AO3

• Easy to implement - no need for expertise or specialists like anger management.

  Cost effective and easy to follow once set up and able to be implemented by anyone - economic implications and a credible programme
• Sometimes benefits are lost if staff use the token economy inconsistently - Bassett and Blanchard found lack of staff training and high staff turnover lost the benefits of a token economy - ineffective system
• Benefits only apply when in prison - Blackburn (1993) suggested they have ‘little rehabilitative value’ and the effects are lost when released - this may be because law abiding behaviour is not awarded on the outside, or the rewards in breaking the law are more powerful - little application to the real world
• Programmes may be manipulative and dehumanising - making offenders comply with the scheme and withdrawal of privilege is ethically questionnable - should we use it?
• It only deals with behaviour on the surface - it is quite passive - the inmates could play along with the system and not actually change their behaviour for good - inmates often regress back to their previous behaviour when token economy ends - how valid and useful is this?
• Effective when programme is individually tailored - Field et al (2004) found when rewards were immediate and more frequent, the results were positive - it is an effective programme if rewards and frequency of the rewards suit the individual
• Uncertainty over long term effectiveness - cohen and Filipczak (1971) - found the token economy did show more desirable behaviour than a control group when in prison and after one year had fewer reoffences - However, after 3 years reoffences rates matched national statistics