwidely varying reading skills, and deliveryof instruction is flexible enough to follow
the inmate as he or she changes
institutions. Occasionally, inmate accessto technology creates security problems,
but so far the benefits of these programs

have outweighed the risks.
Computer technology also can be used
to manage correctional programs in orderto make them more efficient and effective.
As computerized records of inmate
participation in various programs becomes
more available, we can anticipate that thedelivery of services will become more finely
tuned and evaluations of program
effectiveness will become morecommonplace.
C. Outcome-based Evaluations &Cost-benefit Analyses
As part of the emphasis on reducing
prison costs, programs are being called
upon to demonstrate their effectiveness. In
most cases, programs have primary andsecondary goals. Vocational programs, forexample, may have as a primary goalteaching inmates marketable skills, while
as a secondary matter it is hoped that
better employment prospects upon release
will facilitate reintegration and prevent
recidivism. For some, the most importantcriteria by which programs are to be judged
is reduction of recidivism.
Program evaluations can be useful tools
for improving existing programs or forchoosing among program alternatives inorder to maximize results. However,program evaluations can serve a morenarrow purpose of identifying programs forelimination. For example, the senate
Criminal Justice Committee in Texas
recommended that any substance abuse,job training or education program thatcannot clearly demonstrate its ability toincrease public safety in a cost-effective
manner should be abolished.
D. Privatization of Facilities
The privatization of institutionalcorrections ranks among the mostsignificant penological developments of the
century. The growth in private corrections
has been phenomenal both in the U.S andthroughout the world. Since 1983, the323

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
number of beds managed by privatecompanies in the U.S. grew from 350 to
87,000. According to some estimates,
private companies will manage about
400,000 beds in less than a decade.
Privately run correctional facilities havebecome popular in hopes of capitalizing on
the management flexibility and innovationthat is typical of the private sector. At
minimum, competition from the private
sector is forcing administrators ingovernment-operated facilities to adopt a
more business-like stance towards therunning of prisons.
There is some evidence to suggest thatprivatization can increase a prison system’s
flexibility to respond to rapidly changing
circumstances. For example, theDepartment of Corrections in Florida was
unable to keep up with the pace of growthin the inmate population. They turned to
private corrections as a solution to
overcrowding, which brought theadditional benefit of an increase inprogramming resources. Most critically,
opportunities for inmates to participate ineducational and substance abuse programs
expanded.
Recently, private companies have
expanded their operations into the area of
mental health correctional facilities.
Another likely area of future growth isjuvenile facilities. Both these types offacilities require a greater than average
investment of resources in programming.
Also, both groups of clients present difficult
reintegration challenges. It remains to be
seen whether private corrections canmaintain its competitive edge as the mixof facilities it operates changes and as theneed for specialized staff for inmate
programming increases.
E. Contracting for Correctional
Services
Another aspect of the privatization
movement is having government-run
institutions contract for services by private

324

companies in an effort to increase flexibility
and reduce costs. While the private sector
typically can provide a lower bottom-line,
there are concerns that profit motives may
adversely affect the quality of institutional
life for inmates. This is especially true withregard to correctional programming, whichis generally accorded a secondary status in
the hierarchy of prison activities. However,competition could increase the quality ofservices especially if this factor is clearly
emphasized in the evaluation of bids.
Prison systems now routinely contract
for major program activities such as healthcare, substance abuse treatment andeducation. In particular, contracts withlarge health care providers, which involve
payment of a flat fee per inmate for all
medical care, appear to be successful inbringing down the cost of inmate healthcare without adverse consequences. In thisregard, prisons are following the moregeneral trend of capatization of health carecosts in our society. It remains to be seen
whether cost-savings can be sustained overthe long term and whether use of similar
approaches towards education and drug
treatment services will be successful.
Another aspect of contracting involves
housing inmates in out-of-state prison
systems in an effort to relieve
overcrowding. For example, Texas
correctional facilities routinely houseinmates from other states, from as close as
Louisiana to as far away as Massachusetts.
Confinement is a “foreign” prison system
can make adjustment more difficult. Also,these arrangements make it difficult tomaintain family ties during incarcerationand post-release planning is harder to do.
F. Co-payment fees
Another popular strategy for reducing
inmate program costs, borrowed from theprivate sector, is requiring a co-payment
fee for services. According to a survey by
the Association of State Correctional
Administrators, 30 states now charge fees

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
for program services, such as educational
programs. Often the fee involved isnominal. In Connecticut, for example,
inmates pay $3 for elective education
courses or vocational courses, $10 for
extended family visits and $3 for sick calls.
The actual revenues generated from thefee, while not insignificant, cover only asmall portion of program costs. Much of
the savings come from discouraging
inmates from requesting services in thefirst place. While the wisdom of thisstrategy is debatable, modest co-payment
fees do have the effect of limiting capricious
service requests. What the cost of thisproblem is, and whether the size of the
problem varies by type of service is notknown. Fees can have the advantage ofrestricting programs to the motivatedinmates by requiring a tangible form ofcommitment from them. However, thismay not be the group who can benefit mostfrom the program.
In some instances, the motivation for thefee more clearly is to recoup program costs.
Offenders have been required to pay forprobation and parole supervision, use ofcommunity correctional centers andelectronic monitoring. Concerns have been
expressed, however, over the possibility
that offenders may be denied participationin more desirable community-based
sanctions based on their financial situation.
G. Short-term Intensive Programs
Another cost-reduction strategy involves
use of short-term intensive programs,
which often are described under theheading of “shock incarceration.” These
programs are gaining favor because they
involve a shortened period of custody thatbrings reduced costs to the correctional
system and quicker freedom to the offender.
Higher levels of programming and services
negate some of the savings that accrue
through shorter custody, although this isthought to pay off in the longer term
through reduced recidivism.

A good example of short-term intensive
correctional programming is the juvenile
boot camp. These programs are organizedaround an intensive, military-style
regimen that continues for about 120 days.
Activities include calisthenics, schoolingcounseling and manual labor. Participants
for these programs are carefully screened.
Good candidates include young, first time
offenders with no history of violence. Some
programs target drug users, and include
this as an entrance criterion. In fiscal year
1995, the U.S. congress appropriated $22.5
million for boot camp programs.
Several large-scale evaluations of bootcamp programs have been carried out.
These evaluations indicate that boot camps
are no cheaper and no more effective at
reducing recidivism than other correctional
options. Among the key findings of thisresearch is that continuity in treatment
between the residential and aftercare
phases is critical to positive outcomes, andthat quality aftercare is difficult toimplement.
VI. CONCLUSION
Three major trends have affected
corrections in the United States over the
past decade and a half. The first trend isunprecedented growth in inmate
populations owing to changes in police
practices and criminal sentencing.
Extended rapid growth has pushed somecorrectional systems to the edge of abreaking point, redefining “business as
usual” into “crisis management”. The
second trend involves a shift in penal
philosophy emphasizing the protection ofsociety. Deterrence and incapacitation
have become the dominant rationales forpunishment, increasing the certainty andlength of prison sentences. Society has
become more concerned with the dark sideof offenders, worrying about possible future
harms, and more guarded in its confidence
about the need for and the success of325

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
correctional programming. The third trend
is an emphasis on economy and costcontrol. Recognizing that incarceration isexpensive and that it may not be able toafford all the punishment it would like todispense, society has chosen to deal withthe problem by tightening its belt andcutting costs.
Wi t h r e g a r d t o c o r r e c t i o n a lprogramming, these developments haveplayed out against a backdrop of a loss offaith in the rehabilitative ideal. This
combination of circumstances has
dramatically altered the face of correctional
programs. Dramatic growth in prison
populations has brought large increases in
the number of offenders who are legally
entitled to receive various services.
Dramatic growth also has brought changes
in the characteristics of inmate populations
that are relevant to programming
decisions. Numbers of elderly inmates,
young inmates and female inmates are
increasing disproportionately in prison
systems. Each group has distinct program
needs both during confinement and after
release. An emphasis on public safety has
meant that scarce program resources areconcentrated on offenders who present thegreatest threat to society or who havetreatable problems that are clearly crimerelated. Finally, the emphasis on cost
reduction has led to a wide variety of
initiatives. Most notable are calls forevaluations of program effectiveness andthe privatization of many correctional
activities. In the long run, thesedevelopments may benefit correctional
programming by increasing its stock withthe public, although there will be periodsof chaos and turmoil before this happens.
These developments that are now
shaping correctional programming
probably will continue to do so for sometime. We appear to have entered an era ofrealistic pragmatism in corrections;acknowledging, on the one hand, that there
are limits to what can be done, while on326

the other hand, redoubling ourcommitment to take action where andwhen it matters most. In this process,correctional programming will continue tobe transformed, occupying, as it does, acritical role in penal management andphilosophy.