Planning for the Future of the US Correctional System

  • April Pattavina
  • Faye S. Taxman


This chapter will discuss the problems our correctional system faces after decades of growing prison populations. We focus specifically on examining the delivery of treatment in the criminal justice corrections system, a long neglected aspect of correctional planning, and promote the use of simulation modeling to explore the outcomes of implementing more cohesive treatment strategies on national and local levels. The treatment plan we advocate is guided by risk-need-responsivity 9RNR) principles that have been shown to impact recidivism levels. We discuss how the adoption of the RNR framework can inform simulation strategies. Throughout this book, authors focus on the various aspects of building appropriate simulation model inputs for national and local models. A discussion of the chapters included in this book will be presented and how each contributes to advancing our capacity to use simulation modeling for the purpose of correctional planning and management.


Criminal Justice Criminal Justice System Correctional System Criminal History Community Correction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Elsevier Science Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. doi: 10.1037/a0018362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically-relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Auerhahn, K. (2003). Selective incapacitation and public policy: Evaluating California’s imprisonment crisis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  7. Austin, J. (2009). Reducing America’s correctional populations: a strategic plan. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.Google Scholar
  8. Austin, J. (1990). America’s growing correctional-industrial complex. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Biskupic, J. (2011, May 24). Supreme Court stands firm on prison crowding. USA Today.Google Scholar
  10. Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brennan, T. (2012). Signaling and meta-analytic evaluations the presence of latent offender groups: The importance of coherent target group selection. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(1), 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caudy, M. (2013). Reducing recidivism through correctional programming: using meta-analyses to inform the RNR simulation tool. In simulation strategies to reduce recidivism: risk need responsivity (RNR) modeling in the criminal justice system. Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Clear, T., & Austin, J. (2009). Reducing Mass Incarceration: Implications of the Iron Law of Prison Populations. Harvard Law & Policy Review. 3, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clear, T., Waring, E., & Scully, K. (2005). Communities and reentry: Concentrated reentry cycling. In J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 179–208). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cullen, F. T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference. Criminology, 43(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2011). Correctional theory: Context and consequences. SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Farabee, D. (2005). Rethinking rehabilitation: Why can’t we reform our criminals? Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute Press.Google Scholar
  18. Friedmann, P. D., Taxman, F. S., & Henderson, C. E. (2007). Evidence-based treatment practices for drug-involved adults in the criminal justice system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 267–277. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.020. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117–130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Glaze, L. (2011). Correctional population in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  21. Gottschalk, M. (2010). Cell blocks & red ink: Mass incarceration, the great recession & penal reform. Daedalus-Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 139(3), 62–73.Google Scholar
  22. Hillsman, S. T. (1990). Fines and day fines. Crime and Justice, 12, 49–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lacey, N. (2010). American imprisonment in comparative perspective. Daedalus-Journal of American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 139(3), 102–114.Google Scholar
  24. Langan, P. A. & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  25. Latessa, E. J., Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., & Brusman Lovins, L. (2009). Evaluation of selected institutional offender treatment programs for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in Harrisburg, PA.Google Scholar
  26. Lowenkamp, C. T. & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Developing successful reentry programs: Lessons learned from the “what works” research. Corrections Today, 67(2), 72–74; 76–77.Google Scholar
  27. Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(3), 201–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00388.
  28. Lynch, J., & Sabol, W. (2001). Prisoner reentry in perspective (Crime policy report, Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  29. MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin, J. L., Lichtenstein, B., Jenkot, R. B., & Forde, D. (2012). They can take us over any time they want: Correctional officers’ responses to prison crowding. The Prison Journal, 92(1), 88–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.Google Scholar
  32. Mauer, M. (2011). Sentencing reform: Amid mass incarcerations-guarded optimism. Criminal Justice, 26(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  33. Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nagel, S. S. (Ed.). (1977). Modeling the criminal justice system. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Palmer, T. (1992). The re-emergence of correctional intervention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Pattavina, A. (2009). Use of electronic monitoring as persuasive technology: Reconsidering the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring. Victims & Offenders, 4(4), 385–390.Google Scholar
  37. Pattavina, A., & Taxman, F. (2007). Community corrections and soft technology. In J. Byrne & D. Rebovich (Eds.), The new technology of crime, law and social control. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  38. Petersilia, J. (2005). From cell to society. In J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 15–49). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pew Charitable Trusts (2011). State of recidivism: The revolving door of America’s Prisons. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  40. Phelps, M. S. (2011). Rehabilitation in the punitive era: The gap between rhetoric and reality in U.S. prison programs. Law & Society Review, 45(1), 33–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simon, J. (2010). Clearing the “troubled assets” of America’s punishment bubble. Daedalus-Journal American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 139(3), 91–101.Google Scholar
  42. Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. A. (2003). Substance abuse counselors’ treatment philosophy and the content of treatment services provided to offenders in drug court programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 267–277.Google Scholar
  43. Taxman, F., & Marlowe, D. (2006). Risk, needs, responsivity: In action or inaction? Crime & Delinquency, 25(2), 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taxman, F., Perdoni, M., & Harrison, L. D. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taxman, F. S., & Belenko, S. (2012). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment (2012th ed.). Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Travis, J., Solomon, A., & Waul, M. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Travis, J., & Visher, C. (2005). Introduction: Viewing public safety through the reentry lens. In J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Uggen, C., Wakefield, S., & Western, B. (2005). Work and family perspectives on reentry. In J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 209–243). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Visher, C., & Kachnowski, V. (2007). Finding work on the outside: Results from the “returning home” project in Chicago. In S. Bushway, M. Stoll, & D. F. Weiman (Eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial America (pp. 80–144). New York, NY: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Weisburg, R. & Petersilia, J. (2010). The dangers of pyrrhic victories against mass incarceration. Daedalus-Journal American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 139(3), 124–133; 146–147.Google Scholar
  52. Welsh, W. N., & Zajac, G. (2004). A census of prison-based drug treatment programs: Implications for programming, policy, and evaluation. Crime & Delinquency, 50(1), 108–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Western, B. (2008). Reentry: Reversing mass imprisonment. Boston Review. Retrieved July 12, 2012 from
  54. Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8–19. doi: 10.1162/DAED_a_00019. Google Scholar
  55. Zarkin, G., Dunlap, L., Hicks, K., & Mamo, D. (2005). Benefits and costs of methadone treatments: Results from a lifetime simulation model. Health Economics, 14(11), 1133–1150.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminology and Justice StudiesUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminology, Law and SocietyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations