Why case plans are essential in corrections

By Thomas Howland

The corrections system plays a critical role in balancing public safety with the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. As policymakers and corrections professionals grapple with the complexities of criminal justice reform, one tool stands out as a linchpin for success: the case plan. A thoughtfully designed case plan can help reduce recidivism, optimize resource allocation, and ensure that rehabilitation efforts are both effective and measurable. [1]

What is a case plan?

A case plan is a structured, individualized strategy designed to address the unique needs, risks and circumstances of an offender. It serves as a roadmap for corrections professionals, outlining specific interventions, goals and timelines to guide the rehabilitation process. These plans are dynamic documents, regularly updated to reflect progress or changing circumstances. [2-4]

For policymakers, case plans represent a key opportunity to make rehabilitation more effective. For corrections professionals, they provide a clear framework for intervention and oversight, ensuring that resources are used efficiently and effectively.

Why are case plans essential?

Individualized support for offenders

Every individual in the corrections system has a unique set of needs and challenges. Research has shown that tailored interventions based on individualized assessments lead to more effective rehabilitation outcomes. [1,4]

For example: An offender with substance abuse issues may be required to participate in a structured drug treatment program, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy or medication-assisted treatment. [5-7]

Someone lacking a high school diploma may be enrolled in educational programs to improve employability upon release. [8,9]

By prioritizing individualized support, case plans help corrections systems focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment alone.

Targeted risk reduction

Reducing the risk of reoffending is a primary goal of corrections. Case plans are built using risk assessment tools that identify criminogenic risks — factors that contribute to criminal behavior — such as antisocial attitudes, impulsivity, or negative peer associations. [1,10]

Targeted interventions, informed by evidence-based practices, can significantly reduce these risks. Studies have shown that cognitive-behavioral therapy and structured correctional programs effectively decrease recidivism by addressing criminogenic needs. [5, 11]

Structured goal setting and accountability

Case plans create clear, measurable goals that provide structure and accountability for offenders. By breaking the rehabilitation process into achievable milestones, offenders are more likely to stay engaged and motivated. Research indicates that goal-setting and structured progress tracking improve compliance and long-term behavioral change. [5,12]

Regular check-ins and progress monitoring ensure that offenders remain on track while also giving corrections professionals a way to measure success.

Enhanced coordination among stakeholders

Case plans bring together multiple stakeholders, including probation officers, case managers, treatment providers, community organizations, and offenders’ families. [13,14]

By providing a unified framework, case plans ensure that all parties work toward the same objectives. This coordination is critical for addressing complex issues, such as ensuring access to housing, employment, and mental health services upon release. [3,15]

Improved outcomes and cost efficiency

Research has consistently shown that individualized case plans lead to better outcomes, including lower recidivism rates and more successful reintegration into society. For policymakers, this translates to long-term cost savings. Reducing reoffending not only lowers the financial burden of incarceration but also contributes to safer communities. [11, 16, 17]

Challenges and solutions

While case plans offer immense benefits, they also come with challenges that must be addressed:

• Resource limitations: High caseloads and limited funding can hinder the ability of corrections professionals to create and monitor individualized plans effectively.
  
  • Solution: Increased funding and investments in staffing, training and technology. [17, 18]
• Consistency across systems: Disparities in implementation across different facilities or jurisdictions can undermine effectiveness.
  
  • Solution: Develop standardized guidelines and best practices. [2,3]
• Offender resistance: Some offenders may resist engaging in the case planning process.
  
  • Solution: Motivational interviewing and trauma-informed care approaches can enhance engagement. [13,19]

Future trends in case planning

Technology integration

Digital case management systems, predictive analytics, and AI-driven risk assessment models are improving case planning. Mobile applications and electronic monitoring tools are further supporting compliance and engagement (11,2).

Evidence-based practices

Programs incorporating cognitive-behavioral therapy, validated risk assessments, and structured reentry planning continue to enhance case plan effectiveness. [1,11]

Focus on equity and inclusion

Ensuring fair access to rehabilitation resources is vital for addressing disparities in the criminal justice system. Gender-responsive and culturally competent approaches can improve outcomes for diverse offender populations. [18,20]

Community partnerships

Collaboration with non-profits, local businesses, and reentry programs can provide essential resources for housing, employment, and mental health support. [8,13]

Conclusion

Case plans are essential instruments for rehabilitation, reducing recidivism, and fostering accountability. Investing in effective case planning is an investment in safer communities and a more equitable criminal justice system (1,3).

References

1. Andrews DA, Bonta J. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Routledge; 2010.
2. National Institute of Justice. The Use of Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System; 2019.
3. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Advancing Practices in Correctional Case Management; 2020.
4. Bonta J, Wormith JS. Applying the Risk-Need-Responsivity principles to offender assessment. Crime Delinq. 2013;59(1):7-35. doi:10.1177/0011128712444121
5. Taxman FS. Assessment with a flair: Offender accountability in supervision plans. Fed Probation. 2006;70(2):3-12.
6. Bonta J, Andrews DA. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Routledge; 2017.
7. Chandler RK, Fletcher BW, Volkow ND. Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system. JAMA. 2009;301(2):183-190. doi:10.1001/jama.2008.976
8. Reentry and Employment Project. Strategies for Successful Workforce Reintegration; 2021.
9. Davis LM, Bozick R, Steele JL, Saunders J, Miles J. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education. RAND Corporation; 2013.
10. Lowenkamp CT, Latessa EJ, Holsinger AM. The risk principle in action. Crim Justice Behav. 2006;33(4):455-475. doi:10.1177/0093854806286449
11. Latessa EJ, Lowenkamp CT. What works in reducing recidivism? Univ St Thomas Law J. 2006;3(3):521-535.
12. Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. Am Psychol. 2002;57(9):705-717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
13. Miller JM, Maloney C. Practitioner compliance with evidence-based practices. Justice Res Policy. 2013;15(1):43-62. doi:10.3818/JRP.15.1.2013.43
14. Hamilton Z. Do reentry courts reduce recidivism? Justice Q. 2010;27(2):275-303. doi:10.1080/07418820902873860
15. Taxman FS, Shepardson ES, Byrne JM. Tools of the Trade: A Guide to Incorporating Science into Practice. National Institute of Corrections; 2004.
16. Aos S, Miller M, Drake E. Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2006.
17. Urban Institute. Understanding the Costs and Benefits of Criminal Justice Interventions; 2018.
18. Pew Charitable Trusts. Public Safety Performance Project: Reducing Recidivism Through State Policy; 2018.
19. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Trauma-Informed Approach and Criminal Justice Reform; 2021.
20. Alexander M. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press; 2010.

About the author

Thomas Howland has been a Correctional Care and Treatment Worker at the Maine State Prison for the past nine years. Before coming to the prison, he was a corrections officer at the Knox County Jail in Rockland, Maine for eight years. He received a bachelor’s degree in Administration of Justice from the University of Maine at Augusta in 2009 and a master’s degree in Justice Studies with a graduate certificate in Homeland Security and Terrorism Studies. In 2022 he received his Mental Health and Rehabilitation Tech/Community (MHRT/C) certification from the Center for Learning (CFL) at the Muskie School of Public Service. Since 2019 he has been an adjunct instructor in the Justice Studies program at the University of Maine at Augusta.