EFFECTIVE CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMESBrian A. Grant, Ph.D*

I. INTRODUCTION
There are a wide variety of programmes that purport to provide effective treatment for the needs ofoffenders. However, only programmes that have been evaluated with appropriate research methodologies
and which demonstrate a reduction in recidivism should be considered for implementation. Many
programmes have been designed without adherence to the principles of risk, need and responsivity, as
defined by Andrews and Bonta (2002), and therefore may not provide the most effective treatment.
To determine which programmes are most likely to produce reductions in recidivism a number of authors
have conducted extensive reviews of the programme outcome literature through the use of meta-analysis(for example, Andrews et al. 1990; Gendeau, Little & Goggin, 1996; Lipsey, 1995; Lösel, 1995). The resultsfrom these reviews suggest a set of characteristics that can be used to judge the quality of a programme.
While research has shown positive effects of treatment on offender behaviour there remains a need forhigh quality research to support and further guide programme developers. In particular, programme researchis needed to demonstrate which programmes are effective across cultures and to identify those programmecharacteristics that may be sensitive to cultural differences. In addition, not all correctional jurisdictions areable to put in place extensive programming regimes and research is needed to demonstrate the best
approaches to use when resources are limited.

II. WHAT WORKS IN PROGRAMMING
Meta-analysis has also been used to identify the programme elements that are most likely to have an
impact on recidivism. A number of meta-analyses have shown similar results (Andrews et al. 1990; Gendeau,
Little & Goggin, 1996; Lipsey, 1995; Lösel, 1995), but the study by Andrews et al. (1990) illustrates theconclusions.
Andrews et al. (1990) reviewed 154 correctional treatment evaluation studies and classified theprogrammes they evaluated into one of four treatment groups:(i) Criminal sanctions:
Studies in which there was a variation in the sentence, but no variation in the rehabilitation component.
In these studies, options comparing more vs. less probation, or probation vs. incarceration were compared todetermine which produced a lower rate of recidivism.
(ii) Inappropriate correctional service:
These studies were not consistent with the risk/need principles. These studies provided intervention for
low risk offenders and used non-directive relationships based on psychodynamic counselling. Other kinds ofinterventions included in this group were group counselling programmes that did not use pro-social
modelling, non-directive educational and vocational programmes and programmes like Scared Straight,
designed to discourage continued criminal activity by showing what prison is like.
(iii) Appropriate treatment:
These options included delivery to higher risk offenders and used behaviourally oriented interventions.
They also compared rates of response and included a small number of non-behavioural studies that
* Director, Addictions Research Centre, Correctional Service Canada.

83

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

addressed criminogenic needs.

(iv) Unspecified treatment:This was the fourth category and was used where the treatment was unspecified, or could not beclassified as either appropriate or inappropriate.
The authors compared the recidivism results across the different programme types and the results of theanalyses are summarized in Table 5. The effectiveness measure used was the Phi coefficient, a measure of
association, in this case demonstrating the impact the programme type had on recidivism. A positive number
indicates the programme decreased recidivism, while a negative number indicates the programme increased
recidivism. As can be seen in Table 1, programmes that followed the risk/need principles and werestructured and behavioural in content have the highest Phi coefficient. Studies that evaluated the use of
criminal sanctions or used programme elements that were described above as being inappropriate either had
no effect, or increased recidivism.

Table 1: Type of Intervention and Impact on Recidivism
Type of treatment

Number of studies

Mean Phi

Appropriate

54

.30

Unspecified

32

.13

Inappropriate

38

-.06

Criminal sanctions

30

-.07

Summarizing the outcome of a number of meta-analyses, Gendreau (1996) has proposed a set of eight
principles of effective programme design. Listed below are the principles, with examples of how they areapplied in programmes currently being delivered at the Correctional Service of Canada:

1. The risk and need levels of offenders are specified and used in selection of participants and criminogenic
needs are targeted.
Offenders admitted to the Correctional Service undergo an extensive assessment of their risk and needs.
Risk is assessed by both dynamic and static risk factors to identify those offenders most in need ofprogramming. The areas of programming they require are identified by the needs assessment and only thoseneeds identified as relevant to the offender are addressed through programming. The assessment takes
between two and three months and includes a review of court and police documents, interviews with theoffender, and specialized assessment in areas such as substance use, education and learning, mental health,sexual offences and violence.
2. Programmes are highly structured with content and contingencies under the control of the facilitators,
not the participants, and antisocial attitudes are not reinforced.
All programmes have structured manuals that define the objectives and activities for each session.
Programme facilitators must follow the defined programme and must not change how the components aretaught. All of the programme components are covered consistently every time the programme is completed
and participants are unable to lead the programme off-track to meet personal goals that may be inconsistent
with the programme goals. Examples of pages from a well-structured programme manual are presented in
Figure 1.

84135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Figure 1: Example from the Aboriginal Offenders Substance Abuse Program Manual(Correctional Service, 2006)

85

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

3. Account for the response rate of participants.
For example, highly structured programmes are most appropriate for offenders who are not effective atconceptualizing ideas; higher levels of interpersonal interaction are required for high anxiety offenders; andadditional contingencies are put in place for offenders who have low motivation.
Core programmes are cognitive behaviourally based to meet the learning needs of offenders. They
include skill development exercises that make use of role playing and practice. In addition, specialized
programme options are available for women and Aboriginal offenders. These programmes address thedifferent impacts that criminal behaviour has on these groups and provide programming that is socially andculturally appropriate for the offenders’ needs. Offenders requiring high-intensity programming are often
less motivated to participate. Therefore, to encourage their continued participation more than one facilitator
is used to better engage the offender in the programme. These programmes also make use of one-on-one
counselling, in addition to highly structured group work, as a method of maintaining the motivation of theoffenders.

4. Offender characteristics are matched to staff; including personal characteristics (gender, age, life
experiences, training) and relationship styles (empathy, fairness, firmness, spontaneity).
Through training, programme facilitators are encouraged to show empathy and understanding of theoffenders’ challenges while at the same time remaining firm on the programme objectives and avoiding thereinforcement of antisocial attitudes. In the case of Aboriginal programmes, Aboriginal people are used as
facilitators to better match offenders and facilitators in terms of cultural backgrounds.
5. Positive reinforcers outnumber punishers by a ratio of 4:1.
Training sessions demonstrate how to deliver positive reinforcers during group sessions to encourageboth positive change in behaviour and participation in the programme activities.
6. Intervention periods of three to nine months are used since shorter periods do not provide sufficient time
for relationships to develop and there is need for time in the treatment setting to practice theinterventions learned.
High intensity programmes last three to four months, or longer, to provide sufficient time for the offender
to integrate the ideas that are discussed. For moderate and low intensity programmes the duration is lessthan recommended here, but this is overcome by the use of maintenance programmes that are delivered
after the completion of the main programme. The maintenance programmes may be delivered in theinstitution or in the community to reinforce the concepts learned in the programme and to further encourage
the offender to make the changes needed to address their needs.
7. Programme staff are adequately trained with an understanding of the theory behind the intervention;
they are provided with time to become experienced and familiar with the programme content before
delivering it; and smaller programmes (number of locations where the programmes are being delivered)are often observed to be more effective.
Training of facilitators can take up to two weeks and refresher courses are also offered. The programmemanuals and training plans outline in detail the theoretical models for the programmes and explain the
programme details. Training usually requires that facilitators deliver sample lessons from the training
manual and participate, as would an offender, in the programme lessons taught by other facilitators. The
hands-on experience with the programme materials ensures in-depth knowledge. All facilitators areevaluated at the end of training to determine if they have achieved sufficient knowledge and understandingof the programme prior to being able to deliver the proggramme in an institution or in the community. Ongoing follow-up monitoring of the facilitators is part of the programme quality control.

8. Assessment and evaluation of the programme is on-going and integral to the programme so changes inbehaviour and attitudes can be measured, skill development can be assessed and programme outcomescan be demonstrated.
Prior to the start of most programmes an assessment battery, consisting of a structured interview,questionnaires and standardized assessment tools are completed. During the programme and at its end,

86

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

these assessment tools are completed again to determine if there have been changes in the offenders’knowledge, attitudes, beliefs etc. Results of these assessments are used first by the facilitators to ensurethat the programme is achieving its objectives. These assessment results are also accumulated and used inresearch, with additional data on release outcome, to determine if the programme is effective in changing
recidivism and improving the release options of offenders.
In addition to these principles, Gendreau argues that the following components are important forsuccessful interventions:(i) Pro-social attitudes and behaviours are reinforced during treatment sessions;(ii) Pro-social behaviours are modelled, or demonstrated, in treatment;(iii) Role playing and practice of learned behaviours is needed;(iv) Focus on skill development;(v) Relapse prevention is included in the programme training.
In addition to identifying the characteristics of effective interventions, Gendreau offers the following
summary of interventions that are not effective with correctional populations:(i) Programmes that rely on psychodynamic therapies requiring high levels of introspection, self
evaluation and good verbal skills;(ii) Nondirective therapies in which antisocial attitudes are not challenged and groups in which criminal
attitudes and behaviours are reinforced;(iii) Treatment strategies that rely on punishment, such as ‘boot camp’, intensive supervision, and shock
incarceration;(iv) Programmes that externalize blame, fail to develop empathy for the victims of crime and are directed
at venting anger towards the system, or that only accept self-motivated offenders;(v) Programmes that provide intensive services to low risk offenders.
A final point on the effectiveness of programming: a study recently completed for the Correctional
Service (French & Gendreau, 2003) looked at the impact of correctional programming on offenders’behaviour while offenders were still in custody. The findings demonstrate that with increased programme
options institutional incidents decline. That is, with programming, correctional institutions become safer
places.

III. EXAMPLES OF TREATMENT APPROACHES
Four treatment approaches will be presented in this section, stages of change, relapse prevention,
motivational interviewing and harm reduction.

A. Stages of Change
Prochaska and DiClemente (1992) propose a model of readiness to change that allows treatment
providers to match treatment to an individual’s willingness to change. In their model, they propose fivestages of change and provide examples of what should be addressed at each stage and what is required forthe person to move to the next stage (Connors, Donovan & DiClemente, 2001). These stages are meant tobe representative of what happens and individuals will not pass through the stages as if they were discrete
events.
(i) Pre-contemplation
In the pre-contemplation phase an individual has no intent to change his or her behaviour and the
behaviour may be viewed as being both positive and negative for the individual. During this phase it is notuseful to focus on changing behaviour, but rather to use motivational techniques that will move the person to
the next phase. The person may need to acknowledge that there is a problem, develop a better
understanding of the negative consequences of the behaviour, and develop an understanding of the factorsthat trigger it. An individual at this stage may believe they are in control and can stop anytime and believethat the benefits of using outweigh the benefits of not using.
(ii) Contemplation
In the contemplation stage the individual is thinking about their problem and is looking for informationthat will help them to understand it. They are looking at the positive and negative characteristics of the
behaviour, but they are not yet prepared to stop it. Intervention at this stage involves providing increased

87

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

understanding of the effects of the behaviour, evaluation of life goals and consideration of the context inwhich the person may be living. In the case of offenders, if they are incarcerated it is a good opportunity topoint out the negative impacts that being in prison have on their life and what the alternatives might be.
At this stage, the person must make a decision to act if they are to move to the next stage. They might
begin to take some preliminary action such as meeting with a counsellor, changing their behaviour, or
reducing the risks associated with it.

(iii) Preparation
The third stage is preparation for change. Persons in this stage are prepared to change both theirattitudes and their behaviour. They may have taken some early steps to monitor their behaviour with thegoal of reducing the frequency of it. They are ready to be encouraged to participate in treatment sointervention should work to increase their commitment to stopping the behaviour. This can be done byfurther development of information on the consequences of the behaviour and the positive benefits they may
experience by reducing it or stopping completely.
At this stage individuals will need to establish goals and priorities that can be set to help them stop thenegative behaviour. They will need to develop a change plan that can guide their efforts to change.

(iv) Action
In the action stage individuals have begun to change their behaviour. They are learning new skills that
help them to remain free from the negative behaviour. Their desire to change at this stage makes them ideal
candidates for programmes that apply behaviour change practices in treatment. Treatment needs to provide
skills development that will assist in the cessation of the behaviour while providing alternatives to theirformer lifestyle. Participants also need to learn about what may trigger their negative behaviour so that they
can avoid these situations.
Prochask and DiClemente (1992) suggest that interventions in this stage should last for an average of six
months, and work is needed with the individual to increase their belief that they can maintain the desiredchanges in behaviour.

(v) Maintenance
The final stage in this model is maintenance, the process by which the individual maintains his or her
desired behaviour. This is a critical phase as it is the one that must last for the remainder of a person’s life ifthey are to avoid resuming their former ways. They must have in place practices that will allow them toavoid substance abuse and continue to practice the skills learned in treatment. Very often, treatment
programmes do not provide for maintenance support. Rather, the programme is delivered, the person
successfully completes it and then is expected to maintain the change without any additional support.
Effective programmes have maintenance components that provide support and skills reinforcement during
the maintenance stage.
An individual does not move through these stages in a straight line. They may move from precontemplation to preparation, only to slip back to the contemplation stage. Or, they move all the way tomaintenance, but as a result of life circumstances, may find themselves starting the process again (Connors,
Donovan & DiClemente, 2001). This is both expected and normal and is one of the reasons that effective
programmes stress the need for understanding of lapses in drug and alcohol use during and after treatment.

B. Relapse Prevention
Relapse prevention should be an important component of treatment programmes. As noted earlier,relapse is a common occurrence and the individual needs to be prepared for it when it occurs. The goals of
relapse prevention are to provide information useful in recognizing high risk situations that may lead torelapse and providing the skills needed to deal with the relapse when it does occur. At the time of a relapse,
it is important that the client does not give up.
Seven models of relapse are identified by Connors, Donvovan and DiClemente (2001), but there is aconsistency across the approaches they present. The model presented by Marlatt and Gordon (1985) isbased on cognitive behavioural principles and is a good example to use here. In this model, relapse is seen as

88

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

the interaction between the high risk situations associated with the behaviour and the individual's
perceptions of his or her ability to control the situation and therefore to avoid the behaviour. The individual’s
expectations about the usefulness of the behaviour in the particular situation will also play a role in whether
or not they choose to relapse (Connors, Donovan & DiClemente, 2001).
When the high risk situation arises, the individual who has learned coping skills to deal with the event or
environment will be more likely to resist the relapse. The coping skills that have been learned will provide
alternative courses of action which hopefully will avoid the relapse. Individuals who have not learned
appropriate coping skills will be less able to choose alternative behaviours and therefore will be more likely
to return to the undesired behaviour.
For the Marlatt model, there are two key components that must be addressed during treatment;
identifying high risk situations and developing coping skills to deal with them in a positive way. Treatment
programmes that use relapse prevention spend time helping the offender to identify their unique high risk
situations through review of past events and their outcomes. Events that consistently lead to the behaviour
become the targets for developing coping strategies.
Developing coping strategies follows the identification of the high risk situations. For each high risk
situation the offender must identify a number of alternative ways of dealing with the risk created. For
example, if meeting with friends in a large group is a high risk situation, then coping strategies might include
avoiding being with friends in large groups, leaving the group when it gets large, or finding alternative
activities that are normally done only in small groups of two or three people. Other coping strategies thathave been identified in the research literature include: reminders of the consequence of the behaviour,
thinking about the positive effects of avoiding the behaviour, recalling positive periods without the behaviour,and remembering that avoiding the behaviour is an important personal goal.
The coping strategies are identified on an individual basis following discussion in groups. After
identification of coping strategies, they must be practiced in role play activities. Through the identification ofhigh risk situations, development of coping strategies and practicing the strategies, the offender is better
prepared to deal with the situations when they occur.
Relapses are to be expected and may be viewed as learning experiences. Analysis of the relapse events,
the antecedent behaviours and the results, will assist in the development of more effective coping strategies
that can be used during the next high risk situation. Following the relapse, or lapse, the client needs to bereassured that they can continue without the behaviour. The treatment programme should include
discussion of what to do after a relapse and how to restart the process of avoiding of the behaviour. This is
one of the main reasons for the importance of treatment maintenance programmes. It is during themaintenance sessions that lapses and relapses can be addressed in a supportive environment.

C. Motivational Interviewing
Miller and Rollnick (1991) state that “motivational interviewing is a particular way to help people
recognize and do something about their present or potential problem. It is particularly useful with people
who are reluctant to change and ambivalent about changing.” (p. 52)
Many offenders are not willing to commit to changing their negative behaviour. There are too many
positive features associated with their lifestyle. They are in the pre-contemplative stage of change.
However, treatment providers must work to encourage these individuals to move forward along thecontinuum towards change. Motivational interviewing is one of the methods that have been shown to beeffective for starting the change process.
Miller and Rollnick (1991) present five general principles of motivational interviewing.

(i) Express empathy
For motivational interviewing to be effective the counsellor must express empathy with the client. The
client is accepted for what he or she is at the time of counselling, there is no judgment about how they
arrived at that point, or the consequences of their behaviour. Accepting the individuals as they are reduces
their resistance to the counselling setting. Ambivalence about change is acceptable for the client.

89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74(ii) Develop discrepancy
Developing discrepancy has to do with gently demonstrating the conflicting values in a person's life andguiding them towards the more appropriate goals. This is different from confrontation that may result in
resistance to change. While discussing the current situation with the client the counsellor looks for positive
personal goals that the individual has and contrasts these with the current behaviours that prevent theachievement of these goals. The object is to encourage the client to see the importance of the alternative
goals they have and to give these greater priority than the desire to use drugs and alcohol.
(iii) Avoid argumentation
The counsellor needs to avoid argumentation to maintain a positive therapeutic relationship with theclient. However, this does not mean that the therapeutic interview follows the clients’ thoughts. Rather,inconsistencies are detected and used to correct judgments and beliefs. Miller and Rollnick (1991) refer tothis as “soft confrontation”. They also note that in many treatment settings argumentation can occur aroundthe need to admit to having a problem. This is unnecessary at this early stage of change, and may only berecognized as a goal much later. Recall that the purpose of motivational interviewing is to prepare the client
for change, to move them along the continuum so they are ready to start the change process, or in somecases after a relapse, to restart the process.
(iv) Roll with resistance
It is to be expected that the offender will be resistant to change, and it is the job of the counsellor inmotivational interviewing to work with this resistance to find ways to reframe and redirect the resistance.
Redirecting the resistance can motivate offenders to find their own solutions, which is the ultimate goal of
the programme.
(v) Support self-efficacy
The offender will often feel that they are unable to succeed in treatment so it is pointless for them to try.
Motivational interviewing helps the offender to believe that they can change; it works with their desire tochange and develops confidence that change is possible. The counsellor may encourage small steps towards
change to assist the offender to build on success.
Motivational interviewing is often used as an adjunct to other therapies. An offender who is in the precontemplative or even the contemplative stage of change is not ready for a directive behavioural programme.
Motivational interviewing can move them along so they better understand the need for change, see thevalue it may provide for them, and provide the belief that they have the ability to maintain the behaviour ifthey desire. Miller and Rollnick (1991) also point out that results from an assessment process can be aneffective tool during motivational interviewing. A parole officer reviewing the results of objective testing canprovide the offender with concrete evidence of how his or her behaviour compares to that of other offenders.
The report produced by the Correctional Service of Canada's Computerized Assessment of Substance
Abuse (CASA) is designed to be shared with the offender for this reason. It is our intention, in the near
future, to include normative data in the report, so offenders can see how their problem compares to that ofother people. This approach should help to address problems of denial that are common among drug andalcohol abusers.

D. Harm Reduction
Harm reduction is a concept that grew from awareness of the deadly consequences of injection drug use
following the appearance of HIV/AIDS. Through the very common practice of sharing syringes and otherdrug paraphernalia it became possible for an individual to suddenly have an incurable, fatal disease. People
working with drug abusers recognized the need to take some action that would lessen the probability of the
spread of disease without passing judgment on the drug using behaviour. From those origins, harm reduction
has become a strategy for dealing with the behaviour and consequences of all types of substance abuse and isapplicable to other behaviours as well. The approach is often misunderstood and rejected outright by somedecision makers and programme delivery experts due to a lack of understanding of the approach.
Harm reduction is more than a number of specific interventions. It is an approach to intervention thatseeks to reduce the negative consequences of substance abuse to the individual and to the society. Rather
than looking at drug or alcohol misuse as an inherently bad thing, harm reduction takes no position on the90

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

acceptability of the behaviour. However, it recognizes that substance abuse has negative effects andtherefore actions can be taken to reduce those harms. Simply reducing the harms may help to stabilize thebehaviour of individuals, assist in keeping them alive, and reduce the negative consequence for thecommunity in which the substance-abusing individual lives.
Harm reduction is not a treatment programme, but an intervention. However, one of the values of harm
reduction is that it can provide opportunities for further intervention with addicted individuals that may leadto their participation in more traditional programming, thereby leading to a reduction in their use of drugs
and alcohol, and in many cases to their total abstinence from drug and alcohol use, if that is warranted.
Marlatt (1998a) provides a more detailed picture of harm reduction approaches in different countries as it
relates to different substances, populations and challenges. Marlatt (1998b) provides a set of five principles
for harm reduction (pp. 49 - 58):(i) Harm reduction is a public health alternative to the moral, criminal and disease models of drug use andaddiction.
Harm reduction does not presume that substance abuse is morally wrong and must therefore be punishedusing criminal sanctions, nor does it take the view that substance abuse is a disease that requires treatment.
However, given the negative consequences of substance abuse, encouraging people to stop using is a goal as
indicated in the next principle.
(ii) Harm reduction recognizes abstinence as an ideal outcome, but accepts alternatives that reduce harm.
Harm reduction can be viewed as having a continuum of responses. At one end of the continuum is the
cessation of all substance-abusing behaviours, thereby eliminating all of the harm associated with substanceabuse. At the other end of the continuum is any small reduction in the harms caused by substance abuse.
Frequently, harm reduction becomes associated with only the most controversial options such as safe
injection sites. While safe injection sites are at the leading edge of harm reduction, they are not the place tostart developing a harm reduction policy. Correctional systems can take a harm reduction approach byensuring that its policies and procedures go as far as they can to reduce the harms associated with substanceabuse.
(iii) Harm reduction has emerged primarily as a ‘bottom up’ approach based on addict advocacy, rather
than a ‘top-down’ policy promoted by drug policy makers.
As a result of how the harm reduction approach was developed, it is well accepted and meets the needs ofpeople who require intervention.
(iv) Harm reduction promotes low-threshold access to services as an alternative to traditional, highthreshold approaches.
Traditionally, many programmes required a commitment to total abstinence before a person could be
accepted into treatment. If there was drug or alcohol use during the programme the person was removed
from treatment. These types of strict rules set a high threshold for participation. Programmes that have lowthreshold access have very few rules for initiating and participating in the intervention. Effective needle
exchange programmes do not require anything of the substance abuser other than collecting clean syringes.
It is easy to imagine a needle exchange programme that required participation in treatment, completion offorms, etc. to obtain clean needles. Experience has shown that any of these requirements reduces theeffectiveness of needle exchange. Another example of a low threshold programme is a methadone treatment
programme offered in Halifax, Canada, in which there are a minimum number of requirements forparticipation, unlike most methadone programmes. Individuals in this programme must obtain theirmethadone each day, and must undergo urinalysis to check for the presence of other drugs. The presence ofother drugs results in counselling, and cessation of methadone only occurs if the level of use of other drugs
is seen as a threat to health.
(v) Harm reduction is based on the tenets of compassionate pragmatism versus moralistic idealism.
Making condoms available in correctional settings is one example of compassionate pragmatism. We
recognize that sexual activities will occur in prison, we want to prevent the spread of diseases, and providing
condoms does not provide any security risk, therefore they are made available.

91

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

Harm reduction approaches are not only applicable to treatment after an addiction or problem behaviour
has occurred. Harm reduction approaches can be applied to prevention programmes as well. Recognizingthat there is safe and unsafe behaviour associated with an activity and promoting the safer action is one way
to reduce harm. Programmes to reduce drinking and driving are an example of harm reduction programmes
at the prevention level. These programmes recognize that people will consume alcohol away from home, andto reduce the likelihood of accidents, provide alternatives to driving. These alternatives include taking a taxi,
arranging for a designated driver, or staying overnight at the location of the event.

IV. PROGRAMME RESEARCH
Determining what works and developing an evidence based correctional approach requires anunderstanding of research and its importance. Ideally, a correctional agency will have, at least, a small
number of research staff who can carry out research projects and maintain knowledge of new and developing
trends in the research world. Where research staff are not available, efforts are needed to build relationships
with universities and colleges to encourage research in corrections that is consistent with local cultural andsocial norms.

A. Research Needs
Research requires the systematic collection of information, but this information can serve more than one
person. Basic information on when offenders are admitted to an institution and when they leave can be
useful for research. Assessment information for offenders may not only assist in ensuring services aredelivered appropriately, but can assist correctional management in planning and developing their correctional
systems.
To conduct research on an intervention, it is necessary to know what is being evaluated. That is, it must
be possible to describe the programme or intervention and the intervention must be applied consistently so
all participants receive the same service. It is not possible to effectively evaluate programmes that are
constantly changing since one will never know what is producing the observed results.
With knowledge about the offender population being studied it is possible to subset the population to lookat how the intervention impacts different groups. Under the responsivity principle we would expect
differential effects for subgroups of the population. Therefore, knowing the population allows one todetermine who the programme works for. Examples of characteristics one might look at are age and gender,
risk and need, type of crime committed and level of motivation.
The third requirement is for measures of outcome. Outcome measures are the things that you hope tochange through the intervention. Early in the programme development cycle the behaviours that are being
targeted for change should be clearly identified and these behaviours should be monitored. In correctionalsettings, the easiest behaviour to measure is recidivism. While this is often a relatively crude measure, it is
the goal of most programming to reduce the commission of new offences. Measuring recidivism then is the
key element in evaluating correctional programmes.
However, waiting until recidivism occurs can take a long time and often estimates of the effectiveness ofprogrammes are needed earlier. In addition, there is value in determining if there are immediate impacts of aprogramme on attitudes and behaviour, impacts that may be reduced over time. Intermediate measures ofoutcome can be very effective in understanding which parts of a programme or intervention are effective,
and in new interventions, can identify problems early in the development process. Intermediate measures ofoutcome might include assessment of attitudes to determine if there was change, assessment ofunderstanding and learning to determine if the information presented has been understood, and assessmentof the level of programme participation and programme performance.
For a correctional organization without a strong history of research support it can be challenging toconvince senior managers of the value that research can provide. When resources are limited, and funds
used to pay for research must be taken from programme funds, it is easy to decide that research is an
unnecessary luxury. However, research helps to answer fundamental questions, and can actually lead toincreased efficiencies in the operation of the correctional system. Providing programming is expensive andknowing who it works best for, under what conditions, and what intensity of programming is needed,
increases the probability that resources will be used in the most efficient manner.

92

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Research helps to eliminate programmes and interventions that do not have an impact on the offender.
Many interventions have little or no impact on offender behaviour and yet are continued at great costbecause management does not know the impact.

B. Measuring Recidivism
The effectiveness of a correctional intervention is frequently measured using recidivism. However,defining what is meant by recidivism is important as there are a number of factors that influence the rate ofrecidivism that is observed.
In the United States recidivism is often measured by using arrest information. This is available in anational database from their national police, but it must be remembered that arrest does not meanconviction. Therefore, in the U.S., recidivism rates may appear higher than in other countries that use
convictions as a measure of recidivism. In Canada, recidivism is usually measured in terms of convictions
because the national police force maintains an extensive database containing all convictions for criminal
offences. It is necessary when reading research reports, and when writing reports, to be clear about the typeof measure being used to calculate recidivism.
Other factors that can affect the recidivism rate include the length of the follow-up period, the status of
the offender during the follow-up period, and the types of offences included in the measurement ofrecidivism. The length of the follow-up period is the most critical factor in studies that report recidivism
rates. Short follow-up periods will often result in evaluations making a very weak programme look
successful, as the offenders have not had time to commit additional crimes, or more accurately, to be
detected by official sources (the police) for having committed a new crime. For this reason, studies thatreport recidivism with a follow-up period of less than six months are not very useful. The minimum period of
follow-up should be one year, and two years is much better. To determine the length of the follow-up period
needed one must also consider the type of offender being studied. For example, sex offenders who havechild victims must be followed for extended periods of time, as their recidivism generally takes longer toshow in official records.
The status of the offender during the follow-up period is also important. An offender who is being
supervised in the community on parole will be more likely to be detected for having committed new offences
than one who is not being supervised. Therefore, studies using supervised and unsupervised offenders must
be careful to correct for the different probabilities of detection.
Finally, there must be a determination of what types of offences will be included in the recidivism
measure. Frequently, offences that receive fines only, or very short sentences (less than 30 days), are notincluded in follow-up data collection, particularly if the group being studied has in the past been convicted ofserious offences. It is necessary to ask if a conviction for a minor assault that results in five days in jailshould be considered a failure, or a slip that does not help to understand the problem being investigated.
Follow-up periods may be fixed or variable. Studies with fixed follow-up periods may include periods after
the sentence has been completed. Variable follow-up periods are often used when a group of offenders withdifferent release dates are used in a study, but the study must conclude on a particular date. The problem
with variable follow-up periods is that those released last will have the shortest follow-up periods andtherefore, will have lower recidivism rates. If the type of offender is associated with the time of release in
the study and variable follow-up periods are used, then results could be biased.
Alternative measures of recidivism have been used in many studies such as return to custody and failureof conditional release. While these are not truly recidivism measures, as they do not require that a crime becommitted, they are useful measures of criminal tendencies for research on programme outcomes. It may bethat keeping an offender in the community for an additional three or four months is a positive outcome.
Return to custody as a measure of outcome is very simple to obtain with a correctional system where alladmissions are recorded centrally. An alternative to return to custody is a measure of failure on conditional
release such as parole. This outcome measure is intermediate, and may not result from new offending, but it
does reflect deterioration in behaviour in the community.
In research conducted by the Correctional Service a combination of measures of outcome are frequently

93

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

used. The most basic measure is return to custody, and this provides information on how well the offender
did after release. However, it is also useful to know if the return to custody occurred as a result of parole
violation or as a result of a new criminal conviction, therefore we also collect this information. It is possible
to refine the measure of recidivism by looking at the type of new offence, such as whether it was a new
violent offence, or non-violent offence. Sometimes it is useful to know if the new offence is similar toprevious offences or reflects a change in behaviour that may be indicative of positive outcomes.
Measuring recidivism as a percentage of offenders committing new offences in a fixed period of time isuseful, but there are more effective measures that provide additional information. For example, survival
analysis provides information on how long offenders remained in the community, the rate of failure over thefull range of the follow-up period and provides statistical tests for comparing different groups. How survival
analysis helps in the evaluation of a treatment programme can be seen in the following example. A
programme is evaluated and the final recidivism rate is the same for both groups after two years. However,survival analysis might reveal that failures in the untreated group occurred mostly in the early part of thesentence; while for the treated group failure occurred in the latter part of the follow-up period. If one only
looks at the overall rate it would appear that the intervention had no effect, but the survival analysis would
reveal a very real effect, keeping some offenders out of prison for a longer period of time.

V. PROGRAMME EXAMPLES
A. Women Offenders Substance Abuse Programme
The Women Offenders Substance Abuse Programme (WOSAP) has been developed over two and halfyears and will be implemented in women’s correctional facilities in Canada in June of 2003. The programme
has a number of unique characteristics that represent attempts to design a programme consistent withevidence based programme development (Hume & Grant, 2001).
First, the programme was designed through consultation with women offenders, experts in women
offender treatment, and operational staff at correctional facilities. Early consultations with international
experts indicated the programming we had available did not adequately meet the needs of women offenders.
Following a decision to develop a new programme, additional consultations were held to determine theprogramming model that was to be used and the structure of the programme (Hume & Grant, 2001). In its
design and development, the programme was to be women-centred, not a derivation of a programme formen, and was to address the unique characteristics of women with substance abuse problems.
The second feature of the programme is that it takes account of the entire sentence. Rather than aprogramme that lasts for set period of time, the programme is designed to deliver elements throughout theentire sentence, and do this in a consistent manner. While we refer to it as a single programme it is actuallyfour programmes.
The third feature of the programme is that it tries to combine two approaches to treatment that have inthe past been seen as incompatible. To meet current standards of effective correctional programming the
programme needed to have a cognitive behavioural component that would encourage skill development foraddressing substance abuse problems. However, experts in women’s programming advised that the
problems of substance abuse for women are often entangled with relationship issues and if these are notaddressed then it is likely the programme would not be successful. The challenge has been to combine these
two approaches within one programme.
As noted above, the programme has four major components:(i) Education
The education component of the programme has eight sessions designed to teach women about thenegative effects of substance abuse on their lives, both long and short-term effects; to provide basic
information on how to deal with triggers that cause cravings; and to motivate them to continue the processof change. It is anticipated that all women offenders will be assigned to participate in this component of the
programme as almost all women offenders have a connection to the problems of substance abuse either
through their own experience, or through a spouse or family member.

94

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS(ii) Intensive treatment
The intensive treatment component consists of two parallel programmes; one designed from a cognitive
behavioural perspective and one based on relational theory. These programmes proceed in parallel so issues
discussed in one part are also discussed in the other, ensuring consistency of message and learning. Each
programme is 20 sessions in length.
(iii) Maintenance
The maintenance component is a 20 week follow-up programme with sessions offered once a week. To
ensure continuity with treatment in the community the same maintenance programme is available after
offenders are released. This approach ensures there is a consistent experience in both the institution and thecommunity. One of the major challenges we face with the programme is how to deliver the maintenancesession in the community when the women participants are widely dispersed across the country.
(iv) Community building
The community building component of the programme is designed to create an environment within theinstitution that promotes a drug and alcohol free lifestyle and provides support to those offenders who aretrying to change their behaviour. This component has two characteristics; peer led discussion groups andinstitution-wide activities. The peer led discussion groups have programming material available, but theparticipants choose the topic to be discussed each week. The community-building exercises include healthactivities involving correctional staff, social activities, and community activities in which individuals fromoutside the prison come to present information of relevance to the women.
A preliminary analysis of the results from this programme was very favourable. The research indicatedthat the women in the programme believed the programme met their needs, the retention rate in the
programme was high, and there were changes in knowledge and attitudes observed after the programme
was completed (Furlong & Grant, 2006; Grant, Furlong & Hume, 2007). Results associated with release
have not been completed yet.

B. Intensive Support Units
In an attempt to provide environments for offenders that will support their efforts to reduce drug andalcohol dependency, Intensive Support Units (ISU) have been established in all prisons (Grant, Varis &Lefebvre, 2004). These units are part of the regular prison environment, but they provide increased
assurance that drugs are not available. Offenders wishing to live in the units must sign an agreement inwhich they accept increased testing for the presence of drugs and increased searching for drugs and alcohol.
The staff of these units receive additional training in the problems of substance abuse and the challenges
faced by offenders with an addiction. With the training, staff can provide additional support to the offenders
when they experience problems.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the units, participants completed a number of surveys when they firstjoined the units and again when they moved to other prisons or were released. Intermediate measures of the
impact of the units indicate that both staff and inmates believe the units will make a difference in their ability
to stay away from drugs and alcohol, that the units will have a positive effect on their lives after release from
custody, and that the units have fewer drugs available. Analyses of misconduct and search data for the units
indicates that there are increased searches, but few drugs are found and misconduct by offenders in the units
is lower than that of offenders in other units (Varis, 2001). Release outcome measures indicate that offenders
who participated in the ISU were released earlier, remained in the community longer, and were less likely tobe readmitted to prison (Grant, Varis & Lefebvre, 2005).

C. Methadone Maintenance Treatment
Methadone maintenance treatment has been available to offenders in the Correctional Service for anumber of years. However, until recently only those offenders who had been prescribed methadone in thecommunity could receive it in an institution. Recently, a study was conducted to compare the releaseoutcomes of offenders who had participated in the methadone maintenance programme and a comparisongroup consisting of those offenders who had not participated in the methadone programme.
Previous research has indicated that methadone maintenance treatment can produce reductions in illicit
opiate use (Marsch, 1998), reductions in other drug use (Fischer et al., 1999), HIV risk behaviours (Darke,

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

Kaye & Finlay-Jones, 1998), criminal behaviour (Coid et al., 2000; Maddux & Desmond, 1997), and access tohealth care (Marsch, 1998). The purpose of this study was to determine if we could identify a reduction incriminal behaviour after release from prison for those offenders who participated in the MMT programme.
One of the challenges in research of this type is to determine who should be in the comparison group.
The offenders who receive MMT are the most seriously addicted offenders and generally the mostproblematic. They have a high rate of recidivism so comparing them to the general population of offenders
would certainly indicate that MMT had no effect. We were able, within our data systems, to identify a groupof offenders who tested positive for opiates in random drug testing and who were identified at admission as
having a substance abuse problem. This group served as a comparison for the MMT group.

Figure 2. Survival analysis for MMT study: readmission rate
MMT Groupc2 (1) = 6.02, p < 0.05

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

Proportion not readmitted

Non-MMT GroupMonths

The results of the study are summarized in Figure 2 in the form of a survival analysis. The survival
analysis indicates that both groups had a high probability of failure in the community. While more than 50%of the MMT group was readmitted to prison within 24 months of their release, almost 65% of thecomparison group were readmitted. The observed differences are statistically reliable. Similar results wereidentified when new offences were used as the outcome measure, but the results were not statisticallyreliable.

D. High Intensity Substance Abuse Programme (HISAP)1
The HISAP is an example of a programme that was designed to meet the needs of offenders with themost serious problems, in this case, serious substance abuse problems. The programme includes 90
sessions and takes three to four months to complete. It takes the work of two facilitators to maintain theattendance of offenders in the programme as these offenders are some of the most resistant to treatment.
The research on the programme indicated that most participants remained for the full programme, and thatthose who left the programme early were the most likely to reoffend (Grant, et al., 2003).
Outcome results from the research indicated that programme participants were released earlier in theirsentence than a comparison group, were more likely to have received a discretionary release (day parole orfull parole), and spent more time in the community after release. They were less likely to commit a newoffence after release than those in the comparison group.

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Correctional treatment programmes have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism. By reducing
recidivism, programmes can reduce the cost of correctional operations by shortening the time that offenders
1 HISAP is now known as the high intensity component of the National Substance Abuse Program (NSAP-High).

96

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

need to remain in prison. In addition, reducing recidivism reduces the overall number of crimes that arecommitted and makes communities safer.
Not all programmes will be equally effective in reducing recidivism and research is needed to determine
which programmes will actually reduce recidivism. Using meta-analysis, researchers have identified thecharacteristics of programmes that are most likely to have a positive impact on recidivism. Ensuring that
programmes have these characteristics is one means by which correctional administrators can increase theprobability of finding effective programmes.
This paper presented the results from a number of studies of effective programmes that are consistent
with the characteristics of effective programmes, and that were designed with the principles of risk, need
and responsivity (Andrews & Bonta, 2002). These programmes illustrate both how to design effective
programmes and how to conduct research that will demonstrate their effectiveness. When resources are
scarce, it is necessary to find those interventions that will have an effect and use these only. Unproveninterventions should be discontinued, or used on a very limited basis while they are being evaluated.
Finally, some caution needs to be exercised in transferring programming interventions from one culturalcontext to another. It is expected that the principles presented here will apply across a wide variety ofcultures, but this has not been demonstrated empirically. As new programmes are developed, based on theprinciples presented, they should be evaluated and the results of these evaluations should be shared throughresearch and management networks.

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

REFERENCES
Andrews, D.A.; Zinger, I.; Hoge, R.D.; Bonta, J.; Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F.T. (1990). Does treatment work? A
psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
Andrews, D.A. and Bonta J. (2002). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct . Cincinnati, OH, Anderson
Publishing Co.
Coid, J.; Carvelli, A.; Kittler, Z.; Healey, A. & Henderson, J. (2000). “Opiates, criminal behaviour, andmethadone treatment.” http:/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.
Connors, G.J.; Donovan, D.M. & DiClemente, C.C. (2001). Substance abuse treatment and the stages ofchange. New York: Guilford Press.
Darke, D.; Kaye, S. & Finlay-Jones, R. (1998). Drug use and injection risk-taking among prison methadone
maintenance patients. Addictions, 93, (1169-1175).
DiClemente, C.C. & Prochaska, J.O. (1998). Towards a comprehensive, transtheoretical model of change:
Stages of change and addictive behaviours. In W.R. Miller & N. Heather (Ed.s), Treating addictive
behaviours, 2nd edition, pp. 3 - 24. New York: Plenum Press.
Fischer, B.; Glicksman, L.; Rehm, J.; Daniel, N. & Medved, W. (1999). Comparing opiate users in methadone
treatment with untreated opiate users: Results of a follow-up study with a Toronto opiate user cohort.
Canadian Journal of Public Health, 90, (299-303).
French, S; & Gendreau, P. (2003). Safe and humane corrections through effective treatment (R-139). Ottawa:
Correctional Service Canada.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism:
What works! Criminology, 20, 575-607.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing
correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Grant, B.A.; Kunic, D.; MacPherson P.; McKeown C. & Hansen, E. (2003) The High Intensity Substance
Abuse Programme (HISAP): Results from the pilot programmes (R-). Ottawa: Correctional Service
Canada.
Grant, B.A.; Furlong, A. & Hume, L. (2007) Preliminary results from the Women Offenders Substance
Abuse Programme.
Grant, B.A. & Furlong, A. (2006) The Women Offenders Substance Abuse Programmes: Preliminary results.
Forum on Corrections Research.
Grant, B.A.; Varis, D.D. & Lefebvre, D. (2004). Intensive Support Units (ISU) for Federal Offenders with
Substance Abuse Problems: An Impact Analysis (R-151). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Hume, L. & Grant, B.A. (2001). Substance abuse programmeming : A proposed structure (R-120). Ottawa:
Correctional Service Canada.
Johnson, S.L.; van de Ven, J.T.C. & Grant, B.A. (2001). Institutional methadone maintenance treatment :Impact on release outcome and institutional behaviour (R-119). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Lipsey, M. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment withjuvenile delingquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.) What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 63-78). Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Lösel, F. (1995). Increasing consensus in the evaluation of offender rehabilitation? Lessons from recent
research syntheses. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2, (19-39).

98

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Maddux, J.F., & Desmond, D.P. (1999). Outcomes of methadone maintenance 1 year after admission. Journalof drug issues, 27, (225-238).
Marlatt, G.A. (1998a). Harm reduction: Pragmatic strategies for managing high-risk behaviours. New York:
Guildord Press.
Marlatt, G.A. (1998b). Basic principles and strategies of harm reduction. In G.A. Marlatt (Ed.), (1998a).
Harm reduction: Pragmatic strategies for managing high-risk behaviours. New York: Guildord Press.
Marsch, L.A. (1998). The efficacy of methadone maintenance interventions in reducing illicit opiate use, HIVrisk behaviour, and criminality: A meta-analysis. Addictions, 93, (515-532).
Marlatt, G.A. & Gordon, J.R. (Ed.s) (1985). Relapse prevention. New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, W.R. & Rollnick, (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behaviour.
New York: Guilford Press.
Prochaska, J.O. & DiClemente, C.C.(1992). Stages of change in the modification of problem behaviour. In M.
Hersen; R.M. Eisler, & P.M. Miller (Ed.s), Progress in behaviour modification. Vol. 28, pp 183-218.
Sycamore, Illinois: Sycamore Publishing Co.
Varis, D. (2001). Intensive support units for federal inmates: A descriptive review. Forum on Corrections
Research, 13 (3). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

99