SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMMES: PRINCIPLES OF GOOD DESIGN AND
ASSESSMENT

Brian A. Grant, Ph.D.*
I. INTRODUCTION
Effective correctional programmes have been shown to reduce the likelihood that offenders will bereadmitted to prison (Andrews et.al., 1990; Gendeau, Little & Goggin, 1996; Lipsey, 1995; Lösel, 1995).
Through the use of good programming it is possible to assist offenders to become productive citizens and to
reduce crime. Over the past 20 years research has been conducted to determine the types of programmes thatwill be effective at reducing new offending and to determine the characteristics of successful programmes.
During the 70's and 80's some researchers in criminology argued that programmes cannot work withoffenders, but this literature has been largely discredited in recent years (Andrews & Bonta, 2002).
However, while research is showing positive effects of treatment on offender behaviour there remains aneed for high quality research to support and guide programme developers. Investing resources inprogrammes that may have no effect is inefficient, and in some cases, can be counterproductive, leading tohigher rates of recidivism. Research can help to understand the impacts of interventions on offenders andimprove the quality of programming by identifying those components that produce positive results.
For the purposes of this paper, the general correctional treatment research literature will be examined as
this literature is applicable to all forms of correctional programmes. Whenever possible, examples will bepresented from research on substance abuse.
II. THEORETICAL MODEL
Psychological and sociological theories help in understanding human behaviour. By selecting anappropriate theory one has a road map of how behaviour may be changed and what to look at whenevaluating the effectiveness of programmes. Sociological theories are effective for helping us understand thechanges that are observed in groups, but treatment is focused on the individual. Therefore, psychology, with
its emphasis on individual behaviour, provides a starting point for appropriate theories to assist with
programme development.
Among the many psychological theories that could be considered, social learning theory is one that has
been applied successfully to treatment programmes and to understanding the behaviour of offenders(Andrews & Bonta, 2002). Social learning theory, in its simplest form, suggests that increases in rewards fora behaviour will increase the probability that a behaviour will occur again (Bandura, 1971, 1986). Rewards
may be concrete and tangible like money or food, but they may also be more conceptual and abstract.
Positive praise can be as effective, or more effective, than tangible rewards and the expectation of rewards
also has a strong effect on behaviour.
Modeling is another way in which people can learn appropriate behaviours. In correctional settings, staff
and programme facilitators can model positive, prosocial behaviours as examples to the offenders in custody.
Offenders observing these behaviours will model them and learn appropriate responses. One implication ofmodeling is all staff in a correctional institution must be expected to show appropriate behaviours, not justprogramming staff. Correctional staff who do not deliver programmes have much greater contact withoffenders than programme staff who may only work with an offender group for one or two hours a day, or a
week.

* Director,
Addictions Research Centre,
Correctional Service Canada

70124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Given a good theoretical background it is possible to design and develop effective correctional
programmes.
III. RISK/NEED RESPONSIVITY
One of the most prolific writers in the area of assessment and treatment delivery for offenders has been
Prof. Don Andrews from Carleton University in Canada. In his writing he has argued that there are four basic
principles to be taken into account when assessment and treatment services for an offender population (Seefor example, Andrews & Bonta, 2002). The four principles are:(i) Risk(ii) Need(iii) Responsivity(iv) Professional discretion
Each of these principles will be explained in the following sections.
A. Risk Principle
The risk principle states that offenders with the highest risk of re-offending are the most in need ofintervention and the most likely to benefit from intervention. To apply this principle, an assessment of risk to
re-offend is required. The assessment may be done using a variety of assessment instruments, like the ones
used by the Correctional Service Canada and described in the previous paper (Grant, 2003), and others, suchas the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) (Andrews & Bonta, 1995) that will be described later in this paper.
Whatever type of assessment is conducted, the goal is to determine which offenders are at greatest risk to
offend (Andrews, 1996). Having identified those at greatest risk to re-offend, treatment resources may bedirected at the highest risk group.
Why is this important? Resources for treatment are never unlimited and planners and policy makers must
decide how to effectively use the resources. Research has shown that using treatment resources to address
the problems of offenders who are at a low risk to re-offend is not very effective. Those who are unlikely to
re-offend will serve their sentence, be released to the community and are unlikely to return, regardless ofwhether any treatment is offered. This does not mean that the lowest risk groups are ignored, but that theyrequire only minimal resources.
Offenders who are at the highest risk to re-offend require the most intensive treatment services if the goal
is to reduce the likelihood of returning to prison. As this group is also likely responsible for the highest
volume of crime, changing their behaviour through treatment will result in the largest decrease in criminal
activities. The risk principle is an important principle in the treatment of offenders, but is also a management
principle that directs resources to where they can have the greatest impact.
B. Need Principle
The need principle states that in a correctional system only criminogenic needs should be addressed. The
reason for this is that if one is trying to change criminal behaviour, it is only those factors that are associatedwith criminal activity that should be addressed. Other factors may seem likely to be targets for treatment, butthey will not result in reduced crime by the offender. Extensive research has identified a number of needs
areas that are associated with criminal behaviour. The research has demonstrated that if these need areas are
addressed through treatment programmes the likelihood of a new criminal offence will be decreased. The
need areas most likely to have an impact on criminal behaviour are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Criminogenic Needs Identified in the Level of Service Inventory (LSI)
Need area
Education/employment
Financial

Samples from the LSI
Employment history
Employment skills
Minimal education
Reliance on social assistance71

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
Table 1. Criminogenic Needs Identified in the Level of Service Inventory (LSI)
Need area
Family/Marital

Accommodation

Leisure/recreation

Companions

Substance abuse
Emotional personal

Attitude/orientation

Samples from the LSI
Dissatisfaction with marital situation
Problems with family
Criminal family
Poor
Frequent changes
High crime neighbourhood
Poor use of time
Lack of participation in organized activity
Social isolate
Criminal acquaintances & friends
Limited non-criminal associates
Alcohol and drug problem (past & current)
Substance abuse associated with criminal behaviour
Interference with normal behaviour
Psychological/psychiatric treatment
Supportive of crime
Poor attitude toward sentence and supervision
Unfavourable toward convention

These needs are similar to those used by the Correctional Service in its assessments of offender needs,
although the descriptions of the needs in this case are taken from the Level of Service Inventory (LSI), a
different assessment instrument.
C. Responsivity
The Responsivity principle states the treatment should be offered in a form that is most appropriate to theoffender. This means that the style of the treatment should be consistent with the learning needs of theoffender and in a style that the offender is accustomed to. The selection of the best treatment approachshould be based on empirical research. The basic premise is that people have specific styles of learning and
if a treatment is to be effective it must take account of learning styles (Andrews & Bonta, 2002).
An example of the responsivity principle in action is the finding that cognitive behavioural programmes
are most effective with correctional populations (Gendreau, Little & Goggin, 1996). The learning style usedin these programmes is consistent with the learning experience of the offenders, relying on participative
learning exercises, skill development and repetition. On the other hand, treatments that rely on
psychodynamic principles of introspection and self-analysis have not been effective with offenders because
they are less inclined to verbalize their problems, or to think about the impacts their behaviours have onothers. Psychodynamic methods will work with other groups of people who are accustomed to verbalizing
their problems and for whom introspection is not problematic. Another example of the responsivity principle
in practice is designing programmes that take account of cultural differences rather than copying
programmes from other cultures. It may not be appropriate for your country to copy a programme from
Canada, rather the programme should be designed from basic principles, but include proper adaptation ofcultural norms.
D. Professional Discretion
The principle of professional discretion recognizes that assessment instruments cannot be designed toaddress every case. There are, at times, unique characteristics of an individual or situation that must be taken
into account when making decisions about treatment. This means that there will be situations when theassessment tools might indicate an offender is low risk to re-offend, but special circumstances, such as72

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
behaviour since arrest, may indicate that there is a high risk or probability of re-offending. The professionalclassification officer should use this information when making decisions.
Professional discretion must be used with care. Professional judgments that override the assessment fromobjective assessment instruments should be monitored to ensure they are being made with appropriate
understanding of the issues. Ideally, all override decisions would be recorded and reviewed regularly toensure they are based on an understanding of the goals of the assessment. There have been instances within
the Correctional Service where a new assessment instrument has been overridden in 40% of cases. Analysisof these overrides indicated that the decision makers did not fully understand the results of the assessment
and believed their personal judgments were more accurate. Personal judgment, without supporting
reasoning, is not an effective method of decision making. Many studies have indicated that properly
completed, structured and objective assessment is more accurate and consistent than the judgment ofprofessionals alone (Andrews & Bonta, 2002).
A final point about assessment in the context of professional judgment is that decisions about treatment
and interventions are never made in isolation or based on a single assessment instrument. Rather, one must
look at multiple sources of information from interviews, assessment instruments and backgroundinformation. This is sometimes referred to as a multi-method approach. It is when all of the information isconsidered that we can be more certain that assessments are accurate.
E. Static and Dynamic Risk
Assessments of risk may be made using two types of information, static and dynamic. Static information
is information that cannot change. For example, age and gender are clearly static factors. History of previous
offences and type of crimes committed are also static factors. It is not possible to change these factors
through treatment, so knowing them will not effectively guide the type of treatment needed. In addition, if asubsequent assessment is completed it will produce the same result because it is based on the same
information. Therefore, it is not possible to measure change, or reductions (or increases) in risk using static
measures. Criminal history risk is measured using static information.
Dynamic risk factors are important because these are factors that are changeable. Risk factors that arechangeable are amenable to treatment and with these it is possible to measure changes to determine if theoffenders have increased or decreased their risk of reoffending. The criminogenic needs identified earlier are
examples of dynamic risk factors that can be changed. For example, treating substance abuse problems can
reduce the risk of drug use that is likely to result in a return to prison and educational and employment
programmes can increase skills and work opportunities thereby providing for jobs after release.
IV. DOES PROGRAMMING WORKTo determine if correctional programmes have an effect on offender behaviour requires the review of an
extensive research literature. Earlier, reviewing this literature would have meant reading and summarizing
each study and then attempting to locate the consistencies across each study. When the number of studies tobe reviewed is in the hundreds finding trends in their results becomes very difficult and other methodologies
are required.
Researchers started to address this problem in the eighties through a method called Meta-analysis. Metaanalysis is basically a structured means by which a large number of studies can be reviewed. The results ofeach study are coded to identify the presence or absence of key factors of the studies and then the outcome
measures are associated with these factors. Following the analyses, it becomes possible to identify thefactors that are the most effective at achieving behaviour change. In effect, a meta-analysis is a quantitative
method of summarizing the outcome or results from a diverse group of studies. Statistics have been
identified for measuring the strength of observed results and these include the Phi coefficient, Pearson's r, z+score and the Common Language Effect size. The first three of these are standard statistical measures ofassociation and provide a means of looking at vastly different studies to summarize their results.
A major meta analysis completed in 1996 by Dr. Paul Gendreau at the University of New Brunswick in
Canada (Gendreau, Little & Goggin, 1996) looked at which factors are associated with reductions in73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
recidivism. This study is important because it provides clear empirical evidence of the factors associatedwith positive correctional outcomes.
The study had four main goals:(i) Determine which factors are the best predictors of recidivism(ii) Demonstrate the link between the predictors and theory(iii) Compare differences in the ability of dynamic and static factors to predict recidivism(iv) Compare effectiveness of measures or risk, both individually and in combination
The study looked at the results of 131 studies and from these obtained over 1,000 effect relationships.
Research included in the study had a minimum follow-up period of 6 months, the recidivism was measured
for adults, there had to be a clear measure indicating whether or not there was recidivism, and statistical testsof results had to be present.
The factors investigated in the study are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Predictors of Recidivism used in Gendreau et.al., (1996)
Static Risk Factors
Adult criminal history
Pre-adult antisocial behaviour
Family criminality
Family rearing practices
Family structure
Age
GenderIntellectual functioning
Race
Socio-economic status

Dynamic Risk Factors
Anti-social personality
Companions
Criminogenic needs
Interpersonal conflict
Personal distress
Social achievement
Substance abuse

Risk Measures(use combinations of factors)
Level of supervision inventory (LSI)
Salient Factor Score (SFS)
Wisconsin system
OthersAntisocial personality scales
Psychopathy checklist (PCL)
Other

Table 3 presents the results of the meta-analysis. The larger the number in the second column the morecorrelated the factors are with recidivism, and therefore the more effective they are for assessing offenders’risk of reoffending.
Table 3. Results of Meta-analysis of Predictors of Recidivism
Factor Studied
Individual Factors
Criminogenic needs factor
Criminal history
Social achievement
Age, gender & race
Family factors
Intellectual functioning
Socio-economic status
Personal distress

74

Mr
.17
.16
.15
.14
.12
.07
.06
.06

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Table 3. Results of Meta-analysis of Predictors of Recidivism
Factor Studied
Dynamic vs. static factors
Dynamic predictors
Static predictors

Mr

Risk scales

.30

.15
.13

The study shows that the three factors that were the most correlated with recidivism were criminogenic
need factors, criminal history and social achievement. Other important factors were age, gender and race,and family background. These therefore, are the factors that should be assessed when determining who
requires the most intervention. You will note that these are the factors that are included in the risk and needassessments described earlier. Also of note, is the finding that factors like socio-economic status, intellectual
functioning and personal distress are not highly correlated with recidivism. Therefore, these are not goodtargets for effective intervention. Sociological theories of the criminal behaviour often raise socio-economic
status as an important factor in understanding criminal behaviour, but these results suggest that it is not a
factor that needs to considered.
The results in Table 3 also compare the effectiveness of static and dynamic factors. From the results inthe table it can be seen that dynamic factors are slightly more effective at predicting recidivism than static
factors, but both types of factors are very similar in their predictive abilities.
Next, the results in Table 3 show that risk scales are actually the best predictors of recidivism. Thisoccurs because risk scales studied in the meta-analysis combine the most important predictors of criminal
behaviour into a single assessment instrument. The result demonstrates the importance of considering
multiple factors in the assessment of risk and how this can improve the accuracy of prediction. In addition,
the risk scales generally include both dynamic and static factors thereby further improving their predictive
accuracy.
Finally, the study compared the effectiveness of a number of different risk scales. Overall, the Level ofService Inventory (LSI) (Andrews & Bonta, 1995) provided the most effective prediction of recidivism. This
scale includes many of the dynamic and static factors discussed. Other scales studied include the Salient
Factor Score (SFS) (Hoffman, 1983), the Wisconsin risk assessment tool (Clear & Gallager, 1985) and thePsychopathy Checklist (PCL) (Hare, 1990, 1996). Full results are presented in Table 4.
Overall, the result of this study provide a list of the factors that should be addressed in correctional
programming and they show that using risk assessment tools that combined different factors and bothdynamic and static measures are the most effective tools for predicting the likelihood of new offences after
release from prison.
Table 4. Comparison of Risk Assessment Scales
Risk scales
Level of Service Inventory (LSI)
Salient Factor Score (SFS)
Wisconsin
Other
Antisocial personality
Psychopathy checklist
Other

Mr
.35
.29
.27
.30
.28
.16

75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
V. 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;
Gendreau, Little & Goggin, 1996; Lipsey, 1995; Lösel, 1995), but the study by Andrews et al. (1990)
illustrates the conclusions.
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 to determine which produced lower recidivism.

(ii) Inappropriate correctional service not consistent with the risk/need principles. These studies
provided intervention to low risk offenders, used non-directive relationship based or
psychodynamic counselling. Other kinds of interventions included in this group were group
counselling programmes that did not use prosocial modelling, non-directive educational andvocational programmes and programmes like scared straight, designed to discourage continued
criminal activity by showing what prison is like.
(iii) Appropriate treatment options include delivery to higher risk offenders, behaviourally oriented
interventions, have responsivity comparisons, and a small number of non-behavioural studies that
addressed criminongenic needs.
(iv) Unspecified treatment was the fourth category and was used where the treatment was unspecified,or could not be classified 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 5, programmes that followed the risk/need principles and were structured
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 5. Type of Intervention and Impact on Recidivism
Type of treatment
Appropriate
Unspecified
Inappropriate
Criminal sanctions

Number of studies
54
32
38
30

Mean Phi
.30
.13
-.06
-.07

Summarizing the outcome of a number of meta analysis Gendreau (1996) has proposed a set of 8
principles of effective programme design:(i)

The risk and need levels of offenders are specified and used in selection of participants andcriminogenic needs are targeted.
(ii) Programmes are highly structured with content and contingencies under the control of the
facilitators not the participants and antisocial attitudes are not reinforced.
(iii) Account for Responsivity of participants. For example, highly structured programmes are mostappropriate for offenders who are not effective at conceptualising ideas; higher levels ofinterpersonal interaction for high anxiety offenders; and additional contingencies are put in placefor offenders who have low motivation.

76

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS(iv) Offender characteristics are matched to staff including personal characteristics (gender, age, life
experiences, training) and relationship styles (empathy, fairness, firmness, spontaneity).
(v) Positive reinforces outnumber punishers by a ratio of 4:1.
(vi) Intervention periods of 3 to 9 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 practiceinterventions learned.
(vii) 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.
(viii)Assessment and evaluation of the programme is on-going and integral to the programme so changes
in behaviour and attitudes can be measured, skill development can be assessed and programmeoutcomes can be demonstrated.
In addition to these principles, Gendreau argues that the following components are important forsuccessful interventions:(i) Prosocial attitudes and behaviours are reinforced during treatment sessions.
(ii) Prosocial 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 anti-social 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 externalise 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 offender behaviour
while offenders were still in custody. For this study this meta analysis looked at research using intuitional
incidents. Their findings demonstrate that with increased programme options institutional incidents decline.
That is, with programming, correctional institutions become safer places.
VI. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
A. Introduction
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.
B. Research Needs
Research requires the systematic collection of information, but this information can serve more than one
purpose. 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 are

77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
delivered appropriately, but can assist correctional management in planning and developing theircorrectional 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 tolook at 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 a
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 level ofprogramme 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 to increased
efficiencies in the operation of the correctional system. Providing programming is expensive and knowing
who it works best for, under what conditions and what intensity of programming is needed increases theprobability that resources will be used in the most efficient manner.
Research helps to eliminate programmes and interventions that do not have an impact on the offender.
Many interventions have little or not impact on offender behaviour, and yet are continued at great costbecause management does not know the impact.
C. 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 remembered that arrest does not mean conviction.
Therefore, in the U.S., recidivism rates may appear higher than in other countries that use convictions as ameasure of recidivism. In Canada, recidivism is usually measured in terms of convictions because thenational police force maintains an extensive database containing all convictions for criminal offences. It isnecessary when reading research reports, and when writing reports, to be clear about the type of 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 of78

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
recidivism. 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 offender has not had time to commit additional crimes, or more accurately, to be detectedby official sources (the police) for having committed a new crime. For this reason, studies that report
recidivism with a follow-up period of less than 6 months or less 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 have childvictims must be followed for extended periods of time, as their recidivism generally takes longer to show 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 that 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 conviction for a minor assault that results in 5 days in prison should
be considered as 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
with different 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 outcome. 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 a deterioration in behaviour in the community.
In research that is conducted by the Correctional Service a combination of measures of outcome are
frequently used. The most basic measure is return to custody, and this provides information on how well theoffender 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 it provides statistical tests for comparing different groups. How
survival analysis helps is 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.

79

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 64
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Programmes that provide appropriate interventions to offenders can reduce the probability that they will
return to prison. Programming that reduces recidivism also reduces the crime problem in our communities.
Results of the research reviewed indicate that programmes that address criminogenic factors, those factorsthat have been shown through research to be associated with criminal behaviour, should be the targets ofcorrectional programming. Substance abuse is one of the most important criminogenic factors. Programmesthat are structured and well organized are more effective than those that are not and those programmes thattake account of the offenders leaning needs, including cultural differences, will be more effective than thosethat do not. Programming that applies the risk/need responsivity principles will be more effective and more
efficient than those that do not.
REFERENCES
Andrews, D.A. (1996). Criminal recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: An Update. Forum on
Corrections Research, 8 (3), 42-44.
Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health
Systems.
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.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Clear, T.R., & Gallagher, K.W.(1985). Probation and parole supervision: A review of current classification
practices. Crime and Delinquency, 31, 423-443.
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. (2003). Substance abuse in the Canadian correctional context. Presented at United Nations
Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI), Tokyo, Japan.
Hare, R.D. (1990). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hoffman, P.B. (1983). Screening for risk: A revised Salient Factor Score (SFS 81). Journal of Criminal
Justice, 11, (539-547).
Hare, R.D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice andBehaviour, 23, 25-54.
Lipsey, M. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment withjuvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.) What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 63-78). Chichester,
England: Wiley.

80

124TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Lösel, F. (1995). Increasing consensus in the evaluation of offender rehabilitation? Lessons from recent
research syntheses. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2, (19-39).

81