VISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERSRESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88
THE EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY AND RELEVANCY OF
CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS: A SYSTEM’S PERSPECTIVE
Laurence L. Motiuk*

I. INTRODUCTION
Research has repeatedly found that those offenders who successfully complete programs targeted totheir risk are less likely to commit new offences. As well, the provision of education, employment andother correctional programs (e.g. substance abuse, violence prevention, sexual offending, family violence
prevention), at the most appropriate time in the offender’s sentence, contributes to safe transition to thecommunity. As well, ample empirical evidence now exists on the effect of correctional programs on reduced
misconduct rates in custodial settings.
A major study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006), having reviewed 291 rigorous
evaluations in English-speaking countries over the last 35 years, reports that completion of cognitive
behavioural treatment programs reduces recidivism significantly in the cases of general-, drug- and sexoffender programs in custody and in the community. The Washington study also reports that the correctional
industry’s programs in prison, employment and job assistance programs in the community and vocational
education programs reduce reoffending significantly. Similarly education programs in custodial settings
result in a decrease in recidivism.
Correctional Service of Canada’s own evaluation results of correctional programs in 2009 report substantial
decreases in readmissions among those offenders who participated in programs versus comparable groups
who did not, for example: programs in substance abuse, violence prevention, sex offender programming andcommunity maintenance. Moreover, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness analyses associated correctional
program delivery expenditures to improved institutional outcomes (discretionary release) and community
outcomes (recidivism). As well, continued relevancy of correctional programs was found in relation toaddressing risk levels and specific criminogenic needs of the current Canadian federal offender population.
To date, four major themes have emerged out of the international literature on correctional program
effectiveness. First, Dr. Don A. Andrews, Carleton University, Canada , outlined a set of principles ofeffective correctional programs. He clearly states that “recidivism is predictable and can be influenced.”
More specifically, ongoing programs that have implemented systematic risk and needs assessment show
the most promise for reducing reoffending rates; effective programs reduce major dynamic risk factors and/or enhance major protective or strength factors; community-based services are preferred over residential/
institutional settings; and the best of the family interventions are not offered in agency offices but in thenatural settings of the home and community.
Secondly, Dr. Paul Gendreau, University of New Brunswick, Canada , identifies the types of interventions
that reduce reoffending. He claims that “when it comes to reducing offender recidivism, the only game in town,
is appropriate cognitive-behavioural treatment which embody known principles of effective intervention.”
Accordingly, it is fair to say, the consensus is reached that effective (appropriate) programs are behavioural,
highly structured in nature and target criminogenic factors.

* Special Adviser, Infrastructure Renewal Group, Correctional Service Canada. The opinions expressed in this paper are thoseof the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Correctional Service of Canada or the Government of
Canada.

14

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Thirdly, Dr. Freidrich Lösel, University of Erlagen-Nurnberg, Germany , informs what empirical research
can tell us about impacts. He contends that "community-based programming tends to produce greater
results than programming delivered in custody.” Also, he reports that on average, offender treatment tends
to reduce recidivism by approximately 10 percentage points. However, methodological studies also suggestthat the potential upper limit of such reductions is actually between 30 and 40 percentage points. Moreover,an organization that is emotionally and socially responsive, well-structured, norm-oriented and controlling
can be important not only to program interaction but also to future non-offending.
Finally, Dr. James McGuire, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom , has highlighted the need forprogram accreditation processes. He suggests that “the optimal route selected by a number of services isthe development of procedures for accreditation of programs designed to reduce recidivism." This means
there should be a clear, evidence-based theoretical model underpinning the program; program material
should identify factors linked to offending; to be effective, programs should be inter-linked with a casemanagement process, and guidelines for implementation within services; and program materials should
include assessment and evaluation measures, and a framework for evaluation of the program's overall
delivery, short-term, and long-term impact.
This paper builds on the evidence-based literature on effective correctional programming (Motiuk &Serin, 2001) and accompanies the others broadly focused on risk/needs assessment and evidence-based
correctional programs. It sets forth a framework for correctional program evaluation and performancemeasurement.

II. Defining Correctional Programs
Basically, correctional programs and/or interventions can be viewed as a structured set of learning
opportunities provided to offenders so they can change for the better and remain crime-free (McGuire,2000). The approach assumes offenders have needs that directly cause their criminal behaviour, that we
can identify those needs accurately, that appropriate intervention is available, that intervention will addressthese needs, and that reduced need will diminish criminal behaviour.
The foregoing is consistent with Social Learning Theory perspectives (Albert Bandura and Don Andrews)
on reducing reoffending and the correctional mandates to contribute to public, staff and offender safety.
Correctional programs whether in institutional or community-based settings have a common objective:“the adjustment of behaviour from a pattern that is criminal or anti-social to one that is more law-abiding
or pro-social.” In corrections, fostering positive change among offenders is the primary way of contributing
to public safety. The task is more than making correctional programs available, it is actively encouraging
and assisting offenders to participate in them. This means that the best correctional programs are available.
These are correctional programs that concentrate on criminal recidivism, what causes it and what can bedone to change it.

III. Effectiveness, Efficiency and Relevancy
As noted earlier, Correctional Service Canada completed a major evaluation of its core correctional
programs in 2009. Some program examples include substance abuse, violence prevention, family violence,sex offender and maintenance programs. Notwithstanding the enormous effort that went into such anundertaking, some important lessons were learned with respect to the following: collection of data,
developing metrics, engaging program management and delivery staff interpreting findings and making
recommendations. The basic outline for the evaluation report was examining the following: program
effectiveness, cost-efficiency, cost-effectiveness , and continued relevance across a wide set of nationallyoffered correctional programs.
First and foremost, program effectiveness was operationally defined as “the extent to which a policy,
program, or initiative is meeting its planned result.” Secondly, cost-efficiency is “the extent to whichcorrectional programs are producing planned outputs in relation to financial resources used.” Thirdly, costeffectiveness is “the relationship between the amount spent and the results achieved relative to alternative
design and delivery approaches.” Fourth and finally, continued relevance is defined as “the extent to whichcorrectional programs continue to realistically address an actual need.”

15

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

Notwithstanding the finding that Correctional Service Canada’s programs are effective insofar as program
participation was associated with reductions in recidivism, including technical revocations and reoffending(with a non-violent, a violent and/or a sexual offence), the evaluators reported that “between 70 to 90
cents of every dollar spent on programs is allocated towards successful completions.” In relation to costeffectiveness the evaluation established that “on average, every dollar spent on programming resulted ina return ranging from 1 to 8 dollars.” These returns represent cost savings of fewer days of incarceration(avoided days inside and extended days outside). Furthermore, the evaluators reported that correctional
programs were continuing to address the risk levels and specific criminogenic needs of the current offender
population, and thus continued to be a “relevant, effective means of enhancing public safety and reducing
reoffending.”

IV. Mounting the Evidence for PracticeNot surprisingly, effectiveness findings were observed to vary by program, intensity level, anddemographic of the federal offender population. As such, Correctional Service Canada’s correctional program
results are consistent with a previous body of national evidence which confirms that targeting specificcriminogenic needs is a relevant and effective means of enhancing public safety and reducing reoffending.
As reported and tabled below in Safe Return of Offenders to the Community (Motiuk, Counsineau & Gileno,2005), crime reduction through effective treatment (reported as reductions) had been observed across anumber of other independent studies.

Crime Reduction Through Effective Treatment
TargetEducation

Study

Design/Sample

Result“A Two Year Follow-up of Federal
Offenders who Participated in
the Adult Basic Education (ABE)
Program” (R. Boe, 1998, R-60).

Compared a sample of malefederal offenders who participatedin ABE with a national sampleof paroled offenders. Follow-up
period of 2 years.

718 paroled offenders whocompleted ABE-8 program had a
7.1% reduction in readmissions(from 24% for the benchmark
group to 22.3% in the program
group).
74 paroled offenders whocompleted ABE-10 program had a
21.3% reduction in readmissions(from 24% for the benchmark
group to 18.9% in the program
group).

Employment“Prison Work Programs andPost-release Outcome: A
Preliminary Investigation” (L.
Motiuk & R. Belcourt, 1996,R-43).

Compared a sample of malefederal offenders who participatedin CORCAN with a national
sample of paroled offenders.
Follow-up period of 1.5 years.

52 paroled offenders who
participated fully in the prison
industries program (CORCAN)
had a 27.8% reduction inreadmissions (from 26.6% for thebenchmark group to 19.2% in the
program group).

Substance
Abuse“The High Intensity Substance
Abuse Program (HISAP):
Results from the Pilot
Programs” (B. Grant, D. Kunic,
P. MacPerson, C. McKeown, E.
Hanson, 2003, R-140)

Compared a sample of federal
offenders who completed HISAP
with a matched sample who did
not participate in HISAP. Fixedfollow-up period of 6 months.

55 offenders who completed
HISAP demonstrated a 19%
reduction in readmissions toprison and 50% reduction in newconvictions .

16

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

TargetStudy

Design/Sample

ResultSubstance
Abuse“Institutional Methadone
Maintenance Treatment:
Impact on Release Outcome
and Institutional Behaviour” (S.
Johnson, J. Van den Ven & B.
Grant, 2001, R-119)

Compared a sample of federal
offenders who participatedin Methadone Maintenance
Treatment (MMT) while
incarcerated with a matchedsample not participating. Fixedfollow-up period of 12 months.

107 offenders who participatedin MMT demonstrated a 46.1%
reduction in readmissions toprison and 28.6% reduction in
new convictions .

Substance
Abuse“Intensive Support Units (ISU)for Federal Offenders with
Substance Abuse Problems: An
Impact Analysis” (B. Grant, D.V.
Varis, & D. Lefebvre, 2004, R
151)

Compared a sample of federal
offenders who participated in
the ISU while incarcerated witha matched sample that did not
reside on ISUs. Follow-up periodof up to 24 months.

246 offenders who participatedin the ISU showed:
A 36% reduction in readmission
to custody (from 39% formatched comparison group to
25% in the ISU group)
A 40.4% reduction inreadmission with a new offence(from 10.9% for matchedcomparison group to 6.5% in the
ISU group)

Living Skills“The Impact of Cognitive Skills
Training on Post-release
Recidivism among CanadianFederal Offenders” (D. Robinson,
1995, R-41).

Compared a sample of federal
offenders who completed
Cognitive Skills Training
with offenders who remainedon the waiting list without
programming.

1,444 offenders who completed
cognitive skills training
demonstrated an 11% reduction
in readmissions to prisonand 20% reduction in newconvictions .

Sex
Offenders“Applying the Risk Principle toSex Offender Treatment” [A.
Gordon & T. Nicholaichuk, 1996,
FORUM, 8(2)].

Compared treated-male sex
offenders with a national sample
of sex offenders. Follow-up of
two years.

80 higher risk sex offenders on
the Clearwater Unit program
showed a 58.9% reduction insexual recidivism (from 14.6%
for the bench-mark group to
6.0% in the program group).

Sex
Offenders“A Multi-year Multi-modal
Review of Sex Offender
Programs in Federal
Corrections” (L. Motiuk, 1998,
17th Annual Research andTreatment Conference of the
Association for the Treatment of
Sexual Abusers).

Compared treated male sex
offenders with a national sample
of all released sex offenders.
Follow-up of three years.

210 treated sex offenders
showed a 50% reduction insexual recidivism (from 6% for
the benchmark group to 3% in
the program group).

Sex
Offenders“Recidivism among TreatedSexual Offenders and Matched
Controls” (Looman, J., Abracen,J., & Nicholaichuk, T., 2000,
Journal of Interpersonal
Violence , 15, pp. 279-290).

Compared treated high-risk malesex offenders from the RTC(O)with matched untreated sex
offenders. Average time at risk
was 9.99 years.

89 treated sexual offenders
showed a 51% reduction insexual recidivism (from 51.7%
for the benchmark group to
23.6% for the treated group).

Sex
Offenders“Outcome of an Institutional
Sexual Offender Treatment
Program: A Comparison
between Treated and Matched
Untreated Offenders”(Nicholaichuk, T., Gordon, A.,
Gu, D., & Wong, S., 2000, Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research
and Treatment , 12, pp. 139-153).

Compared high-risk male sex
offenders treated between 1982
& 1995 from the RPC(Prairies)
with matched untreated sex
offenders. Average time at risk
was 6 years.

296 treated sexual offenders
showed a 56.3% reduction insexual recidivism (from 33.2%
for the benchmark group to
14.5% for the treated group).

17

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

TargetStudy

Design/Sample

Result“The Effectiveness ofTherapeutic Interventions with
Incarcerated Sexual Offenders”(Cortoni, F. & Nunes, K.L.,
2005, Association for theTreatment of Sexual Abusers
Annual Convention, Salt Lake
City, Utah [Research Report inpreparation])

Compared a sample of malesexual offenders treated in
the National Sexual Offender
Program between 2000 & 2004
with matched untreated sexual
offenders. Average time at risk
was 3 years.

347 treated sexual offenders
showed a 68%* reduction insexual recidivism (from 6.9% for
the benchmark group to 1.7% for
the treated group).

Sex
Offenders“Circles of Support &Accountability: An Evaluationof the Pilot Project in SouthCentral Ontario” [COSA](Wilson, R., Picheca, J.E., &Prinzo, M., 2005, Research
Report R-168).

Compared high-risk sexual
offenders released at the endof their sentence who wereinvolved with COSA to amatched group of offenders
who did not become involved in
COSA. The average follow-up
time was 4.5 years.

60 high-risk sexual offenders in
COSA showed a 70% reduction
in sexual recidivism (from 16.7%
for benchmark group to 5% for
COSA group).

Violent
Offenders“Effectiveness Researchon Violence Prevention
Programming” (Cortoni, F. &Nunes, K.L., 2005. Canadian
Criminal Justice Association
Biannual Conference, Calgary,
AB [Research Report inpreparation]).

Compared a sample of male high- 333 treated violent offenders
had a 52%* reduction in violent
risk violent offenders treatedin the Violence Prevention
recidivism (from 21.8% for the
Program between 2000 & 2004
benchmark group to 8.5% for thewith matched untreated violent
treated group).
offenders. Average time at risk
* Rate of reduction is adjusted
was 1.3 years.
for risk levels and time-at-risk(time in the community)

FamilyViolence“Evaluation of CSC’s National
Family Violence Prevention
Programs”. (British Columbia
Institute Against Family
Violence, 2004).

Compared treated family
violence offenders to untreatedfamily violence offenders.
Follow-up of 6 months.

Sex
Offenders* Rate of reduction is adjusted
for risk and time-at-risk (timein the community).

160 treated offenders had a 67%
reduction in spousal violence
recidivism (from 13% for thebenchmark group to 4% for
the treated group) and a 50%
reduction in general violence
recidivism (from 19% for thebenchmark group to 10% for thetreated group).

V. Effectiveness: What do we know?
Education, work and personal development programs are the cornerstones of correctional intervention.
They have been shown to reduce criminal behaviour and increase positive behaviour in prison. Historically,
these programs have been a fixture of correctional efforts in North America for more than 150 years.
The rationale for providing program service to offenders flows directly from the amount and type ofvariation in personal characteristics, interpersonal influences, situational determinants and environmental
conditions that offenders bring with them (Motiuk, 1991).
Certain criminogenic factors have been demonstrated as predictors of criminal behaviour; thesecriminogenic needs are changeable and, if altered, have demonstrated reductions in criminal conduct. It is
important to conduct comprehensive assessments regarding criminogenic need.
Cognitive-behavioural-based programs, a result of Social Learning Theory application, appear to work best
to reduce recidivism. Effective programs are structured and provide a measure of the level of participation andprogress.

18

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

V. Factors impacting effectivenessA review of the literature on program effectiveness reveals a number of factors that can have an impact.
These include factors such as the program model (i.e. cognitive-behavioral); responsivity ; implementation;
fidelity (i.e. quality assurance) and selection of outcome measures .
The responsivity of a program deals with the setting in which it is delivered, offender and therapist
characteristics, program intensity, and motivational issues. Implementation considerations include site
selection; staff recruitment, training and retention; marketing the program within the setting (institution orcommunity); referral criteria; credibility (organizational and operational); program integrity; and evaluation.
Program fidelity or quality assurance concerns the need for program manuals (treatment, participant,training); expecting and assessing for drift from the original program design; conducting on-site visits;
obtaining peer (external) reviews; and obtaining consumer evaluations.

VI. Measurement of Program Outcome
While recidivism is the ultimate index, other intermediate measures include consumer satisfaction,change scores and thresholds, and offence-specific outcome measures. Measurement issues encompass thefollowing: survival curves, prediction (how to use correlation coefficients [r’s] in real life), length of followup and base rates.

VII. What is Success in Correctional Programming
A. Improving Motivation.
Offenders who are highly motivated to succeed in programs represent prime candidates for successful
reintegration. Motivation is often a critical factor in probation-/parole-officer support for program referral,
participation, progress and early release. Accurately assessing offender motivation to target offenders
for program participation and to establish release priority can make an important contribution to safe
reintegration (Motiuk, 2001c).
B. Increasing Participation.
Institutional program participation often consumes a large proportion of case preparation time and canbecome a source of delay in eventual release. Successful program participation has been demonstrated to
improve the likelihood of post-release success. Assignment to programs where the need is not identifiedor the program is inappropriate, may offer little or no benefit and actually contribute to conditional release
failure. Program completion is a critical foundation for the safe release of offenders (Motiuk, 2001c).
C. Ensuring Completion.
The full effects of programming are not always fully known; however, completing programs provides
important information about post-release success, and program non-completers or drop-outs impose a costboth in terms of wasted resources and in depriving motivated offenders of program opportunities (Motiuk,
2000c).
D. Improving Performance.
The assessment of program performance, although critical in the decision to support early release, isoften subjective and largely without guidelines. Assessing program outcome/treatment gain or relating
program performance to reintegration potential and post-release adjustment is important (2001c).
VII. Performance Measurement
The public is primarily concerned with how “corrections” is managed because correctional services
are perceived as being responsible for their safety. From the public’s perspective, recidivism is importantbecause it reflects criminal futures and provides an indication of the effectiveness of correctional
interventions. From a correctional-management perspective, poor adjustment in prison and/or community is
an important problem because it results in disruptive or rule-breaking behaviour.

19

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

IX. Recidivism
Derived from the Latin word recidere , which means to fall back, the word recidivism was first used ina German publication called Pall Mall in 1886: “Recidivism is largely represented by low foreheads, thescowling brows and cunning eyes .” A forerunner of the word recidivism was used as far back as the 1600s.
A form of the now obsolete word recide, which meant to fall back, appeared in 1609 version of the Bible:“Recidivation into sin maketh the former repentance frustrate .” It seems quite logical the word progressedfrom describing relapse into sin to referring to relapse into crime. After all, crime has long been equatedwith sin by many people and many cultures.
The most common definition of recidivism is the percentage of released offenders readmitted to correctionalcustody for a new offence during a particular period of study. So what is the recidivism rate? Although it isa popular and valid question, it really is a difficult one to answer, and to emphasize any one answer can bemisleading if we don’t recognize its limitations (Motiuk, 2001b).
Deciding on how to determine the number of released offenders raises several options and necessarily
affects the denominator. For example, calculations may be used for the following: 1) any release (under
supervision and upon completion of sentence); 2) release under supervision; and 3) the aforementioned(flow) combined with those already under community supervision (stock) to complete the full picture ofcommunity supervision caseloads. Naturally, the later is the basis on which most correctional systems would
prefer to be measured as it reflects the full magnitude of correctional effort required to reduce the likelihoodof recidivism.
Deciding on how to determine the number of readmitted offenders also poses some choices and necessarily
affects the numerator. For example, calculations may be used for the following: 1) any return (undersuspension, revocation, or new offence); 2) return for technical violations of conditions; and 3) return for a newoffence (any, violent, or a specific offence like a sex offence).
Even if we know the recidivism rate, we still can’t be sure what it means and what accounts for it. We
run into particular problems when we try to evaluate the success of particular correctional systems or
programs. Is the program successful if offenders who participated in it no longer commit offences related tothe problem addressed by the program?
For example, the post-release performance of over 1,000 treated sex offender was examined for an
average 3.5 year follow-up period and found that 17 cases recidivated sexually (or 1.7%). The recidivism rateof the treated sex offenders was roughly half that of entire sex offender population when released which rose
to 3%. Overall, a good correctional result was obtained and whether it can be attributed in whole or in part toinstitution-based sex offender treatment or in combination with effective community supervision practices
may matter little in the long-run. This does, however, pose methodological concerns for program evaluation
purposes when recidivism rates are so low. Recidivism is a critical issue in corrections, but it is also one of
the most difficult issues to address in an easy-to-understand manner. Nevertheless, the suggested practiceis to track recidivism systematically and report each year.
For evaluating correctional performance, one can calculate yearly rates of return to custody for thefollowing — any reason, any new offence, and violent offences. Also, one can examine overall contribution
to crime in a particular jurisdiction. For evaluating correctional programs, one can report the change andreduction in recidivism for the following: intended to treat, program completers, participants and drop-outs .

X. Reporting Reductions in Reoffending
The change and reduction in recidivism (reported as the difference in recidivism rate over the comparisongroup — raises the overall magnitude of the effect ) is measured relative to either a matched comparisongroup, control group (sometimes waiting list controls, intended to treat) and or general base rate for asimilarly situated correctional population. (Program Group = 25% versus Comparison Group = 50%; Relative
Difference = 25%; Actual Reduction is (50-25/50) = 50%).

20

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

XI. Conclusion
Effective, efficient and relevant correctional programming has always been about people, not just numbers.
State-of-the-art programs, up-to-date referral guidelines and revisions of program delivery manuals arenecessary, but unless an organization, at all levels, is committed and supportive of new initiatives, correctional
systems will be limited in their ability to move forward into the future.

XII. References
Andrews, D. A. (1996). “Criminal recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: An update.” Forum on
Corrections Research , 8(3). http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e083/083m_e.pdf
Aos, S., Miller, M., and Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison
Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates . Olympia: Washington Institute for Public
Policy.
Bandura, Albert. Aggression: Social Learning and Personality Development (1963); Social Learning
Theory (1977); and Social Foundations of Thought and Action (1986).
Correctional Service Canada (2009). Evaluation Report: Correctional Service Canada’s Correctional Programs .
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/cop-prog/cop-prog-eng.pdf
Gendreau, P. and Goggin, C. (1996). “Principles of effective correctional programming.” Forum on Corrections
Research , 8(3). http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e083/083l_e.pdf
Lösel Friedrich (1996). “Effective correctional programming: What empirical research tells us and what it
doesn't.” Forum on Corrections Research , 8(3).
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e083/083k_e.pdf
McGuire, J. (2000). “Defining correctional programs.” Forum on Corrections Research , 12(2).
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e122/e122ind-eng.shtml
Motiuk, L.L. (1991). Antecedents and consequences of prison adjustment: A systematic assessment andreassessment approach . Doctoral dissertation. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.
Motiuk, L.L. (2001a). “Introduction.” In Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming Volume 1 . (L.L. Motiuk & R.C. Serin, Eds.). Correctional Service of Canada: Ministry of Supply andServices. ISBN 0-662-31411-5.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/intro-eng.shtml
Motiuk, L.L. (2001b). “Contributing to safe reintegration: Outcome measurement.” In Compendium 2000
on Effective Correctional Programming - Volume 1 . (L.L. Motiuk & R.C. Serin, Eds.). Correctional
Service of Canada: Ministry of Supply and Services. ISBN 0-662-31411-5.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_23-eng.shtml
Motiuk, L.L. (2001c). “The safe reintegration of offenders through selection, intervention and supervision.”
Forum on Corrections Research , 13(1), 3-5.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e131/131a_e.pdf
Motiuk, L. Cousineau, C, and Gileno, J. (2005). The safe return of offenders to the community: A statistical
overview . Research Branch. Correctional Service Canada.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/safe_return2005/sr2005-eng.shtml
Motiuk, L.L. & Serin, R.C. (2001) (Editors ). Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming Volume 2 . Correctional Service of Canada: Ministry of Supply and Services ISBN 0-662-31411-5.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml

21