
The United States currently has the highest incarceration rate of any first world county (Durbin 4). This alarming statistic brings up many questions. Why is America incarcerating so many of its citizens? Is crime significantly higher in the United States than in other first world countries? How can the United States fix this issue? Many can agree that the United States’ prison system is flawed. Some believe that more prisons with steeper penalties for crime will incentivize people to not commit crimes. Others believe that rehabilitating prisoners would reduce crime, while giving people a second chance at life. This paper analyzes what makes a rehabilitation program successful, and why rehabilitation is more effective than mass incarceration in the long run. This is relevant because a significant portion of United States citizens are currently incarcerated, and this costs the American tax payers a lot of money.

There is no doubt that the United States incarcerates a lot of individuals. The United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and has twice the incarceration rate of Iran (Gregg 2015). The United States contains roughly five percent of the world’s population, but contains one fourth of the world’s prisoners (Durbin 4).  To make matters worse, half of the people released from prison are recidivated within six months (Coburn 3). These alarming rates are so high because the United States has started locking up troublemakers for longer periods of time to decrease crime. Prisons also shifted towards harsh, unpleasant punishment by taking away televisions, recreation, and education from the prisoners (Butterfield 2001). This ideology has not been effective, however. While on paper this would seem to have a positive effect on society, as it serves as an incentive to not commit crime, we can see that it ends up hurting more than it helps. Long sentencing time and a harsher prison environment did not reduce crime. It had quite the opposite effect. The enormous number of prisoners that the United States has to detain ends up in overcrowding in prisons, which only decreases the effectiveness of these already failing institutions. Recidivism rates rise as the number of prisoners increase, as studies have shown (Butterfield 2001). Dannel Malloy states the effects of going through a United States prison, saying, “What we know is that prison can more likely turn you into someone committed to a life of crime” (Jativa 2016). Prisons also come at a steep price. The United States spends over eighty billion dollars per year on correction expenditures, which means more money is spent on each inmate than is spent on a college education (Gregg 2015). Elected officials believe that successful rehabilitation programs will save the taxpayers money in the long run (Jativa 2016).

While the reality behind prisons in the United States is saddening, there are ways in which this problem can be lessened. The solution to America’s prison problem is rehabilitation. This process, however, must be done tactfully. If our rehabilitation programs are not tactful, crime could increase and leave the United States in a worse position. Giving prisoners opportunity can be a solution to this problem. Many prisoners today cannot be helped because they will not accept help. For those who will however, rehabilitation programs can help them become beneficial to society, rather than a burden to the taxpayer’s wallet. 

When it comes to rehabilitation, the definition of a successful rehabilitation program varies. Some programs look at only recidivism rates, some only look at employment rates of participants after they leave the program, and some take both into account. This paper will define a successful rehabilitation program as one that reduces recidivism rates, as well as reduces unemployment of released prisoners. These two factors have a strong correlation, so I will look at both together. Researchers, such as Norman Sledgley, state that the two factors that cause high recidivism rates are the lack of education, and the lack of employable skills (497). 

The structure of a successful rehabilitation program is debated upon, but Jeremy Gregg, the Chief Development Officer for the Prison Entrepreneurship Program, has an effective method that he created that has been successful. His program achieved a 95% success rate, and all participants had a job within ninety days of release. His program is more than ten times more effective than the average prison in America (Coburn 3). In his TEDx Talk presentation, Gregg creates five fundamentals that rehabilitation programs must have to be effective. These rules are: “Only invest in those who invest in themselves,” “Challenge them to work harder than they ever had before,” “Give them a goal they first thought was impossible,” “Support them from the outside,” and, “Hold them accountable” (Gregg 2015). If rehabilitation centers follow these guidelines, rehabilitation for prisoners will be more successful.

Gregg’s first rule of rehabilitation is arguably the most important. If rehabilitation programs, “only invest in those who invest in themselves,” the programs will minimize waste. These programs are not meant to be charity, as Gregg states. They are meant to give opportunity to those who have made mistakes. People that seek help, rather than being forced to get help, are likely to have a much higher success rate because showing initiative means they are determined to change, and will therefore work harder and be willing to put in more effort. A prisoner that does not want to change, will not change. In their cases, incarceration is the only solution. To prisoners who are willing to work hard to improve their life, rehabilitation can work wonders

After selecting the prisoners that are eager to improve, Gregg says, “challenge them to work harder than they’ve ever worked before” (2015). The programs that should be implemented need to be rigorous. Becoming a hard worker is a beneficial trait to have in society, and will leave them with the tools they need to be successful. If prisoners learn how to work hard instead of taking the easy way out, they will no longer need to rely on crime to survive. The real world is a tough place to live in, and having the tools necessary to succeed and improve is vital to the wellbeing of people that leave rehabilitation programs. Having difficult programs will contribute to participants becoming self-sufficient, and beneficial to society.

Gregg suggests that rehabilitation programs, “Give [the prisoners] a goal they first thought was impossible” (2015). Achieving a goal always makes one feels good. It makes us feel good about ourselves, and eager to make new goals, raise the bar, and try even harder. This is no different for prisoners. Sadly, many of these prisoners do not believe that they are capable of greatness. By giving them tough goals, then helping them achieve their goals, we can instill much needed confidence in them, and guide them to success. This method, combined with the previous method of hard work, will drastically increase the effectiveness of these programs. Jeremy Gregg’s rehabilitation program has helped felons become entrepreneurs, lawyers, and other beneficial members of society. And, as the saying goes, “believing is achieving.”

The path to rehabilitation must involve the entire community to be successful. After all, the purpose of these programs is to integrate ex-convicts into our communities. Keeping the prisoner’s destination in mind is vital, which is why, “support[ing] them from the outside” is important to successful rehabilitation. Coming back to society is a major change for these prisoners, but branding them a felon and shunning them from society is only going to reinforce their incentives for bad behavior. Ex-prisoners have some of their rights stripped from them after they are released from prison, which does not help with them assimilating to society. They are stripped of their right to vote, and are faced with employment discrimination (Saxonhouse 1602). The United States is the only country that disenfranchises offenders (Saxonhouse 1602). After being in prison, all offenders are required to state on job applications that they are felons, which leads to employment discrimination. Being branded a felon alienates citizens from our community and reinforces the idea that people who have been to prison are lesser than their fellow citizens. 

The last fundamental of Gregg’s program, is to, “hold them accountable” (2015). This means to make sure the participants are responsible for the mistakes they will make during, and after the rehabilitation program. It also means to hold them accountable for their past mistakes. They ended up in prison because of mistakes, and remembering that will let them know that these programs are not a way to get out of prison early, but to correct the mistakes they had made in the past. Failure is in inevitable part of life. Everyone fails many times throughout their lives, and an important part of the human experience is learning how to cope with failure. This, too, is no different for prisoners. They will have moments of struggle, and they will mess up. Getting equipped with the knowledge of how to deal with failure is essential to living a self-sufficient life. The final step of any rehabilitation program is to get the participants to no longer need the program. By holding participants accountable, they can learn from their mistakes and avoid making them again.

There have been many rehabilitation programs implemented into the United States and all around the world. Some have been successful, and some have been a waste of time and money. By looking at and analyzing rehabilitation programs, we can see trends that make rehabilitation programs successful. Two successful programs that contain some of these guidelines are the California Prison Fire Camp program, and Butterfield’s commentary on the Oregon rehabilitation reform. 

Philip Goodman, a professor at University of Toronto, describes a rehabilitation program that was successful. In the mid 2000’s, California had some of the highest incarceration rates in the nation, and was abandoning its rehabilitation programs (Goodman 473). One rehabilitation program that had been in the state since 1946 was still prospering. This rehabilitation program was a fire camp where prisoners would be trained to fight wildfires in California. This “prison” lacked many of the features that modern prisons had. It had no barbed-wire fences, beautiful scenery, good food, and many more features that every day Americans use. This program selected only nonviolent offenders in order to keep the camp safe. The prisoners would be taught how to use power tools and other equipment that is used to stop wild fires. One important note that Goodman makes is that, “those imprisoned in the camps are considered (and consider themselves) responsible for their own behavior, good or bad.” One of the inmates notes that she was, “still connected with the community.” After inmates leave the program, they are put on parole, but are given no further guidance. 

This program is successful as it is, but could be further improved on to increase its effectiveness. The program did not select only those who are willing to change. Prisoners that were in prison for non-violent crimes were selected, so the program could improve on this point by increasing the intensity of their screening process. The program also did not give the inmates goals they thought were impossible, unless putting out forest fires was unattainable in their eyes. One aspect of Gregg’s method that this program followed was that it holds its members accountable. The program makes each participant responsible for their own success or failure, which helps them transition to being a free citizen. These fire camps also supported the participants from the outside. The participants would be trained by firemen, and would be visited from community members. Though this program seems to stray from Jeremy Gregg’s program ideals, one of the reasons it was so successful is in the way it treated its inmates. The inmates note that they were treated in a humane manner, and that they were given some freedom, and were trusted to not abuse them. This effect, while not stated directly by Gregg, is another aspect of successful rehabilitation programs that I have noticed throughout my research. These fire camps could be improved, however, by having refined selections, giving the inmates goals, and helping the prisoners make connections and get jobs before they are released. By doing these things, this program could be improved and have its participants be more beneficial to society.

One other rehabilitation program that had promising results is an Oregon rehabilitation program that was reported on by Fox Butterfield. The goal of this program is, according to the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Corrections, “to try to undo all the bad crime-inducing habits they learned in the years before they got [to prison]” (Butterfield 2001). The prisoners’ first activity to do when they arrive in these rehabilitation programs is to take a series of tests to, “identify the mental, social, or educational barriers the inmates may face.” The participants in this rehabilitation program were required to work 40 hour workweeks so they can get used to working a full-time job, and to fund the rehabilitation program. The program trains its participants for low-paying jobs, such as telemarketing, and basic computer-based jobs, and enrolls them in basic education courses. The inmates are monitored twenty-four hours a day to “ensure accountability”, and to monitor good behavior. Inmates are incentivized to behave well by being given small bonuses for good behavior. A goal of the program is to give participants an acceptable résumé to aid them in their search for a job after they are released. This program was able to reduce their recidivism rates by nearly half.

This program was successful because it focused on preparing inmates to go back into society. Though the program did not only select those who were willing to change, it was able to separate the participants based off of what they needed because of the personality tests that were given when they arrived. This is similar in effect because prisoners that were not motivated could take classes that could get them motivated with the others. This program gave the participants the goal of finding a full-time job after they are released, which for some, could be a seemingly impossible goal. This, however, is subjective to the individual prisoner. The participants in this program worked full workweeks in order to train them to work hard. For many, according to Butterfield, this was the first time that they had to work hard to succeed. The inmates were not given much support from the outside, but they were able to take classes by community members and local business owners. The participants were held accountable by the constant monitoring of their behavior. They were reprimanded for bad behavior, and rewarded for good behavior. This approach of positive reinforcement was an effective incentive, as one of the participants stated. This program was successful because it focused on the prisoners’ release from prison, rather than the time they were incarcerated. It could improve by involving the community more often and giving the inmates more rigorous goals. Overall, however, this program was successful because it contained most of Jeremy Gregg’s guidelines to successful rehabilitations.

Though the current prison system is ineffective, these problems can be remedied by applying the previously mentioned methods of rehabilitation, and by treating prisoners better. Mass incarceration has been proven to be ineffective because it makes no effort to reduce recidivism, so prisoners get cycled through the system but never change. The main factors of good prison rehabilitation programs are: have only motivated participants, set intense goals for them, make them work hard, have support by the community, hold the participants accountable, and treat them with respect. By following these guidelines, rehabilitation could be an effective method to solve the United States’ high incarceration rate.  It is worthwhile to note that the guidelines for rehabilitation programs outlined in this paper are not the objectively most effective method. As Francis T. Cullen notes, “Promising programs exist, but only sustained research to identify what works and how to make interventions work will produce meaningful reductions in recidivism. Rehabilitation is an evolving science” (Cullen 306). This field still needs more research, and we, as citizens, can put these ideas into actions by participating in local elections, and voicing our opinions to local officials.
