discussion post reply
Discussion Board Attachment
I do not believe that generic rehabilitation programs will be adapted to meet the needs of offender populations. I would compare that to taking general education classes. Where they put several different majors and people into one class, and will not use anything they are learning about in their career. For example, during my undergraduate career, taking global communications and algebra will not help me as a psychology major. I feel that this is the same way. In a rehabilitation that is generic and having sex offenders in the same program as mental health person. A lot of people do not have the patience (unfortunately I see this all the time) to deal with people who have mental health issues. When it comes to sex offender rehabilitation, ” he relapse prevention model, adopted from the substance abuse literature, aims to help sex offenders recognize their offense patterns, toward the goal of identifying cognitive, emotional, and situational factors that lead to offending. The aim of this model is to allow offenders to proactively intervene in their offense cycle so as to prevent reoffense. Cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT)[…]” (Gideon & Sung, 2011. pg 43).
The same thing goes for male and female, females may not feel comfrotable talking in front of males about what is going on. ” or example, like their male counterparts, female inmates may be cut off from family and supportive networks. However, this separation could be particularly difficult for mothers with young children, and maintaining family contacts and connections may be an especially important treatment target for females (Monster & Micucci, 2005)” (author, year. pg 53).
Research has been shown that they want to start combining to reduce the amount of spending, ” For instance, in a survey of U.S. state prison systems, Lillis (1994) found that about 50% of respondents reported cutting funds to vocational and technical training, and educational programs during the early 1990s. The result of these cuts led to larger classes, a longer waiting time to participate in programs for inmates, and even less programs being offered to them (Lillis, 1994)” (Crittenden & Koons-Witt, 2017. pg # 2). Also, different offenders have different stipulations once they get out of jail. For example with sex offenders, “In the United States, residency restrictions, community notification, and sex offender registries have been established, and have widespread public support, in spite of their dubious effectiveness (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Levenson, D’Amora, & Hern, 2007). In fact, Willis and Grace (2009) determined that many of these initiatives may actually increase the risks they are intended to reduce (see also Levenson & Cotter, 2005). Given the climate of supervised conditions to which sex offenders are subject, their release into communities is a topic of great policy concern for Corrections’ staff, treatment providers, legislators, and criminologists” (Fox, 2017. pg 29).
Crittenden, C. A., & Koons-Witt, B. A. (2017). Gender and programming: A comparison of program availability and participation in U.S. prisons. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(6), 611-644. doi:10.1177/0306624X15601432
Fox, K. J. (2017). Contextualizing the policy and pragmatics of reintegrating sex offenders.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(1), 28-50. doi:10.1177/1079063215574711
Gideon, L., & Sung, H. E. (2011). Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN: 9781412970198