Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality in U.S. Prison Programs

Scholars of mass incarceration point to the 1970s as a pivotal turning point in U.S. penal history, marked by a shift toward more punitive policies and a consensus that ``nothing works'' in rehabilitating inmates. However, while there has been extensive research on changes in policy makers...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Law & society review 2011-03, Vol.45 (1), p.33-68
1. Verfasser: Phelps, Michelle S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 68
container_issue 1
container_start_page 33
container_title Law & society review
container_volume 45
creator Phelps, Michelle S.
description Scholars of mass incarceration point to the 1970s as a pivotal turning point in U.S. penal history, marked by a shift toward more punitive policies and a consensus that ``nothing works'' in rehabilitating inmates. However, while there has been extensive research on changes in policy makers' rhetoric, sentencing policy, and incarceration rates, scholars know very little about changes in the actual practices of punishment and prisoner rehabilitation. Using nationally representative data for U.S. state prisons, this article demonstrates that there were no major changes in investments in specialized facilities, funding for inmate services—related staff, or program participation rates throughout the late 1970s and the 1980s. Not until the 1990s, more than a decade after the start of the punitive era, did patterns of inmate services change, as investments in programming switched from academic to reentry-related programs. These findings suggest that there is a large gap between rhetoric and reality in the case of inmate services and that since the 1990s, inmate ``rehabilitation'' has increasingly become equated with reentry-related life skills programs.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00427.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3762476</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>23011958</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>23011958</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c7427-cba16186f14d0f28acb52acb691edc2cada2a9e28ed958f8056613ac50e5630d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNklFv0zAUhSMEYmXwE0AREoKXhGs7dmwkkLZpdEgVlK7THo3rOKuzNCl2urX_HoeWMniA5cFJfL5zZF-dKIoRpCg8b6sU0QwSygVJMSCUAmQ4T9cPosFeeBgNADBJBEbsIHrifQXhnxL6ODrAGaCMCxhE3yZmrma2tp3qbNvEtom7uYnHq8Z29sbEp069i6dhZ6iW8bHpbo1p4sncdK2zOlZNEU-MCu5N77xIz9N47KwPQWPXXjm18E-jR6WqvXm2ex9GFx9PpydnyejL8NPJ0SjReTh6omcKMcRZibICSsyVnlEcFiaQKTTWqlBYCYO5KQTlJQfKGCJKUzCUESjIYfRhm7tczRbBYprOqVounV0ot5GtsvJPpbFzedXeSJIznOUsBLzeBbj2-8r4Ti6s16auVWPalZcC5VjkQMT_ScDAKcmye5E5E4AC-eafJOKYUUGAkYC-_Aut2pVrwnAlzzMIl8E4QHwLadd670y5nwQC2XdIVrKviuyrIvsOyZ8dkutgfXF3knvjr9IE4NUOUF6runSq0dbf4RDkQPvbv99yt7Y2m3sfQI6OzifhK_ifb_2VD3X7nU8CHEoQ9GSrW9-Z9V5X7lqynORUXn4eSjieUrg8G8mv5AeGXPki</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>874024722</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality in U.S. Prison Programs</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Phelps, Michelle S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Phelps, Michelle S.</creatorcontrib><description>Scholars of mass incarceration point to the 1970s as a pivotal turning point in U.S. penal history, marked by a shift toward more punitive policies and a consensus that ``nothing works'' in rehabilitating inmates. However, while there has been extensive research on changes in policy makers' rhetoric, sentencing policy, and incarceration rates, scholars know very little about changes in the actual practices of punishment and prisoner rehabilitation. Using nationally representative data for U.S. state prisons, this article demonstrates that there were no major changes in investments in specialized facilities, funding for inmate services—related staff, or program participation rates throughout the late 1970s and the 1980s. Not until the 1990s, more than a decade after the start of the punitive era, did patterns of inmate services change, as investments in programming switched from academic to reentry-related programs. These findings suggest that there is a large gap between rhetoric and reality in the case of inmate services and that since the 1990s, inmate ``rehabilitation'' has increasingly become equated with reentry-related life skills programs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-9216</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-5893</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00427.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24014890</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LWSRAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>Academic advising ; Correctional institutions ; Criminal justice ; Criminal punishment ; Criminal sentencing ; Criminal sociology. Police. Delinquency. Deviance. Suicide ; Ex-convicts ; Imprisonment ; Investment ; Participation ; Penal policy ; Policy Making ; Prison education programs ; Prison training programs ; Prisoner rehabilitation ; Prisoners ; Prisons ; Psychological counseling ; Punishment ; R&amp;D ; Rehabilitation ; Research &amp; development ; Rhetoric ; Sentencing ; Services ; Skills ; Sociology ; Sociology of law and criminology ; U.S.A ; Vocational education</subject><ispartof>Law &amp; society review, 2011-03, Vol.45 (1), p.33-68</ispartof><rights>2011 The Law and Society Association</rights><rights>2011 Law and Society Association</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Law and Society Association Mar 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c7427-cba16186f14d0f28acb52acb691edc2cada2a9e28ed958f8056613ac50e5630d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c7427-cba16186f14d0f28acb52acb691edc2cada2a9e28ed958f8056613ac50e5630d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23011958$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/23011958$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,778,782,801,883,1414,12832,27331,27911,27912,33761,33762,45561,45562,58004,58237</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=24107054$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24014890$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Phelps, Michelle S.</creatorcontrib><title>Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality in U.S. Prison Programs</title><title>Law &amp; society review</title><addtitle>Law Soc Rev</addtitle><description>Scholars of mass incarceration point to the 1970s as a pivotal turning point in U.S. penal history, marked by a shift toward more punitive policies and a consensus that ``nothing works'' in rehabilitating inmates. However, while there has been extensive research on changes in policy makers' rhetoric, sentencing policy, and incarceration rates, scholars know very little about changes in the actual practices of punishment and prisoner rehabilitation. Using nationally representative data for U.S. state prisons, this article demonstrates that there were no major changes in investments in specialized facilities, funding for inmate services—related staff, or program participation rates throughout the late 1970s and the 1980s. Not until the 1990s, more than a decade after the start of the punitive era, did patterns of inmate services change, as investments in programming switched from academic to reentry-related programs. These findings suggest that there is a large gap between rhetoric and reality in the case of inmate services and that since the 1990s, inmate ``rehabilitation'' has increasingly become equated with reentry-related life skills programs.</description><subject>Academic advising</subject><subject>Correctional institutions</subject><subject>Criminal justice</subject><subject>Criminal punishment</subject><subject>Criminal sentencing</subject><subject>Criminal sociology. Police. Delinquency. Deviance. Suicide</subject><subject>Ex-convicts</subject><subject>Imprisonment</subject><subject>Investment</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Penal policy</subject><subject>Policy Making</subject><subject>Prison education programs</subject><subject>Prison training programs</subject><subject>Prisoner rehabilitation</subject><subject>Prisoners</subject><subject>Prisons</subject><subject>Psychological counseling</subject><subject>Punishment</subject><subject>R&amp;D</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Research &amp; development</subject><subject>Rhetoric</subject><subject>Sentencing</subject><subject>Services</subject><subject>Skills</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Sociology of law and criminology</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><subject>Vocational education</subject><issn>0023-9216</issn><issn>1540-5893</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNklFv0zAUhSMEYmXwE0AREoKXhGs7dmwkkLZpdEgVlK7THo3rOKuzNCl2urX_HoeWMniA5cFJfL5zZF-dKIoRpCg8b6sU0QwSygVJMSCUAmQ4T9cPosFeeBgNADBJBEbsIHrifQXhnxL6ODrAGaCMCxhE3yZmrma2tp3qbNvEtom7uYnHq8Z29sbEp069i6dhZ6iW8bHpbo1p4sncdK2zOlZNEU-MCu5N77xIz9N47KwPQWPXXjm18E-jR6WqvXm2ex9GFx9PpydnyejL8NPJ0SjReTh6omcKMcRZibICSsyVnlEcFiaQKTTWqlBYCYO5KQTlJQfKGCJKUzCUESjIYfRhm7tczRbBYprOqVounV0ot5GtsvJPpbFzedXeSJIznOUsBLzeBbj2-8r4Ti6s16auVWPalZcC5VjkQMT_ScDAKcmye5E5E4AC-eafJOKYUUGAkYC-_Aut2pVrwnAlzzMIl8E4QHwLadd670y5nwQC2XdIVrKviuyrIvsOyZ8dkutgfXF3knvjr9IE4NUOUF6runSq0dbf4RDkQPvbv99yt7Y2m3sfQI6OzifhK_ifb_2VD3X7nU8CHEoQ9GSrW9-Z9V5X7lqynORUXn4eSjieUrg8G8mv5AeGXPki</recordid><startdate>201103</startdate><enddate>201103</enddate><creator>Phelps, Michelle S.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services</general><general>Blackwell</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201103</creationdate><title>Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality in U.S. Prison Programs</title><author>Phelps, Michelle S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c7427-cba16186f14d0f28acb52acb691edc2cada2a9e28ed958f8056613ac50e5630d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Academic advising</topic><topic>Correctional institutions</topic><topic>Criminal justice</topic><topic>Criminal punishment</topic><topic>Criminal sentencing</topic><topic>Criminal sociology. Police. Delinquency. Deviance. Suicide</topic><topic>Ex-convicts</topic><topic>Imprisonment</topic><topic>Investment</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Penal policy</topic><topic>Policy Making</topic><topic>Prison education programs</topic><topic>Prison training programs</topic><topic>Prisoner rehabilitation</topic><topic>Prisoners</topic><topic>Prisons</topic><topic>Psychological counseling</topic><topic>Punishment</topic><topic>R&amp;D</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Research &amp; development</topic><topic>Rhetoric</topic><topic>Sentencing</topic><topic>Services</topic><topic>Skills</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Sociology of law and criminology</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><topic>Vocational education</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Phelps, Michelle S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Law &amp; society review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Phelps, Michelle S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality in U.S. Prison Programs</atitle><jtitle>Law &amp; society review</jtitle><addtitle>Law Soc Rev</addtitle><date>2011-03</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>33</spage><epage>68</epage><pages>33-68</pages><issn>0023-9216</issn><eissn>1540-5893</eissn><coden>LWSRAA</coden><abstract>Scholars of mass incarceration point to the 1970s as a pivotal turning point in U.S. penal history, marked by a shift toward more punitive policies and a consensus that ``nothing works'' in rehabilitating inmates. However, while there has been extensive research on changes in policy makers' rhetoric, sentencing policy, and incarceration rates, scholars know very little about changes in the actual practices of punishment and prisoner rehabilitation. Using nationally representative data for U.S. state prisons, this article demonstrates that there were no major changes in investments in specialized facilities, funding for inmate services—related staff, or program participation rates throughout the late 1970s and the 1980s. Not until the 1990s, more than a decade after the start of the punitive era, did patterns of inmate services change, as investments in programming switched from academic to reentry-related programs. These findings suggest that there is a large gap between rhetoric and reality in the case of inmate services and that since the 1990s, inmate ``rehabilitation'' has increasingly become equated with reentry-related life skills programs.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><pmid>24014890</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00427.x</doi><tpages>36</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0023-9216
ispartof Law & society review, 2011-03, Vol.45 (1), p.33-68
issn 0023-9216
1540-5893
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3762476
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Sociological Abstracts; Jstor Complete Legacy
subjects Academic advising
Correctional institutions
Criminal justice
Criminal punishment
Criminal sentencing
Criminal sociology. Police. Delinquency. Deviance. Suicide
Ex-convicts
Imprisonment
Investment
Participation
Penal policy
Policy Making
Prison education programs
Prison training programs
Prisoner rehabilitation
Prisoners
Prisons
Psychological counseling
Punishment
R&D
Rehabilitation
Research & development
Rhetoric
Sentencing
Services
Skills
Sociology
Sociology of law and criminology
U.S.A
Vocational education
title Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality in U.S. Prison Programs
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T05%3A10%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rehabilitation%20in%20the%20Punitive%20Era:%20The%20Gap%20Between%20Rhetoric%20and%20Reality%20in%20U.S.%20Prison%20Programs&rft.jtitle=Law%20&%20society%20review&rft.au=Phelps,%20Michelle%20S.&rft.date=2011-03&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=33&rft.epage=68&rft.pages=33-68&rft.issn=0023-9216&rft.eissn=1540-5893&rft.coden=LWSRAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00427.x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E23011958%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=874024722&rft_id=info:pmid/24014890&rft_jstor_id=23011958&rfr_iscdi=true