The efficacy of rehabilitation centers and programs is highly debated by scholars, policymakers, and implementers. Usually, rehabilitation seeks to help individuals fight addiction or other unacceptable behavior in society. It involves the use of recreation, work, and education to transform people of all ages, making them independent of their social burdens. For a long time, it was believed that rehabilitation could not solve problems, especially in the case of jailed criminals. Rehabilitation accommodates diverse groups of people who seek to recover from major social and behavioral setbacks (Shearer & King, 2004). The majority of rehabilitation clients are sentenced for various offenses, including drug abuse and felony, which are considered serious crimes around the world.
The probation practicing officers sought convicted criminals who could be reintegrated. The search for such individuals was driven by positivism in the correctional sector. According to correction officers, the origin of crime is identified through scientific approaches (Shearer & King, 2004). Scholars observed that punishment does not help in improving the behavior and conduct of convicted offenders, and hence, the adopted interventions should be based on the nature of the crime committed (Shearer & King, 2004). The efficacy of correctional facilities remains questionable as long as they do not pay attention to the causes of crimes.
In the early stages of rehabilitation, there was a general disagreement on the effectiveness of the process, with most stakeholders arguing that nothing worked. However, scholars proposed the implementation of techniques based on what is possible to improve the output of the rehabilitation centers better. The reduction of recidivism is more pronounced when appropriate interventions are implemented at the community level and not inside prisons (Shearer & King, 2004). Change can be easily implemented in correctional facilities due to their well-described goals and ethical standards. Culture is a major stoppage in implementing rehabilitation programs due to its complexity in tools, customs, skills, beliefs, ideas, and areas of birth. The probation officers should exhibit competence in a nonjudgmental outlook, sincerity, energy to serve, and massive knowledge of the client’s culture.
Probation policies, services, and frameworks are generally designed to fit people from different cultures, which makes it an extremely challenging practice. To improve probation concerning multiculturalism, alternatives to arrest, supervision, and incarceration should be formulated and enacted. This is instigated by the ineffective nature of the supervisory nature of probation services on individuals who are not likely to repeat their offenses. Shearer and King (2004) argue that supervision could increase the risk of such individuals returning to offenses. Also, policymakers and correctional facilities should pay attention to incentives and goals alongside short supervision sentences depending on the nature of the offense committed by the client. Such factors have a direct influence on the populations in probation centers. Shearer and King (2004) note that long-term supervision programs do not benefit society or individuals. The incentive programs should be based on the rate of positive change in the clients.
Reference
Shearer, R. A., & King, P. A. (2004). Multicultural competencies in probation-Issues and challenges. Fed. Probation, 68, 3. Web.