In all regions, prison reform initiatives now typically have rehabilitation and reintegration as their stated aim. Prison rehabilitation remains an area where there continues to be a significant amount of innovation based on holistic, individual approaches, and local relevance in response to global concerns. In Ghana, the prison service agriculture programme focuses on providing agriculture skills while also aiming to enhance food security in the country. In Mauritius, prisons are reported to be fully self-sufficient in food production. The prison service has recently opened a new training farm utilising hydroponics and agroponics with the aim to facilitate women’s rehabilitation, while other projects focus on water harvesting and compost production. Vertical farming is also being trialled in prisons in the UK and the US.
As rural prisons are often excluded or cannot provide adequate rehabilitation programmes due to a scarcity of resources, there are some new initiatives to fill this gap. For instance, in Cambodia, a new project aims to develop prison libraries into multi-learning centres, including for prisons in more rural and remote locations. In Morocco, a multi-disciplinary medical caravan has been introduced for a local prison as part of an initiative that recognises that strengthening healthcare services is the basis of rehabilitation.
In times of austerity, budget cuts can see rehabilitation programmes being the first to be reduced or cut
There is an increase in focusing rehabilitation programmes on specific groups of people in prison, including those convicted of violent extremism, gang members and those associated with organised crime. To date, however, further research is required to understand the extent of their effectiveness. In this vein, the EU is prioritising the development of a methodology with common standards and indicators to assess the effectiveness of reintegration programmes within a new programme on ‘Prisons, Radicalisation, Rehabilitation, and Reintegration’. A study recently published notes positive themes, including effective programmes in Sri Lanka and promising aspects of initiatives in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but also points to the weak evidence base for prison-based interventions targeting violent extremists. The effectiveness of programmes designed to support the management of violent extremist offenders and prevent radicalisation in Kazakhstan, Tunisia and Uganda was the topic of a recent report, which found that improved systems and skills in prison administrations to individually assess risks and needs did contribute to improved social reintegration prospects.
Inadequate resourcing and coordination of justice actors continue to inhibit rehabilitation aims being achieved sustainably, particularly in low-income settings. In times of austerity, budget cuts can see rehabilitation programmes being the first to be reduced or cut, frequently leading to an overreliance on civil society or other groups supporting people in prison (see Impact of economic crisis on prisons). In Scotland concerns were raised towards the end of 2022 that rising energy bills and the cost of living have led to a major financial deficit and would affect the time people in prison spend outside their cells as well as their access to rehabilitation services.
The availability and quality of prison rehabilitation programmes can vary greatly within countries, and in some jurisdictions the concept of rehabilitation is limited and may involve little more than work programmes for people in prison.
Efforts to restore rehabilitation programmes in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic have been mixed, with some prison systems struggling to bring services back to the level they were operating at pre-pandemic. In the Philippines, some prisons have not yet restored the opportunity for children to visit their parents in prison, while in Belgium, access by external support groups to prisons post-pandemic was still limited by mid-2022 and the restrictions which remained in place continued to hamper rehabilitation efforts. Where programmes have been restored, the impact of disrupted services and lack of continuity continue to be reported across various contexts.
The availability and quality of prison rehabilitation programmes can vary greatly within countries, and in some jurisdictions the concept of rehabilitation is limited and may involve little more than work programmes for people in prison. These may have little value for long-term rehabilitation and are, in some instances, found to be abusive. In the US, according to a report by American Civil Liberties Union and the University of Chicago Law School’s Human Rights Clinic, ‘despite the potential for prison labor to facilitate rehabilitation, the existing system very often offers nothing beyond coercion and exploitation.’ The report evidences that the work done by people in the country’s prison produce more than USD $2 billion a year in goods and commodities and over $9 billion a year in services for the maintenance of the prisons. The desire to ensure a more rehabilitative approach to prison work is evident in Japan where revisions to the Penal Code include this objective and require work to be imposed based on individual circumstances.