The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
01
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
1-6
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
03 January 2025
ACCEPTED
02 February 2025
PUBLISHED
01 March 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue03 2025
CITATION
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Evaluating the effects of
reward systems on prison
behavior: a systematic
review
Johnathan S. Mitchell
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Riverside, USA
Amira K. Hassan
Faculty of Law, Cairo University, Egypt
Abstract:
The use of reward systems in prisons has been
widely adopted as a mechanism for managing inmate
behavior and promoting rehabilitation. This systematic
review aims to examine the effects of reward systems
on inmate behavior, prison management, and
rehabilitation outcomes. A comprehensive search of
academic databases was conducted, and studies
meeting inclusion criteria were analyzed for quality and
relevance. Results indicate that reward systems can
have positive effects on promoting desirable behaviors,
such as compliance with rules, participation in
rehabilitative programs, and reduced recidivism.
However, the effectiveness of reward systems is
influenced by factors such as the type of reward,
consistency of implementation, and the relationship
between rewards and long-term behavior change. The
review concludes that while reward systems can be a
useful tool in prison management, their success
depends on proper implementation and alignment with
broader rehabilitation goals.
Keywords:
Reward Systems, Prison Behavior, Inmate
Rehabilitation, Behavioral Modification, Incentive
Programs,
Correctional
Psychology,
Prison
Management, Positive Reinforcement.
Introduction:
The concept of using reward systems in
prisons has been rooted in behavioral psychology,
particularly in the theories of reinforcement, which
suggest that positive behaviors can be encouraged and
maintained through the application of rewards. Over
time, these systems have been integrated into
correctional institutions as a method of managing
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
2
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
inmate
behavior,
promoting
participation
in
rehabilitative programs, and facilitating the broader
goal of reducing recidivism. Prisons, by nature, are
environments that present unique challenges in terms
of discipline, rehabilitation, and inmate management.
Traditional methods of prison management often
focus on punishment or control through surveillance,
yet research increasingly suggests that fostering
positive inmate behaviors through rewards can be just
as, if not more, effective.
The effectiveness of reward systems, however,
remains an ongoing debate in correctional research.
While there is evidence that reward systems can
motivate behavior change, the long-term effects,
particularly in terms of reducing recidivism (the
tendency of convicted criminals to reoffend), are less
clear. Inmate behavior in correctional facilities can be
influenced by a wide range of factors
—
personal
histories,
socioeconomic
background,
previous
criminal behavior, institutional environment, and
available rehabilitative programs. Reward systems are
often designed to encourage compliance with
institutional rules, participation in educational or
vocational programs, and engagement in rehabilitative
treatments. They generally offer a variety of
incentives, such as material goods, privilege access, or
reductions in sentence time, in exchange for good
behavior.
However, the type of rewards, the way they are
implemented, and the consistency with which they are
applied can vary widely. Some reward systems focus
on tangible rewards such as goods or money, while
others may offer intangible rewards, such as increased
privileges or status within the institution. The diversity
in reward structures and their application raises
important questions about which systems are most
effective and how they interact with other aspects of
prison life, including inmate relationships, institutional
culture, and the broader rehabilitation goals of the
correctional system.
Despite the implementation of reward systems in
many correctional facilities, research into their
outcomes has been inconsistent. Some studies have
suggested that reward systems can improve
compliance with rules and increase participation in
rehabilitation programs, while others report little or no
effect on long-term behavior. Factors such as how well
rewards are integrated into rehabilitation programs,
the training and consistency of prison staff in applying
reward systems, and the potential unintended
consequences of such systems (e.g., creating
competition or resentment among inmates) all
influence the success of reward-based strategies.
This systematic review seeks to synthesize the available
evidence on the effects of reward systems in prison
settings. It aims to clarify how different types of rewards
impact inmate behavior and rehabilitation, with
particular attention paid to the potential role of reward
systems in reducing recidivism. Furthermore, this
review explores the variables that contribute to the
success or failure of reward systems and examines how
these systems interact with broader correctional
policies, such as rehabilitation-focused programming
and inmate mental health care.
Given the importance of reducing recidivism and
improving the rehabilitation outcomes of incarcerated
individuals, understanding the potential of reward
systems as part of a larger prison management strategy
is crucial. This review will analyze empirical studies,
assess the effectiveness of various reward strategies,
and explore the mechanisms that underlie successful
programs. It will also provide a comprehensive
evaluation of the factors that influence the success or
failure of reward-based interventions, offering insights
into how such systems can be optimized for maximum
effectiveness in prisons.
Prison systems worldwide aim to rehabilitate offenders
and reduce recidivism, but this goal is complicated by
challenges related to managing inmate behavior,
improving institutional security, and ensuring the
effectiveness of rehabilitation programs. One strategy
that has gained prominence is the use of reward
systems. These systems are designed to encourage
positive behavior by offering inmates incentives for
compliance with prison rules, participation in
educational or vocational programs, and other
rehabilitative activities. Reward systems are often based
on principles of behavioral psychology, which suggest
that rewarding desired behavior increases the likelihood
of that behavior being repeated.
Despite the widespread implementation of reward
systems in correctional settings, the evidence regarding
their effectiveness remains mixed. Some studies suggest
that well-structured reward systems can lead to
improved inmate behavior and reduced recidivism,
while others report limited or no positive effects. The
aim of this systematic review is to synthesize existing
research on the impact of reward systems in prisons,
focusing on the outcomes they produce in terms of
behavior modification, rehabilitation, and recidivism
reduction.
By reviewing and analyzing studies across a range of
jurisdictions and prison settings, this article seeks to
provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors
that contribute to the success or failure of reward
systems in prisons. This review will also identify gaps in
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
3
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
the current literature and suggest areas for future
research.
METHODS
Literature Search
A systematic search of academic literature was
conducted across the following databases: PubMed,
Scopus, JSTOR, and Google Scholar. The search
included studies published between 2000 and 2024.
The search terms used were "reward systems in
prisons,"
"prison
behavior
management,"
"reinforcement
in
corrections,"
"behavioral
incentives," and "recidivism reduction through
rewards."
Inclusion Criteria
Studies were included in the review if they met the
following criteria:
1.
The study was conducted in a prison or
correctional facility setting.
2.
The study focused on reward systems or
reinforcement strategies used to influence inmate
behavior.
3.
The study measured outcomes related to
inmate behavior, rehabilitation, or recidivism.
4.
The study employed empirical methods,
including
experimental,
quasi-experimental,
or
observational designs.
5.
The study was published in English.
Exclusion Criteria
Studies were excluded if:
1.
The study did not focus on reward systems.
2.
The study was conducted outside a
correctional setting.
3.
The study did not report empirical data or
outcomes related to the effects of reward systems.
Data Extraction and Analysis
Data from the included studies were extracted using a
standardized form. Key variables extracted included
the type of reward system, the behavior being
targeted, the specific outcomes measured (e.g.,
compliance with rules, participation in rehabilitative
programs, recidivism), the duration of the reward
system's implementation, and the study design.
The quality of the studies was assessed using the
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for
systematic reviews. Studies were then grouped based
on the type of reward system used (e.g., tangible
rewards, privilege-based rewards, token economies)
and the outcomes measured. A narrative synthesis of
the results was conducted to identify trends,
similarities, and differences across the studies.
RESULTS
Overview of Included Studies
A total of 20 studies met the inclusion criteria for this
review. These studies were conducted in various
countries, including the United States, the United
Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. The sample sizes
ranged from small groups of 30 inmates to large-scale
studies involving over 1,000 participants. The studies
utilized a range of methodologies, including randomized
controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental designs, and
observational studies.
Types of Reward Systems
Reward systems used in the studies were categorized
into three main types:
1.
Tangible Rewards: These included material
items such as money, food, or goods. Some studies also
offered incentives like extra visits, phone calls, or access
to entertainment as rewards for good behavior.
2.
Privilege-Based Rewards: These rewards
involved the granting of additional freedoms or
privileges, such as extended recreation time, less
restrictive security levels, or the ability to participate in
more desirable activities.
3.
Token Economies: In these systems, inmates
earned tokens or points that could be exchanged for
various rewards. These systems were the most common
and included a structured system for earning and
redeeming points.
Behavior Modification and Rehabilitation Outcomes
Across the studies, several outcomes were examined,
with the most common being behavior modification
(compliance with prison rules and participation in
rehabilitative programs) and recidivism.
•
Behavior Modification: Many studies reported
that reward systems were effective at promoting
positive behavior, including increased compliance with
prison rules, reduced disciplinary infractions, and higher
participation rates in educational or vocational
programs. In particular, token economies were found to
be effective in reinforcing positive behaviors over time.
•
Rehabilitation Participation: Several studies
indicated that reward systems had a positive effect on
inmate engagement in rehabilitation programs. For
example, inmates who received rewards for attending
educational classes or completing vocational training
were more likely to participate regularly and show
improved outcomes in terms of skills development.
•
Recidivism Reduction: The effect of reward
systems on recidivism was less consistent. Some studies
reported a reduction in reoffending rates among
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
4
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
inmates who participated in reward-based programs,
while others found no significant difference between
reward and non-reward groups. The variation in results
appeared to be influenced by the duration of the
reward system, the consistency of its application, and
the alignment of the rewards with long-term
rehabilitative goals.
Factors Influencing Effectiveness
Several factors were identified as influencing the
success of reward systems:
1.
Consistency: Reward systems that were
consistently applied and well-monitored were found to
be more effective in promoting lasting behavior
change.
2.
Type of Reward: The type of reward offered
also played a significant role. Tangible rewards were
often found to be less effective in the long term,
whereas
privilege-based
rewards
and
token
economies were more successful at reinforcing
behavior.
3.
Alignment with Rehabilitation Goals: Reward
systems that were integrated with broader
rehabilitative efforts, such as substance abuse
treatment or educational programs, had more positive
outcomes than those focused solely on behavior
modification.
DISCUSSION
The review of studies on reward systems in prisons
provides valuable insights into the ways in which these
systems influence inmate behavior, rehabilitation
outcomes, and the broader goals of reducing
recidivism. While the use of rewards is a common
practice in many correctional institutions, the
outcomes and effectiveness of these systems are
complex and dependent on various factors, including
the type of reward, consistency in implementation,
and alignment with rehabilitation objectives. This
discussion delves deeper into the findings from the
studies reviewed, exploring the potential benefits and
limitations of reward systems, and addressing the
broader implications for prison management and
rehabilitation.
Impact of Reward Systems on Inmate Behavior
One of the most consistent findings across the studies
was that reward systems can have a positive effect on
inmate behavior, especially in terms of promoting
compliance with prison rules. Several studies reported
that inmates who were part of reward-based programs
showed improved adherence to institutional rules,
fewer disciplinary infractions, and an increased
willingness to participate in rehabilitative programs.
This suggests that the introduction of rewards can
create a positive feedback loop where inmates are
motivated to engage in behaviors that are both
beneficial for their rehabilitation and conducive to
maintaining order within the institution.
The key to the success of these reward systems appears
to lie in the principle of reinforcement. According to
behavioral psychology, reinforcing positive behaviors
with rewards can increase the likelihood that these
behaviors will be repeated. In a prison setting, this can
translate into inmates following rules, engaging with
correctional programs, and avoiding activities that
disrupt the institution, such as violence, drug use, or
other criminal activities. In particular, token economies
(a type of reward system where inmates earn tokens for
good behavior, which can later be exchanged for
privileges or goods) have been found to be particularly
effective in reinforcing positive behaviors. By providing
immediate, tangible rewards for good behavior, token
economies offer clear and structured incentives that
align with institutional goals of behavior modification.
However, the research also highlighted that the
effectiveness of reward systems can be diminished if the
rewards are not meaningful to the inmates. For
instance, rewards that are perceived as insignificant or
irrelevant may fail to motivate inmates to change their
behavior. The success of a reward system depends on
the perceived value of the rewards and whether they
align with the needs and desires of the inmates. This
underscores the importance of tailoring reward systems
to the specific characteristics of the prison population,
ensuring that the rewards are seen as desirable and
achievable.
Reward Systems and Rehabilitation Participation
Another important finding of the review is that reward
systems can play a crucial role in encouraging
participation in rehabilitative programs. Many prisons
offer educational, vocational, and therapeutic programs
aimed at addressing the underlying causes of criminal
behavior and preparing inmates for successful
reintegration into society. The studies included in this
review consistently showed that reward systems
—
particularly those that offered privileges or reductions
in sentence time
—
helped increase inmate engagement
in these programs.
In some cases, reward systems were linked to higher
levels of participation in rehabilitation programs such as
drug treatment, anger management, and vocational
training. This is a crucial outcome, as participation in
such programs has been shown to reduce the likelihood
of reoffending. Moreover, by providing rewards for
participation, correctional institutions are effectively
incentivizing inmates to engage in activities that are not
only beneficial to them but also contribute to their long-
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
5
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
term rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
However, it is also important to note that the mere
participation in rehabilitation programs is not always a
sufficient indicator of success. For a reward system to
truly contribute to rehabilitation, it must go beyond
simply increasing participation and focus on promoting
meaningful behavioral and cognitive changes in
inmates. Some studies revealed that while inmates
may participate in programs to earn rewards, the
intrinsic motivation to change may not always be
fostered. This raises the question of whether rewards
can be sustained in a way that leads to lasting
behavioral change after the rewards are removed.
Long-term follow-up studies are needed to explore
whether the initial improvements in behavior and
program participation lead to sustained reductions in
recidivism after release.
Challenges in Reducing Recidivism through Reward
Systems
While reward systems have demonstrated success in
promoting desirable behaviors and encouraging
program participation, their effectiveness in reducing
recidivism remains a contentious issue. Some studies
indicated that reward systems, when properly
designed and consistently applied, can lead to lower
recidivism rates. For example, inmates who were part
of well-structured reward systems that incorporated
rehabilitation programs, education, and vocational
training were found to have lower rates of reoffending.
However, other studies suggested that reward
systems, on their own, are insufficient to address the
underlying causes of criminal behavior that contribute
to recidivism. Recidivism is a multifaceted issue
influenced by a range of social, psychological, and
environmental factors. While rewards can help
manage inmate behavior in the short term, they may
not necessarily address deeper issues such as
substance abuse, lack of education, mental health
problems, or socio-economic disadvantages that drive
criminal behavior. In other words, rewards alone
cannot provide the comprehensive rehabilitation that
is needed to prevent reoffending after release.
The interaction between reward systems and other
rehabilitative strategies is essential in addressing
recidivism. This suggests that reward systems should
be integrated into a broader, holistic approach to
rehabilitation that includes psychological support,
educational and vocational training, and community
reintegration efforts. Reward systems must be viewed
as one component of a larger rehabilitative framework,
rather than a standalone solution. Furthermore, there
should be an emphasis on helping inmates internalize
positive behaviors and skills that will continue to
benefit them once they are released back into society.
The Role of Consistency and Fairness in Reward Systems
A critical factor that emerged from the studies was the
importance of consistency in the implementation of
reward systems. Inmates are more likely to respond
positively to reward systems when they perceive the
system as fair and predictable. Inconsistent application
of rewards
—
such as giving rewards to some inmates but
not others, or offering rewards for behaviors that are
not clearly defined
—
can undermine the effectiveness of
the system and lead to resentment among inmates. It is
also important for correctional officers and staff to be
properly trained in the application of reward systems,
ensuring that rewards are distributed based on clear
and consistent criteria.
The perception of fairness extends beyond the
administration of rewards. Inmates may be more likely
to engage with reward systems if they believe that they
are being treated with respect and that their efforts are
being recognized. Studies have shown that when
inmates feel that they are being treated fairly and that
their positive behaviors are being acknowledged, they
are more likely to comply with institutional rules and
participate in rehabilitative activities.
On the other hand, the introduction of rewards that are
perceived as inequitable or as part of a system of
favoritism can lead to tensions and a breakdown in trust
between inmates and staff. This highlights the need for
careful planning and communication in the design and
implementation of reward systems to ensure that they
are seen as fair and effective.
Implications for Future Research and Policy
The findings of this review underscore the need for
further research on the long-term effects of reward
systems on recidivism and the factors that contribute to
their success. While there is evidence supporting the
use of rewards to influence inmate behavior in the short
term, the sustainability of these effects remains unclear.
Future studies should focus on long-term follow-ups to
determine whether the positive behaviors fostered by
reward systems persist after inmates are released.
Additionally, more research is needed to explore how
reward systems interact with other rehabilitative
efforts, such as mental health treatment, substance
abuse programs, and educational opportunities.
Understanding the synergy between reward-based
interventions and these other programs will help create
more effective and comprehensive rehabilitation
strategies. Researchers should also investigate the
potential unintended consequences of reward systems,
such as the creation of competition or resentment
among inmates, and how these effects can be mitigated.
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
6
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
The systematic review of reward systems in prisons
reveals that they can be an effective tool for
encouraging positive inmate behavior, enhancing
participation
in
rehabilitation
programs,
and
promoting institutional order. However, their
effectiveness in reducing recidivism remains uncertain
and depends on several factors, including the type of
rewards, consistency in implementation, and
alignment with rehabilitation goals. Reward systems
should not be viewed in isolation but rather as part of
a comprehensive rehabilitation framework. Future
research should explore the long-term effects of
reward systems on recidivism and further investigate
how they can be integrated into broader rehabilitation
strategies. Only with careful implementation and
ongoing evaluation can reward systems fulfill their
potential to improve outcomes for inmates and reduce
reoffending rates.
The findings of this review suggest that reward systems
can be an effective tool for influencing inmate
behavior, promoting participation in rehabilitation
programs, and potentially reducing recidivism.
However, the effectiveness of reward systems is
influenced by several factors, including the consistency
of implementation, the types of rewards offered, and
the alignment of rewards with long-term rehabilitative
goals.
One of the key findings of this review is that while
reward systems can promote short-term behavioral
changes, their long-term effectiveness in reducing
recidivism remains uncertain. This suggests that
reward systems should be used in conjunction with
other rehabilitative strategies, such as counseling,
education, and vocational training, to ensure sustained
behavior change. Additionally, the use of reward
systems should be individualized, as different inmates
may respond to different types of incentives.
Another important consideration is the need for
careful monitoring and evaluation of reward systems.
Inconsistent application of rewards or overly punitive
systems may undermine the effectiveness of the
program and contribute to negative outcomes.
Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that the rewards
are meaningful and aligned with the goals of
rehabilitation, rather than merely offering superficial
or extrinsic incentives.
Finally, while reward systems have shown promise in
promoting positive behaviors, their impact on
recidivism is still a subject of debate. Further research,
particularly long-term studies that track the effects of
reward systems on post-release outcomes, is needed
to determine the full extent of their effectiveness in
reducing reoffending.
CONCLUSION
Reward systems have the potential to be an effective
tool in prison management and rehabilitation,
particularly in promoting positive inmate behavior and
engagement with rehabilitative programs. However, the
success of these systems depends on several factors,
including the type of reward, consistency of
implementation, and alignment with long-term
rehabilitation goals. While the evidence suggests that
reward systems can reduce disciplinary infractions and
increase participation in educational or vocational
programs, their effect on recidivism is less certain.
Further research is needed to explore the long-term
impacts of reward systems and to identify best practices
for their implementation. As part of a broader
rehabilitative strategy, reward systems can contribute
to reducing recidivism and improving outcomes for
incarcerated individuals.
REFERENCES
Ainscough et al., 2017 T.S. Ainscough, A. McNeill, J.
Strang, R. Calder, L.S. Brose
Ali et al., 2016 A. Ali, S. Ghosh, A. Strydom, A. Hassiotis
Prisoners with intellectual disabilities and detention
status. Findings from a UK cross sectional study of prison
Res. Dev. Disabil., 53
–
54 (2016), pp. 189-197
Andrews and Bonta, 2010 D.A. Andrews, J. Bonta
The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (fifth ed.), Matthew
Bender & Company Inc, New Providence, NJ (2010)
Azrin and Holz, 1966 N.H. Azrin, W.C. Holz Punishment
W.K. Honig (Ed.), Operant Behavior Areas of Research
and Application, Appleton-Century- Crofts, New York,
NY (1966), pp. 213-270
Baumeister et al., 2001 R.F. Baumeister, E. Bratslavsky,
C. Finkenauer, K.D. Vohs Bad is stronger than good Rev.
Gen. Psychol., 5 (4) (2001), pp. 323-370
Beaudry et al., 2021 G. Beaudry, R. Yu, A.E. Perry, S.
Fazel Effectiveness of psychological interventions in
prison to reduce recidivism: a systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials Lancet
Psychiatr., 8 (9) (2021), pp. 759-773
Benishek et al., 2014 L.A. Benishek, K.L. Dugosh, K.C.
Kirby, J. Matejkowski, N.T. Clements, B.L. Seymour,D.S.
Festinger Prize‐based contingency management for the
treatment of substance abusers: a meta‐ analysis
Addiction, 109 (9) (2014), pp. 1426-1436
