4.3.3: Twentieth Century Corrections (1930-Present)

The 1920s brought another significant transformation to corrections as psychology and rehabilitation moved to the center of penological thinking. Rather than focusing solely on punishment, practitioners began addressing the psychological and physiological conditions underlying criminal behavior. This approach, known as the medical model, advocated for the creation of individual treatment plans for each inmate and facilitated the involvement of professionals in guiding inmates’ rehabilitation toward becoming productive, law-abiding citizens. This rehabilitative approach aligned well with indeterminate sentencing policies and parole practices, leading to widespread adoption of this approach by the federal government and 46 of the 48 states by 1925 (Friedman, 1993).

In the 1940s and 1950s, the medical model and rehabilitative approaches dominated penological philosophies. In 1954, the American Prison Association changed its name to the American Correctional Association, and around this time, it recommended that prisons should be utilized as correctional centers rather than prisons or penitentiaries. However, the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of indeterminate sentencing policies and parole release during this period resulted in longer prison sentences rather than shorter ones (Rotman, 1995). Furthermore, several therapeutic and counseling approaches encountered challenges due to inadequate program implementation and the involvement of unqualified staff. For instance, counseling sessions were often led by correctional officers who lacked the necessary qualifications for therapeutic treatment (Blomberg & Lucking, 2010).

By the 1960s, support for individual treatment and rehabilitation correctional approaches began to wane. Following the scathing 1967 report by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, which highlighted the futile and degrading environment in U.S. prisons, it became evident that a new approach to corrections was necessary (Rotman, 1995).

In addition to concerns about the improbability of achieving complete rehabilitation through isolating inmates from society, rising crime rates and prison overpopulation began to emerge as significant issues. To address some of the shortcomings of the medical model, prisons initiated a transition in their rehabilitation philosophy to a community corrections approach.

At the onset of the criminal justice process, the community corrections approach prioritized diverting offenders to community programs and parole to mitigate stigmatization and overly punitive punishments. Meanwhile, during the subsequent stages of the criminal justice process, the community corrections strategy focused on the reintegration of inmates. This involved promoting vocational training and higher education programs within prisons, which garnered public support as crucial tools for facilitating inmates’ successful reintegration into society.

The correctional system also began to implement more intermediate sanctions, such as halfway houses, work release programs, and house arrest, to deal with individuals who committed less serious crimes. Prior to the adoption of these intermediate sanctions, the criminal justice system was constrained to an “all or nothing” approach, forced to choose between incarcerating the offender or issuing no punishment whatsoever. Although one of the primary goals of intermediate sanctions was to lower the prison population, it inadvertently led to an increase, placing substantial strain on the correctional system.

By the 1980s, rising crime rates, popular punitivism, political factors, and concerns over discrimination and subjectivity inherent in indeterminate sentencing and parole boards prompted a shift in penological approach from the community corrections model to the crime control approach. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan declared a War on Crime, advocating for the U.S. to combat this perceived threat with overly punitive sanctions, the elimination of indeterminate sentences, the implementation of mandatory minimums, and the construction of more prisons.

The emerging penological crime control approach, grounded in incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution philosophies, dismissed rehabilitative efforts as futile and deemed them an inefficient allocation of fiscal resources. While U.S. incarceration rates remained stable at around 100 per 100,000 between 1920 and 1970, by 1980, the rate had risen to 221 per 100,000, and by 2008, it had soared to 762 per 100,000 (Western & Pettit, 2010). Problematically, this approach contributed to the issue of mass incarceration, resulting in a 700% increase over a 40-year span. Figure 10.9 below demonstrates this drastic increase in incarcerations rates among both federal and state prisons between 1978 and 2009.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Since 1978, the number of individuals in a state or federal corrections system have risen exponentially from 1978 to 2019. Information gathered from the National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) survey and the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.).
Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

The surge in incarceration rates in the U.S. during the early 21st century presented significant challenges, with roughly 1 in every 100 American adults incarcerated in either jail or prison by 2008 (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2008). Despite accounting for only about 5% of the global population during this period, the U.S. accounted for a staggering 25% of the world’s prison population (Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration et al., 2014). The rapid increase in incarceration rates led to significant challenges, including prison overcrowding, which forced states to embark on construction of more prisons. The rising costs associated with constructing new prison facilities and accommodating the growing inmate population began to strain state resources. State expenditures on corrections skyrocketed by 257% between 1982 (amounting to $15 billion) and 2010 (reaching $53.5 billion) (Kyckelhahn, 2012). However, the onset of the Great Recession in 2008 compelled states to make deep budget cuts, with reductions in corrections spending being a primary focus. Additionally, factors such as declining crime rates and a shift away from excessively punitive drug sentencing also contributed to the decrease in corrections expenditures by 2010.