Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do religious programs in prison work? A quasi-experimental evaluation in the Israeli prison service

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Despite the prevalence of religious-oriented rehabilitation programs, few studies have assessed the effects of these programs on recidivism. Prior studies have generally focused on Christian-based programs in the USA and also suffer from a range of methodological problems, making it difficult to draw sound conclusions. The current study evaluates the effects of two Jewish-based programs in Israel.

Methodology

Using data provided by the Israeli Prison Services, propensity score matching was used to examine the effects of two religious-oriented rehabilitation programs on recidivism. A sub-sample of prisoners who progressed from the less intensive to the more intensive program was used as a proxy for examining the role of motivation and commitment.

Findings

Compared to non-participants, only those who participated in both programs had a significantly lower risk of recidivism. This sub-sample also had significantly lower recidivism than those who participated in only the less intensive of the two programs. Comparing participants of the two programs, those from the more intensive program had significantly more positive recidivism outcomes than those from the less intensive program.

Conclusions

The theoretical foundations of religious-oriented programs are that causing changes in levels of religiosity can lead to less recidivism. While prior studies have had difficulties in assessing the motivation to change of program participants, our findings provide evidence to support these theoretical underpinnings. That is, when religious-oriented programs succeed in engendering legitimate changes in levels of religiosity, they can have a positive effect on reducing recidivism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Jews represent about 80% of the Israeli population and about 60% of the prison population. There are also religiously designed programs for Muslim, Christian, and Druze prisoners, though these are not the focus of our study.

  2. According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2010, 8% of Jews identified as Ultra-Orthodox, 12% as nationalist-religious, 13% as religious-traditionalists, and 25% as non-religious traditionalists. With regard to the Ultra-orthodox however, high birth rates have seen their numbers increase to approximately 12% as of 2017. Whilst “traditional” Jews in Israel are often compared to “Conservative” Jews in North America, they are actually quite different. Traditional Jews in Israel often come from families with a Mizrachi background and may be more religious that Conservative Jews in North America.

  3. We have obtained much of this information from meetings and consultations with the IPS and with the Rabbinic staff in charge of the programs as part of a multi-year project being carried out in partnership with the IPS in which we have evaluated multiple rehabilitation programs (Hasisi et al. 2018).

  4. At present, there is a total of three active teaching assistants: two in Rimonim prison, and one in Maasiyahu prison. According to position requirements, they must be replaced every two years.

  5. This job is only available on the Torah wings (TRP), not in the Torah Study Program (TSP).

  6. As noted in the above program description the TSP only commenced in 2006.

  7. In analysis 1 we removed all participants who participated in the TRP only. In analysis 2 we removed all participants who participated in the TSP only. In analysis 3 we removed all participants who participated in only the TSP or only the TRP. In analysis 4 we removed the sub-sample of participants who participated in both programs. In analysis 5 we removed participants who participated only in the TRP. In analysis 6 we removed participants who participated only in the TSP.

  8. Gender was not included as all participants were male.

  9. For all analyses incarceration length was calculated by month with the exception of analysis four in which the TSP and TRP were compared. In this analysis, due to significant differences between the groups, the sample was divided into categories of short (approx.0–5 months), medium (approx. 5–10 months), long (approx..10–19 months), and very long (19+ months) incarceration lengths based on an aggregation of days incarcerated.

  10. We used two proxy measures for risk level, 1) A violent offender listing according to the assessment of the courts, 2) A violent offender listing according to the assessment of the Israel Prison Service. The first measure is generally based on an offender’s behavior pertaining the offense itself, or their in-court behavior, whereas the second measure generally reflects their behavior following incarceration as assessed by the IPS.

  11. The file used in the present study did not contain recidivism data from the advanced years of monitoring among prisoners released in the advanced years, because it did not cover this period of time. Thus, each year, the only prisoners monitored were those about whom we had recidivism data, and so, in effect, the groups of prisoners did get smaller over the years. Under these circumstances, with each year of monitoring reflecting the recidivism measured among a different group, a decline in recidivism may be seen as time went by. The reduction in number of participants in both study and comparison groups throughout the monitoring period also affects the statistical power, and the ability to achieve statistical significance during the advanced monitoring years.

  12. As a robustness check, we conducted additional analyses where we coded the TSP as the treatment and the TRP as the comparison group. Since the results were nearly identical, we maintained the current approach, which following prior researches, compares the more intense program (TRP) with the less intense version (TSP).

References

  • Aakvik, A. (2001). Bounding a Matching Estimator: The Case of a Norwegian Training Program. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63(1), 115–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akers, R. L., Lane, J., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (2008). Faith-based mentoring and restorative justice: Overlapping theoretical, empirical, and philosophical background. In H. V. Miller (Ed.), Restorative justice: From theory to practice (pp. 139–165). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Baker, J. O., & Booth, A. L. (2016). Hell to pay: Religion and punitive ideology among the American public. Punishment & Society, 18(2), 151–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, K., & Wolk, D. (2011). Recidivism of criminal prisoners released in 2004 in Israel. A Window to Prison, 14, 10–28 [Hebrew].

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhutta, M. H., Wormith, J. S., & Zidenberg, A. M. (2019). Assessing the Relationship Between Religiosity and Recidivism Among Adult Probationers in Pakistan. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(5), 752–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boruch, R. (2007). The null hypothesis is not called that for nothing: statistical tests in randomized trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2005). Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1588. The Institute for the Study of Labor. Bonn.

  • Camp, S. D., Klein-Saffran, J., Kwon, O. K., Daggett, D. M., & Joseph, V. (2006). An exploration into participation in a faith-based prison program. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(3), 529–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, K. D., Cabage, L. N., & Klenowski, P. M. (2011). An evidence-based assessment of faith-based programs: Do faith-based programs “work” to reduce recidivism? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(6), 367–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duwe, G., & Johnson, B. R. (2013). Estimating the benefits of a faith-based correctional program. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2, 227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duwe, G., & King, M. (2013). Can faith-based correctional programs work? An outcome evaluation of the InnerChange freedom initiative in Minnesota. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(7), 813–841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P., Ditchfield, J., Hancock, G., Howard, P., Jolliffe, D., Livingston, M. S., & Painter, K. A. (2002). Evaluation of two intensive regimes for young offenders. (Home Office Research Study No. 239. London: Home Office.). Research Development, and Statistics Directorate.

  • Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., Schroeder, R. D., & Seffrin, P. M. (2008). A life- course perspective on spirituality and desistance from crime. Criminology, 46(1), 99–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. A., Ackerman, A., & Haley, M. (2017). ‘Losing my religion: ‘an exploration of religion and spirituality in men who claim to have desisted from sexual offending. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(2), 101–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasisi, B., Weisburd, D., Shoham, E., Haviv, N., Toren, Y. & Kovalsky, S. (2018). Evaluation of Religious Programs. Correctional Programs in the Israel Prison Service: A National Evaluation. Israeli Prison Service Research Unit. (Hebrew).

  • Hercik, J. (2004). Rediscovering compassion: An evaluation of Kairos Horizon communities in prison. Fairfax: Caliber Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, C. B. (1976). An evaluation of the Teen Challenge treatment program. Washington , DC: Service Research Report, National Institute on Drug Abuse, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: Univerisity of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, T., & Stark, R. (1969). Hellfire and delinquency. Social Problems, 17, 202–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2001). Neighborhood disorder, individual religiosity, and adolescent use of illicit drugs: A test of multilevel hypotheses. Criminology, 39, 109–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang, S. J., Johnson, B. R., Hays, J., Hallett, M., & Duwe, G. (2017). Religion and misconduct in “Angola” prison: Conversion, congregational participation, religiosity, and self-identities. Justice Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1309057.

  • Jang, S. J., Johnson, B. R., Hays, J., Duwe, G., & Hallett, M. (2018). Images of God, religious involvement, and prison misconduct among inmates. Corrections, 3(4), 288–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. R. (2002). Assessing the impact of religious programs and prison industry on recidivism: An exploratory study. Texas Journal of Corrections, 28, 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. R. (2004). Religious programs and recidivism among former inmates in prison fellowship programs: A long-term follow-up study. Justice Quarterly, 21(2), 329–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. R., & Jang, S. J. (2011). Crime and religion: Assessing the role of the faith factor. In R. Rosenfeld, K. Quinet, & C. Garcia (Eds.), Contemporary issues i criminological theory and research: The role of social institutions (pp. 117–149). Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. R., & Larson, D. B. (2003). The InnerChange Freedom Initiative: A preliminary evaluation of a faith-based prison program. Philadelphia: Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. R., Larson, D. B., & Pitts, T. C. (1997). Religious programs, institutional adjustment, and recidivism among former inmates in prison fellowship programs. Justice Quarterly, 14(1), 145–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, K. L. (2012). Juvenile transfer and recidivism: A propensity score matching approach. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(1), 53–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, P. E., Polanin, J. R., Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2015). Religion, delinquency, and drug use: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 40, 505–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerley, K. R., & Copes, H. (2009). “Keepin' my mind right”: Identity maintenance and religious social support in the prison context. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(2), 228–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaVigne, N.G., Brazzell, D. & Small, K. (2007). Evaluation of Florida’s faith and character based institutions. Research report, The Urban Institute.

  • Loughran, T. A., Wilson, T., Nagin, D. S., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Evolutionary regression? Assessing the problem of hidden biases in criminal justice applications using propensity scores. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(4), 631–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovins, B., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Applying the risk principle to sex offenders: Can treatment make some sex offenders worse? The Prison Journal, 89(3), 344–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, M., & LoBuglio, S. (2006). "Whys" and" hows" of measuring jail recidivism. Jail Reentry Roundtable, Urban Institute.

  • Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22(4), 719–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: APA Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S. (2010). Understanding desistance from crime. Rehabilitation Services Group. London: Ministry of Justice.

  • Maruna, S., Wilson, L., & Curran, K. (2006). Why god is often found behind bars: Prison conversions and the crisis of self-narrative. Research in Human Development, 3, 161–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J., Bilby, C. A., Hatcher, R. M., Hollin, C. R., Hounsome, J., & Palmer, E. J. (2008). Evaluation of structured cognitive–behavioural treatment programmes in reducing criminal recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4(1), 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P. (2007). Faith-based reentry programs: Cause for concern or showing promise? Corrections Today, 69(2), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., Roman, C. G., Wolff, A., & Buck, J. (2006). Faith-based efforts to improve prisoner reentry: Assessing the logic and evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 351–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morag, M., & Teman, E. (2018). The “Watchful Eye of God”: The Role of Religion in the Rehabilitation and Reentry of Repentant Jewish Prisoners. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 62(7), 2103–2126.

  • O’Connor, T. P., & Duncan, J. (2011). The sociology of humanist, spiritual and religious practice in prison: Supporting responsivity and desistance from crime. Religions, 2, 590–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, T. P., Erickson, V., Ryan, P., & Parikh, C. (1997). Theology and community corrections in a prison setting. Community Corrections Report on Law and Corrections Practice, 4(5), 67–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, T., Ryan, P., & Parikh, C. (1998). A model program for churches and ex-offender reintegration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 28(1–2), 107–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, M. L., Messina, N. P., Hall, E. A., & Warda, U. S. (2011). The relative effectiveness of women-only and mixed-gender treatment for substance-abusing women. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 40(4), 336–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, M. R., & Stacer, M. J. (2016). In their own words: Offenders’ perspectives on their participation in a faith-based diversion and reentry program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55, 466–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronel, N., & Ben Yair, Y. (2018). Spiritual criminology: The case of Jewish criminology. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 62(7), 2081–2102.

  • Rose, G. (2001). Kainos Community and reconviction rates. In Jonathan Burnside et al. (eds.), Kainos Community in the prisons, Home Office, HM Prison Service England & Wales & Kainos Community.

  • Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational Studies (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, D. P., Lawrence, D. S., Hartnett, S. M., McDevitt, J., & Posick, C. (2015). Measuring procedural justice and legitimacy at the local level: the police–community interaction survey. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 335–366.

  • Scaggs, S., Bales, W. D., Clark, C., Ensley, D., Coltharp, P., & Blomberg, T. G. (2016). An assessment of substance abuse treatment programs in Florida’s prisons using a random assignment experimental design. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs US Department of Justice. Florida, US: The Florida Department of Corrections and Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

  • Schaefer, L., Sams, T., & Lux, J. (2016). Saved, salvaged, or sunk: A meta-analysis of the effects of faith-based interventions on inmate adjustment. The Prison Journal, 96(4), 600–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, S., Erasmi, S., Priess, J. A., & Zeller, M. (2009). Do National Parks reduce deforestation? The effectiveness of the Lore-Lindu National Park in Indonesia. STORMA Discussion Paper Series, Sub-program A on Social and Economic Dynamics in Rain Forest Margins, Göttingen and Bogor.

  • Shadish, W. R. (2013). Propensity score analysis: promise, reality and irrational exuberance. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(2), 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for general causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stansfield, R. (2017). Drawing on religion in the desistance process: paying attention to race and ethnicity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(7), 927–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stansfield, R. (2018). Religion and desistance from substance use among adolescent offenders: The role of cognitive functioning. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 28(4), 350–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stansfield, R., Mowen, T. J., & O’Connor, T. (2018). Religious and spiritual support, reentry, and risk. Justice Quarterly, 35(2), 254-279.

  • Stansfield, R., O’Connor, T., Duncan, J., & Hall, S. (2019). Comparing recidivism of sexual and nonsexual offenders: the role of humanist, spiritual, and religious involvement. Sexual Abuse 1079063219843903.

  • Stark, R. (1996). Religion as context: Hellfire and delinquency one more time. Sociology of Religion, 57(2), 163–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, R., Kent, L., & Doyle, D. P. (1982). Religion and delinquency: The ecology of a" lost" relationship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19(1), 4–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturgis, P. W., & Baller, R. D. (2012). Religiosity and deviance: An examination of the moral community and antiasceticism hypotheses among US adults. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51(4), 809–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, M. L. (2004). Youth Perspectives on the Experience of Reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 56–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, R. D. (1994). Teen challenge of Chattanooga, Tennessee: Survey of alumni. Springfield: Teen Challenge National.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, J. (2012). Religion as a unique cultural influence on crime and delinquency: Expanding on Jang and Johnson’s agenda. In R. Rosenfeld, K. Quinet, & C. Garcia (Eds.), Contemporary issues in criminological theory and research: The role of social institutions (pp. 163–169). San Francisco: Papers from the American Society of Criminology 2010 Conference.

  • Volokh, A. (2011). Do faith-based prisons work? Alabama Law Review, 63(1), 43–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D. (2010). Justifying the Use of Non-Experimental Methods and Disqualifying the Use of Randomized Controlled Trials: Challenging Folklore in Evaluation Research in Crime and Justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 209–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D., Hasisi, B., Shoham, E., Aviv, G., & Haviv, N. (2017). Reinforcing the impacts of work release on prisoner recidivism: the importance of integrative interventions. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(2), 241–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willison, J. B., Brazzell, D., & Kim, K. (2011). Faith-based corrections and reentry programs: Advancing a conceptual framework for research and evaluation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B. (2016). Correctional programs. In D. Weisburd, D. P. Farrington, & C. Gill (Eds.), What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation: Lessons from systematic reviews (pp. 193–218). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winship, C., & Berrien, J. (1999). Boston cops and Black churches. The Public Interest, 136, 52–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. C., Gartner, J., O'Connor, T., Larson, D., & Wright, K. (1995). Long-term recidivism among federal inmates trained as volunteer prison ministers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22(1), 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dror Walk, Tomer Carmel and Katerine Ben Zvi, from the Research Unit at the IPS for their help in creating data and developing the study more generally.

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the Israel Prison Service to the Institute of Criminology, The Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

    Noam Haviv, David Weisburd, Badi Hasisi & Michael Wolfowicz

  2. Ashkelon Academic College, Ashkelon, Israel

    Noam Haviv & Efrat Shoham

  3. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    David Weisburd

Authors
  1. Noam Haviv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Weisburd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Badi Hasisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Efrat Shoham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Wolfowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noam Haviv.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haviv, N., Weisburd, D., Hasisi, B. et al. Do religious programs in prison work? A quasi-experimental evaluation in the Israeli prison service. J Exp Criminol 16, 505–533 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09375-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09375-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation