SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN THE CANADIAN CORRECTIONAL CONTEXTBrian A. Grant, Ph.D.*

I. INTRODUCTION
Substance abuse and addiction are major challenges for prison and correctional agencies around theworld. The association between crime and substance use and abuse is well documented and provides asuperficial explanation for why a large percentage of incarcerated offenders are identified with substanceabuse problems. The potential magnitude of the challenge is demonstrated by the high frequency of drug use
as measured at the time of arrest. A recent study found that 66% of those arrested for any offence had beenusing drugs in the United States and 59% had been using drugs in England (Taylor & Bennett, 1999). These
results are consistent with a study in Canada showing that 50% of those arrested were deemed to be under
the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their arrest (Pernanen, et. al., 2002). Self-reported drug use
during, or just prior to, the commission of crimes is also high, between 50% and 60%.
At a recent international conference, 11 countries offered descriptions of the substance abuse problems
within their prisons (Addictions Research Centre, 2002). In most cases they described high rates of drug use
prior to admission to prison and continued drug use after admission. All agreed that treatment was an
essential element in attempts to address the problems. While some jurisdictions were able to stop the use ofdrugs in prison, they did this at the cost of restricting contact with the larger community, contact that is often
viewed as essential if offenders are to be effectively reintegrated.
The Correctional Service Canada has identified substance abuse as a major challenge. It has put in place
treatment programmes, infrastructure, and research and development to address the problem. This paper
describes the context in which these interventions have been developed and are delivered. However, before
addressing the specifics of substance abuse, it is important to understand the national context in which theCorrectional Service Canada operates.
II. DELIVERY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: SHARED RESPONSIBILITIESCanada is a parliamentary democracy with a strong federal government that shares government
responsibilities with 10 provincial and 3 territorial governments. As with other areas, responsibility forcorrections, including supervision of offenders in the community, operation of prisons and halfway houses,and parole decisions, is shared between the two levels of government. However, Canada has a single national
criminal code and drug control act so the laws are the same across the country.
A. Provincial and Territorial Responsibilities
Provinces and territories are responsible for administering the court system and sentences that result inprobation, conditional release, fines, community service orders, shorter term prison sentences andconditional sentences. Provincial and territorial governments are responsible for managing remand centersfor offenders awaiting trial or sentencing and for custody sentences of less than 2 years duration. This results
in a high flow of offenders for the provincial and territorial corrections system that deal with many very short
sentences (the average is 30 days). During a year provincial and territorial correctional systems will manage
just fewer than 100,000 sentences, but on any one day they will have approximately 12,000 offenders incustody (Statistics Canada, 2002). They must also deal with just over 100,000 remand cases per year. The
effect of this large turnover is they have only limited opportunities to provide effective interventions during
the period of incarceration (Statistics Canada, 2002).

* Director,
Addictions Research Centre,
Correctional Service Canada

59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
Provincial and territorial governments also provide supervision for offenders sentenced to terms ofprobation, which typically last from 6 to 24 months, although longer terms are possible. Probation is servedin the community with supervision by a probation officer. During the period of probation, an offender may
be required to participate in treatment programmes and to abstain from the use of alcohol and illicit drugs;
failure to do so can result in a period of incarceration. While provincial and territorial governments provide
some substance abuse programming in their institutions, much of the programming occurs in the community
and is carried out by community agencies.
B. Federal Responsibilities
Offenders who receive custody sentences of two years or more become the responsibility of theCorrectional Service Canada, the federal correctional agency in Canada. In addition to managing the custody
portion of sentences, the Correctional Service is responsible for offenders released on parole to thecommunity. Most offenders in Canada are released from prison after serving between ½ and 2/3 of theirsentence in custody.
Given the longer sentences of offenders in the federal correctional system, there are more opportunities
for programming and other types of intervention. The majority of offenders serve sentences of between 2 and5 years, but those serving longer sentences account for a substantial proportion of the in-custody population.
C. Custody Sentences
In Canada offenders sentenced to custody receive either a determinate or indeterminate sentence. The
most common sentences are determinate, in which the judge sets the maximum length of the sentence.
Managing the sentence becomes the responsibility of the Correctional Service and an offender is normallyreleased from custody for a period of supervision in the community before the end of the sentence.
Indeterminate sentences are used less frequently, but are used for the most serious crimes and offenders.
Indeterminate sentences are generally life sentences for which there is no date for the end of the sentence.
The most common indeterminate sentence is a life sentence for murder. Depending on the type of conviction,
an offender sentenced to life must serve between 10 and 25 years in prison, before being considered forrelease to the community. However, even if the decision is made to release the offender they remain under
supervision of the correctional system and may be returned to custody if they violate the conditions of theirrelease.
For determinate sentences, there are a number of points at which release to the community withsupervision is possible, as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Release Options for Offenders Serving Determinate Sentences
Type of ReleaseDay parole

Time in Sentence
6 months before full parole

Full parole
Statutory releaseAt 1/3 of the sentence
At 2/3 of the sentence

Detention period

From 2/3 of sentence to end ofsentence

Comments
Used with lowest risk offenders if granted
before full parole; may also be used any time
up to statutory release to provide transition to
the community
May be used up to statutory release
Release required by law, but may be delayed in
exceptional situations where there is a threat ofviolence
Possibility for release assessed regularly; if riskof violence is reduced release may occur.

D. National Parole Board
Decisions about release from prison are not the responsibility of the Correctional Service; rather, theNational Parole Board makes release decisions. The Board reviews all recommendations for release from theCorrectional Service and interviews the offender to determine how they are progressing in addressing theircorrectional plan. If the Board decides there is no risk to the community by releasing an offender, or if they
believe whatever risk there is can be managed effectively by parole officers, then they may grant day paroleor full parole. The National Parole Board does not make release decisions for offenders who have served 2/3

60

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSof their sentences, but have the authority to impose conditions for the release of these offenders. Where an
offender is being released at their statutory release date but there is a belief that they might pose anunacceptable risk in the community, they may be ordered to live at a halfway house.
For offenders who pose a serious risk of imminent violence if they are released at their statutory releasedate, the National Parole Board may decide to detain the offender in custody until the end of their sentence.
If detention is ordered, the case is reviewed annually to determine if the offender is ready for release.
Detention is not used frequently, but is an option for the most violent offenders.
III. CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
The work of the Correctional Service Canada is guided by the following mission statement:
The Correctional Service Canada, as part of the criminal justice system and respecting the rule oflaw, contributes to the protection of society by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to
become law-abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure humane control.
The Mission puts into context two sometimes conflicting goals, the protection of the public, which is themain reason for incarceration, and the belief that offenders can change and become law-abiding citizens. To
actively encourage offenders, the Service needs to provide treatment and interventions opportunities. Thisapproach is premised on the fact that almost all offenders will eventually be returned to their communities
and it is our goal that they be returned having a greater probability to contribute than before they weresentenced.
A second key component of the mission statement is that the Service must "exercise reasonable, safe,
secure humane control." Operationally, this commits the Service to move offenders from the most secure
facilities to the successively less restrictive environments. That is, while offenders may start their sentence ina maximum security prison they should be cascaded downward to medium and then to minimum security. If
supervision in the community can be used effectively to manage the risk the offender posses, then thatshould be the option.
A. Characteristics
The Service manages 52 prisons across the country with 5 multi-level (security) institutions speciallydesigned for women offenders and the remainder classified as low, medium or high security. Most minimum
security institutions hold between 100 and 200 offenders, maximum security institutions generally have acapacity for 200 to 300 inmates, while medium security institutions are the largest, having space for between
500 and 600 inmates.
In addition to the prisons, the Service manages 17 community correctional centres (halfway houses) andcontracts with a large number of non-government organizations to provide additional halfway house beds.
Parole offices are located across the country.
At any one time, there are approximately 12,000 offenders in custody in federal prisons. About 3% orjust over 300 of these are women. In the community, there are about 10,000 offenders on parole, of which
about 6% are women.
B. Intake Process (General)
To effectively manage offenders admitted to the Correctional Service Canada it is important toadequately assess their needs and the risk they present to the correctional system and the community. All
offenders admitted to the Service undergo an extensive assessment process that requires between 60 and 90
days to complete.
During the assessment period, parole staff collect information that helps them to develop a correctional
plan with the offender. The types of information collected include criminal history records, court records andpolice records related to the offences they were convicted of and community assessments of the offenders
needs and background. In addition, a number of objective assessments are conducted to identify risk andneeds and these are discussed below.

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
1. Criminogenic Needs
An extensive research literature has identified a number of areas in an offender’s life that are associatedwith criminal behaviour and increased risk of offending (See for example Andrews and Bonta, 1998). These
are referred to as criminogenic needs because of their relationship to criminal behaviour. The criminogenic
needs are also dynamic and can be affected by programming. For the Correctional Service, criminogenic
needs are assessed using 197 indicators that are assessed by parole officers in the institution. The indicators
were developed to identify the seven need areas identified in Table 2, along with samples of the indicators.
Table 2. Need Domains and Sample Indicators
Need Domain
Education and employment

Marital and family relations

Associates and social interaction

Substance abuse

Community functioning

Personal and emotional functioning

Attitudes

Sample Indicators
Has less than grade 8
Has problems writing
Has poor attendance record
Has difficulties with co-workers
Mother absent during childhood
Parents dysfunctional during childhood
Family members involved in crime
Unable to handle parenting responsibilities
Associates with substance abusers
Has many criminal associates
Easily influenced by others
Began drinking at an early age
Drinking interferes with health
Drug use resulted in law violations
Has unstable accommodation
Has physical problems
Has no bank accountHas difficulty solving interpersonal problems
Aggressive
Manipulative
Negative towards law
Intolerant of others
Lacks direction

Based on an assessment of each of the indicators, parole officers determine which of the need areas
represent an asset or a problem for the offender; those identified as a problem require treatment. An
assessment is also made of the overall need level (low, moderate or high) and this is an excellent indicator ofrisk of re-offending. Offenders who are identified as being high need require special attention during theirsentence.
2. Criminal History Risk
Criminal history risk is assessed in two ways. First, 174 indicators of criminal history risk are assessed.
These indicators include information on youth and adult court involvement, current and previous offences,sex offending and victim information. Based on these indicators, parole officers assess the criminal history
risk on a three point scale, low, moderate or high risk.
In addition, offenders are assessed on the Statistical Information on Recidivism (SIR) scale (Nafekh &Motiuk, 2002). This is an actuarial tool that was developed specifically for the Canadian correctional
population. The scale was constructed by comparing criminal history items with actual recidivism observed
after release in a large sample of offenders. Criminal history items are weighted and an overall score is
generated. As with the other assessment tools, SIR results can be classified as low, moderate or high tocharacterize the risk the offender will present after release from prison.

62

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
3. Custody Rating Scale
The Custody Rating Scale (CRS) is used to determine the level of security offenders need and therefore
the type of institution they will be assigned by (Grant & Luciani, 1998). The CRS rates the offender on two
broad areas, Institutional Adjustment and Security Risk. Institutional adjustment is assessed by looking at
institutional incidents, escape risk, street stability, substance abuse and age. Security risk is assessed byfactors like prior convictions, outstanding charges, sentence length, street stability, prior release and age.
4. Additional Assessments
During the assessment process requirements for more detailed assessments may be identified. Offenders
may undergo additional educational and employment testing, psychological assessment and programme
specific assessments for sex offender treatment and substance abuse.
C. Correctional Plan
The final product of the assessment process is the development of the correctional plan. The correctional
plan presents the programme needs and challenges to be addressed by the offender while incarcerated.
Normally, the correctional plan will identify what programmes the offender should take while in custody,
what programmes would be appropriate to follow after release to the community and provide information tothe offender on release planning. The plan is then used by parole officers to organize and track the progressof the offender during incarceration and community supervision. The National Parole Board will use thecorrectional plan to determine if the offender has been making progress towards addressing thecriminongenic needs during the period in custody.
D. Offender Management System
Almost all of an offender’s file information is stored electronically in computer systems that can beaccessed across the country. Most of this information is used for administrative purposes to ensure proper
calculation of sentences, completion of reports, programme participation etc. However, it is also an
extremely useful tool for management planning and for research. It is a relatively easy task to provide
profiles of the entire offender population or of subgroups that one may be interested in. Profiles make itpossible to design interventions to meet specific needs of subgroups of the offender population. While thefull implementation of a system like this may be very difficult, starting to build a data system that contains
descriptive information of offenders in custody and in the community will help with planning anddevelopment of any correctional system.
IV. ADDICTIONS RESEARCH CENTRE
In 1999 the Correctional Service Canada identified the need for a more focused effort in addressing thesubstance abuse problems of offenders both in custody and in the community. While there was an extensive
infrastructure in place to address substance abuse treatment, there had not been sufficient research anddevelopment activity to support this activity. Therefore, a new research division was created within theexisting Research Branch dedicated to addressing the challenges of substance abuse (Grant, 2001).
The division, known as the Addictions Research Centre, was established in Montague, Prince Edward
Island and is responsible for all programme development and research related to substance abuse. The Centre
has a staff of 20 people and is located in a newly constructed 1000 square metre building with an adjoining
residence for up to three visiting experts and interns. The building opened in May of 2001 and the Centre is
now fully operational.
The role of the Addictions Research Centre is:...to advance the management of addiction issues in criminal justice towards the goal of contributing
to public protection. The Centre is committed to enhancing corrections policy, programming andmanagement practices on substance abuse through the creation and dissemination of knowledge andexpertise.
The Centre has established five goals that will assist it in fulfilling its role within the criminal justicesystem:63

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64(i)Meet applied research needs of CSC to assist in the development of policy, programming andmanagement practices(ii) Build co-operative and complementary relationships with partners(iii) Provide a location for internationally recognized researchers to conduct research(iv) Promote research in addictions and corrections(v) Provide research training and development
Work at the Centre is organized into four areas:(i) Programme development;(ii) Programme research;(iii) Assessment and measurement; and(iv) Knowledge sharing.
The following section provides a description of projects in each of these areas. These are brief
descriptions and more detailed information on methodology and results, where available, will be presented
in the third paper in this series
A. Programme Development
1. Women Offenders’ Substance Abuse Programme
A review by an international panel of experts identified a number of deficiencies in the programming
available for women offenders. To address these limitations the ARC initiated the development of a newprogramme. This programme, guided by the expert panel, will provide state of the art treatment to women
offenders. The programme is designed to meet the specific needs of women offenders taking account of theirunique pathways to addiction and the impact of substance abuse on their lives (Hume & Grant, 2002).
2. High Intensity Substance Abuse Programme.
The High Intensity Substance Abuse Programme (HISAP) was developed by a team of substance abuseprogramme coordinators. The programme has been tested at a number of sites and preliminary results
indicate that it has been received positively and intermediate measures of outcome appear promising (Grant
et.al., 2003). The ultimate test is its impact on recidivism and those results will not be available for two or
three years. The programme has been reviewed by an accreditation panel, and was approved subject to thefollow-up data requirements.
3. Aboriginal Offender Substance Abuse Programme
Aboriginal offenders have unique needs in the area of substance abuse based on their social and culturalexperiences. Accounting for more than 15% of offenders in federal penitentiaries it has been long recognizedthat specialized programming would be more effective for these offenders than current core programmes.
The ARC is working towards the development of a new programme, based on Aboriginal needs and issues
that will better meet the treatment goals of offenders.
B. Programme Research
1. Intensive Support Units
Intensive support units (ISU) were established at five locations, one in each region, across the country.
Offenders wishing to live in the ISU must sign a consent form agreeing to increased testing and searching to
reduce the likelihood of alcohol or drugs being available. In addition, staff on the units receive training about
issues associated with addictions so they can better assist offenders while they are participating in treatment
and during the period after treatment has ended and they must work to remain free of drugs and alcohol.
Offenders on the ISU continue to work and take their recreation periods with the general population of theinstitution, so it is not like a Therapeutic Community. While not directly responsible for managing theseunits, the ARC is responsible for conducting research to determine if the units are having the expected
benefits. In particular, the research is looking at what offenders and staff expect to achieve through living onthese units, how living on the units impacts their release and how it impacts their outcome after release into
the community (Grant, Varis & Lefebvre, 2004).

64

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
2. Methadone Maintenance Treatment
Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) has been shown to be an effective intervention for offenders
addicted to opiates. In this study, offenders were monitored after release from prison to determine how
effective the treatment had been at impacting their criminal behaviour. Results indicated that there was adecreased chance of offenders returning to custody after release compared to a similar group of offenders
who had not received MMT. There were also changes evident in institutional behaviour, but these werelimited. The study points to the need for additional research, particularly research that follows offenders into
the community to determine the effect of MMT on continued drug use (Johnson, van de Ven & Grant, 2001).
3. Managing Addictions in the Community (MAC)
Providing interventions for high need offenders released into communities is challenging. They require
access to multiple community resources, but very often the people who provide services in communities are
reluctant to work with problematic offenders. The Service contracted with a community agency to develop a
programme that would meet the needs of the high need offenders by together community resources. The
MAC programme employs a "Wrap Around" process that brings together the required community services toprepare an action plan to work with offenders. Evaluation of the programme will need to await theparticipation of more clients, but an evaluation plan is in place.
C. Assessment and Measurement
1. Computerized Assessment of Substance Abuse
For the past ten years institutional staff have relied on the Computerized Lifestyle Assessment
Instrument (CLAI) to assess the severity and nature of substance abuse problems. The CLAI used oldcomputer technology and contained many items that were not relevant to substance abuse treatment.
Therefore, a new system has been redeveloped to focus on substance abuse issues only and to improve theadministration of the test and the reporting of results. The new system provides an audio component thatallows offenders with literacy problems to have questions read to them. New methods of transferring data toother systems (intake assessment, programme planning etc.) are being investigated to reduce the need foroffenders to repeatedly provide the same information. A fully integrated system will reduce staff time forassessments (Kunic, in press).
2. Random Drug Testing
Random drug testing has been underway in the Correctional Service since 1994 and a large quantity ofdata has been collected. However, there have been limited opportunities to analyze these data to determine
what we can learn from it. Analyses our underway at the ARC to make more complete use of these valuable
data (MacPherson, 2004). Studies are looking at linkages between drug use in prison and admission data todevelop profiles of offenders who continue to use drugs. Work is also underway to look at those offenders
who refuse to provide samples for urinalysis to determine patterns of refusal and appropriate sanctions.
Finally, analyses are underway to link drug use in prison with programme outcomes and release outcome.
3. Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Fetal alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is a permanent neurological disorder resulting from the use ofalcohol by expectant mothers. It is generally associated with high use of alcohol, but timing of alcohol use
relative to the development of the fetus is more critical than the quantity of alcohol consumed. FASD
affected individuals have trouble with judgement and leaning and are more likely than others to become
involved with the criminal justice system (Boland, et.al., 1998). Affected individuals are a challenge for staff
in correctional facilities and it may be that sending them to prison is not the most effective method for
dealing with their behaviour problems. However, there are no standardize screening tools for FASD, nor isthere good information on the number of individuals in correctional systems who may be affected by thisdisorder. Knowing the number of individuals who may be affected by FAS is important in planninginterventions. A study is currently underway to develop a screening instrument appropriate for adults and todevelop estimates of incidence of FASD within a correctional population (Boland, Chudley & Grant, 2003).
D. Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing is an important function for the Addictions Research Centre. There is little value tobe gained by creating new knowledge that remains only in reports. The Centre seeks to share knowledge
through organizing conferences, supporting knowledge sharing activities, making conference presentations

65

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
and producing reports, working collaboratively with academic and non-government organizations to conduct
research and programme development and by providing a location for experts and interns to learn and share
their expertise.
In 2002 the Centre organized the International Experts Forum 2002: Setting the agenda for correctional
research in substance abuse, a major international meeting of correctional experts to discuss priorities forresearch and development designed to address the problems of substance abuse. The conference wasattended by 150 delegates representing 11 countries and over 25 correctional jurisdictions. The conference
included participation by experts from community treatment agencies to ensure that correctional agencies
were aware of the most recent trends in treatment and intervention (Addictions Research Centre, in press).
Results from the Forum indicate that jurisdictions are interested in working together to address problems
and many priorities were identified (Grant, et.al., in press). Discussion of these priorities will be presented in
the third paper in this series.
The Centre has hosted many meetings of Canadian correctional officials to discuss the challenges they
face in the prison environment. Work is currently underway to develop a series of international internshipsthat will allow correctional officials from around the world to visit and learn about treatment, development
and research in substance abuse that is occurring within the Correctional Service Canada. Interns will be
encouraged to work on a project of direct relevance to their home countries while developing research skills.
V. SUBSTANCE ABUSE ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT
A. Magnitude of the Challenge
As noted earlier, all offenders admitted to federal prisons are assessed to determine if they have asubstance abuse problem. The assessments indicate that 70% of offenders admitted have an identifiable
substance abuse problem that is linked to their criminal activities. In addition, most require some form oftreatment while they are incarcerated. Between 50% and 60% of those with a problem are assessed as
requiring a moderate level intervention, while 20% are assessed as having a serious or severe problem
requiring a high intensity treatment programme. The balance has a low severity problem.
In addition to the number of offenders with an identifiable substance problem, approximately 20% of
those in institutions have been involved with the drug trade based on convictions for importing, producing,trafficking and possessing drugs (Motiuk & Vuong, 2001). The combination of people who are suppliers of
drugs and the large percentage who are users results in a challenging environment in which all elements ofthe drug trade are in very close contact with each other.
Urinalysis evidence indicates that approximately 12% of offenders use drugs while they are incarcerated(MacPherson, 2004). Nine to ten percent of offenders test positive for cannabis with the balance testing
positive for other drugs. Long-term trends have indicated that drug use has remained relatively constantfollowing the full introduction of drug testing. The distribution of drugs used has not changed significantly
although fluctuations are noted in the results.
B. Theoretical Perspective
Substance abuse programmes offered by the Service have been developed on a social learning model.
The focus of social learning theory is that behaviours are learned and the most effective method of changing
behaviour is through learning new approaches to problems. Treatment programmes are built around a
cognitive/behavioural approach that relies more on teaching new skills and new ways of thinking about drug
and alcohol use. Based on research to be discussed later, this approach has been shown to be very effective inworking with offenders.
C. Assessment Process
Assessment of substance abuse problems occurs at two levels. As part of the offender intake assessment
process parole officers determine the link between substance abuse and criminal behaviour and assess theimpact that substance abuse has on the offender’s behaviour. There are 28 items in the intake assessment
process for identifying substance abuse problems. Sample items from the assessment are presented in Table
2.

66

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
In addition to the basic assessment, and done partly in conjunction with it, is a more detailed assessmentthat uses standardized assessment instruments to determine the severity of offenders' problems. These
assessment instruments have been incorporated into the automated assessment systems such as theComputerized Lifestyle Assessment Instrument and the new system called the Computerized Assessment of
Substance Abuse. The key standardized instruments used are the Alcohol Dependency Scale (ADS) (Skinner& Horn, 1984) and the Drug Abuse Severity Test (DAST) (Skinner, 1982), and the Problems Related to
Drinking (PRD) scale. In addition the computerized assessments ask questions about drug use in the periodprior to incarceration to develop a clearer picture of the link between the offender’s drug use and theircriminal behaviour.
At the time of release from prison offenders are again assessed on the impact that substance abuse will
have on their successful reintegration. Using an internally developed scale, the Community Intervention
Scale, parole officers determine if each of the seven needs domains assessed at intake will have a positive or
negative impact on recidivism if they are released to the community. Those identified as representing aproblem are addressed early in the parole period.
D. Assignment to Programmes
Based on the intake assessment information an offender will be judged as having no substance abuseproblem or a low, moderate or high severity problem. They can then be referred to the most effective
programming options for the severity of their problem. Assignment to appropriate levels of treatment is a
key element in effective correctional programming, a topic that will be discussed in more detail in the next
paper. However, making effective use of limited programme resources and ensuring that the level oftreatment is appropriate to the problem is the main goal of the assessment process. Programme
recommendations are included in the correctional plan and arrangements are made for participation in theselected programme when the offender arrives at their destination institution.
E. Types of Programmes
Currently the Service has five national programmes for the treatment of substance abuse. Each of these isdescribed briefly in the following section.
1. Offender Substance Abuse Pre-release Programme (OSAPP)
This is a 26-session programme designed for moderately addicted offenders taken over a 2 to 3 month
period. It employs a cognitive behavioural approach to treatment and is designed to be delivered prior torelease from custody. There is an emphasis in this programme on identifying the factors that lead to criminal
behaviour and the relationship to substance use. The study of the crime cycle is a key component of relapse
prevention. Offenders work at identifying the factors associated with their drug and alcohol abuse and learn
how to recognize the factors or situations that are likely to lead to repeated use.
OSAPP is delivered as part of the daily routine of the offender with each session lasting 2 to 3 hours. It is
most like an out-patient form of treatment as the remainder of the day is spent in educational or work
activities.
2. Offender Substance Abuse Programme for Long Term Offenders
This programme was modeled after OSSAP, but has been redesigned to take account of the fact that for
many offenders release from custody will not occur until much later in their sentence. Therefore there is aneed for a programme that can be presented earlier in the sentence and is not linked to release. This
programme is specially designed for offenders who may remain in custody for extended periods of 5 to 15
years, or longer.
3. High Intensity Substance Abuse ProgrammesThis programme was developed recently and is still undergoing testing at sites across Canada. The
programme uses over 100 treatment sessions, over a period of four to five months and is designed for those
offenders who are the most severely addicted and who tend to be the most resistant to change. The
preliminary results of the evaluation indicate that there is good retention of training and those involved findthemselves affected by the programme content. In addition, intermediate results indicate changes in attitudes
and other factors that are thought to be important to changing behaviour (Grant et.al., 2003).

67

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
4. Choices
If an offender is deemed to have a substance abuse problem that is moderate to severe they will bereferred to the Choices programme. The Choices programme serves two purposes, providing a low-intensity
treatment programme in the community for offenders after release and providing aftercare support for the
more seriously addicted offenders after they have been released. The Choices programme is only offered in
the community and starts with a 10-day intensive treatment phase and this is followed by weekly meetings.
5. Women Offenders Substance Abuse Programme
Women offenders have been receiving treatment for their substance abuse through interim programme
activities, but a newly redesigned programme will be implemented in the summer of 2003. This new
programme will meet the specific needs of women offenders, and more details about this programme will bepresented in the third of these presentations.
F. InfrastructureManaging the offender programming requires an extensive infrastructure. At the institutional level,
specially designated staff are trained and certified on the delivery of programmes. The programme delivery
officers may be organized at the institutional level, but in some cases are organized at the regional level toensure efficient use of resources. In addition, each region maintains a substance abuse coordinator to provide
management and policy support. Finally, at the national level there are two positions coordinating the workof the substance abuse programme delivery. They work to ensure standards are maintained, develop
materials for accrediting programmes and coordinate the resolutions of issues across the system.
G. Accreditation
To ensure programmes will meet recognized programme standards an accreditation process has beendeveloped in the Service. An external, international review panel must review all core programmes.
Accreditation requires that a programme have a sound theoretical basis, is structured, has training for
facilitators, is monitored to ensure consistency of presentation and has a research and evaluation framework.
In addition to programme accreditation, there is site accreditation to ensure each prison, or treatment facility
meets standards and has properly trained staff and support structures. Finally, work is underway to ensure theprogramme facilitators are accredited. This ensures that they are properly trained and are knowledgeable
about the programmes they deliver.
VI. CONCLUSION
The forgoing was a brief overview of the Correctional Service Canada and its efforts to deliver substanceabuse programming to offenders. The work presented shows a strong commitment by the organization to the
problems of substance abuse in the correctional setting. Much of the material in the next two papers either
guided the development of the programming approach presented here, or results from the desire to move
forward and continue with the development of new and improved methods of treatment.
REFERENCES
Addictions Research Centre (2004) Proceedings of the International Experts Forum 2002: Setting theagenda for correctional research in substance abuse. Ottawa: Addictions Research Centre.
Andrews, D.A. and Bonta J. (2002). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH, Anderson
Publishing Co.
Boland, F J., Burrill, R., Duwyn, M. & Karp, J. (1998). Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: Implications for
Correctional Service (R-71). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Boland, F.J., Chudley, A.E. & Grant, B.A. (2002). The challenge of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in adultoffender populations. Forum on Corrections Research, 14 (3).
Correctional Service Canada. (2004). Mission of the Correctional Service of Canada. 7th Ed. Ottawa,
Canada: Minister of Public Works and Government Service Canada.

68124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Grant, B.A., Hume, L.. & Kunic, D. (2004). Results of priority setting from the International Experts Forum
2002: Setting the agenda for correctional research in substance abuse. Ottawa: Addictions ResearchCentre.
Grant, B.A., Kunic, D., MacPherson, P., McKeown, C. & Hansen, E. (2003). The High Intensity Substance
Abuse Program (HISAP): Results from the pilot programs (R-140). Ottawa: Correctional Service
Canada.
Grant, B.A. & Luciani (1998). Security classification using the Custody Rating Scale (R-67). Ottawa:
Correctional Service Canada.
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 programming : 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.
Motiuk, L.L. & Vuong, B. Profiling the drug offender population in Canadian federal corrections. Forumon Corrections Research, 13 (3).
Nafekh, M & Motiuk, L.L. (2002). The Statistical Information on Recidivism - Revised 1 (SIR-R1) Scale: A
psychometric examination (R-126). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.
MacPherson, P. (2004). Use of random urinalysis to deter drug use in prison: A review of the issues (R149). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Pernanen , K., Coussineau, M., Brochu, S. and Sun, F. (2002) Proportion of crimes associated with alcoholand other drugs in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Skinner, H.A. (1982). The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addictive Behaviors, 7, 363-371.
Skinner, H.A., & Horn, J.L. (1984). Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS): User's Guide. Toronto: Addiction
Research Foundation.
Statistics Canada (2002). Adult correctional services in Canada 2-0-2001 (85-211-XIE2001000). Ottawa:
Statistics Canada.
Taylor, B. & Bennett, T. (1999) Comparing drug use rates of detained arrestees in the United States andEngland (NCJ 175052). National Institute of Justice.

69