People in prison or jail, like those in the general population, vary greatly in terms of their motivation to participate in treatment programs. Policymakers and practitioners often feel that providing services to those who want them is money well spent, while forcing services upon a recalcitrant group of individuals is a waste of resources. Indeed, evidence shows that behavioral change is more likely to occur when an individual has the self-motivation to improve. ^[1]   Significantly, however, even involuntary participants in treatment services experience more success than similar groups of offenders who are not compelled to receive treatment or other services. To maximize the public safety benefits from corrections services, policymakers should therefore require both willing and reluctant offenders to obtain services, although no individual should be forced to participate in faith-based treatment or services.

Even after compulsory treatment or programs during incarceration, however, there are likely to be a number of individuals in prison or jail who will not respond to the targeted, well-planned, and intensive efforts to reform their behavior. There are no absolute criteria for identifying those who will be resistant to treatment. Researchers have not, for example, really studied the relationship between inmate institutional infractions, close custody inmates, and amenability to treatment services. Notwithstanding the paucity of empirical research on this important topic, policymakers and practitioners at the state and local levels generally agree that those inmates who commit excessive disciplinary infractions and have spent the most time in high security units are likely to be "resistant" inmates.

Regardless of their lack of interest in or response to treatment, most hard-to-manage inmates will eventually complete their sentences and be released to the community. As noted above, even these very resistant individuals should be obliged to participate in treatment because the margin for potential behavioral improvement among this high-risk population is so great. Thus, while low-risk offenders who are interested in treatment may do well in programming and may not recidivate, the fact that they are "low-risk" indicates that they were not statistically likely to recidivate even before they engaged in programming. What researchers have dubbed "the risk principle" holds that the greatest recidivism reduction benefit is achieved when the highest-risk offenders are provided with services. ^[2]   Accordingly, corrections officials should redouble their service delivery, quality of service, and aftercare efforts with the most difficult, high-risk offenders.

Moreover, there is some indication that offenders who do not initially respond to, or do not receive interventions in prison may prove amenable to treatment and subsequent behavior change following their release. Research on the relationship between cognitive-behavioral programs and recidivism, for example, reveals that services delivered in a community setting can produce greater positive effects than the same services offered in prison. Indeed, one study reported considerably greater reductions in recidivism (up to three times greater) for those releasees who completed cognitive-behavioral programs in community-based settings compared to those who completed the same programs in prison. ^[3]   This finding supports the need to continue engaging even high-risk individuals in cognitive-behavioral and social learning programs following their release from incarceration.

Example: Boston Re-Entry Initiative, Boston Police Department Gang Intelligence Unit (MA)

Members of the Boston Police Department's Gang Intelligence Unit identify individuals entering the Suffolk County House of Corrections whom they feel are high-risk and then make recommendations about which ones should be enrolled in their Re-Entry Initiative. Within 45 days of entering the correctional facility, program participants begin working on a Transition Accountability Plan to address their program needs and attend one of the Initiative's monthly community panel sessions. Each of the panel members(from social service, faith-based, or criminal justice organizations) addresses the inmates from the unique perspective of his or her organization. Following the panel, program participants are assigned caseworkers and faith-based mentors from the community who immediately begin meeting and working with the offenders in the prison setting.