VISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERSRESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88
USING EVIDENCE-BASED KNOWLEDGE TO CREATE AN OFFENDER
THROUGHCARE SYSTEM
Timothy Hee Sun Leo*

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background of Evidence-Based Practice in Singapore
By 2010, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) had developed an evidence-informed Rehabilitation System.
Despite these advances, a number of significant limitations remain. These include:•

Evidence-based knowledge had been largely confined within the Prison Service whereas community
partners did not possess the knowledge of evidence-based rehabilitation.

•

The aftercare support of offenders was limited to a relatively small group of offenders, provided
mainly by community and religious groups. Moreover, the support given was not guided byevidence-based practices.

•A large segment of high-risk offenders, many with drug antecedents, did not receive criminogenic
programmes to reduce their offending risk due to limitations in rehabilitative resources.

In short, Singapore lacked a Throughcare System of offender rehabilitation that facilitates the reduction ofrisk from prison into the community.

II. BATTLE TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM
A. Continuing Efforts to Reduce Crime and Reoffending
Despite achieving a 2-year recidivism rate of 26.7% in 2010, there was still much that could be done tofurther reduce recidivism rates. In the ongoing efforts to reduce crime, the Singapore government exploreda number of measures. These included upstream crime prevention measures, further law enforcement
strategies, enhanced community engagement strategies and the use of offender rehabilitation. The
recommendations from several recent government initiated Inter-Ministry Committees, set up to address
matters relating to reducing crime and offending, involve SPS as a key player in the overall strategies toreduce offending. The success of the Prison Service in maintaining security while establishing evidenceinformed rehabilitation system brought confidence in the ability to reap further recidivism benefits for the
future.
B. A Throughcare System
There is now a wider recognition of the need for a robust Throughcare System that will address andreduce reoffending. Evidence from offender research has been useful in influencing higher-level policy byproviding a strong rationale that high-risk offenders will need to receive more intense rehabilitation andcontinued support to help them reintegrate into society after they leave prison.
There is also recognition that offenders need the support of the community in their reintegration backinto society. The success of the Yellow Ribbon Project, the growth of the CARE Network,1 and the increased* Chief Psychologist and Director, Psychological and Correctional Rehabilitation Division, Singapore Prison Service, Singapore.
1 The CARE (Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders) Network was set up in the year 2000 to serve as
platform for a network of partnership involving the Singapore Prison Service, the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative
Enterprises, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Community Development, Sports and Youths and several social
agencies to explore possible collaborations and enhance community services for rehabilitating ex-offenders.

96

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

numbers of prison volunteers exemplify the potential of the community as being a key partner to achieving
the mission of reducing reoffending and helping ex-offenders to live responsible lives.
To this end, the SPS will spearhead the development of a Conditional Remission system and a Mandated
Aftercare Support system for offenders. The new remission system will provide a structure to support
rehabilitative services for offenders after they leave prison. High-risk offenders, guided by the Risk
Principle, will receive a higher level of post-release support and supervision. An integrated system ofsupervision and evidence-based casework will be developed and will involve the families of offenders andthe local community.
The experience and knowledge gained in the previous ten years will enable the Prison Service todevelop community-based rehabilitation for high-risk offenders. The system will also enable the provision of
appropriate types of reintegrative services to lower-risk offenders with specific needs.
To eventually effect a throughcare-offender-management and rehabilitation system, a review of existing
systems and the development of new structures and processes are required. This task will be led by
the Director of Prisons and the Chief Executive Officer of the Singapore Corporation for Rehabilitative
Enterprises. 2 The task will be supported by three working groups headed by Senior Staff and lookat different areas covering legislation, the management of offenders in prison and in the community,
administrative policies and support, and evidence-based interventions.
Each working group will examine the research and practice literature in their area, and learn from ouroverseas counterparts in corrections through study trips and published information. The Prison Service’s
own experience will also be used to contextualize the system and interventions for the local landscape.
Lastly, the information and knowledge will be brought together, discussed and adapted to form thefoundation for developing a throughcare system.

C. Evidence-Based Principles for a Throughcare Rehabilitation System
Developing community-based interventions that dovetail the existing system of interventions within
prison requires a consideration of the principles of effective correctional programming. Correctional researchsupports a common set of principles that are correlated with good recidivism outcomes. The Principles ofEffective Correctional Programs from the Canadian Correctional Service (Andrews, 2000), the Eight Principlesof Effective Correctional Interventions (Latessa, Cullen & Gendreau, 2002), and the Effective Principles ofIntervention for Community Corrections (Bogue et al., 2004) emphasise the need to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Use empirically validated tools and methods in assessment and intervention
Apply the “Risk, Need, Responsivity” model to programmes and services, with attention to the“Dosage” of programmes for high risk offenders
Integrate treatment and intervention into the full sentence of offenders and their sanctions requirement
Ensure adequate positive reinforcement contingencies
Equip staff with a range of evidence-based practical skills to address criminogenic needs
Engage the community in assisting offenders
Measure, evaluate, and improve interventions and processes

Latessa, Cullen, and Gendreau (2002) also drew attention to the need to “Create a Positive Environment” and“Build High Quality Staff.”
These principles serve as guiding posts for the development of a correctional system committed to using
evidence-based practices as a basis for effective rehabilitative interventions.

2 SCORE was set up in 1976 with the objectives of rehabilitating offenders through work programmes and vocational training,and preparing them for reintegration into society by being the bridge between prison and the community. SCORE is the lead
aftercare agency that collaborates with prison to create a seamless throughcare environment to facilitate reintegration of
offenders into society.

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

III. FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THE SINGAPORE PRISON SERVICE
A. Evidence-Informed Initiatives
As the Prison Service moves towards a throughcare system in the next two years, a number of major
developmental initiatives attempting to incorporate the research evidence will be developed.
1. Redesigning and Piloting of an Integrated Criminogenic Programme
A review of the extant literature provided a means for the Prison Service professionals to review
the adequacy of our cognitive-behavioural programmes. Guided by the literature on effective cognitivebehavioural programmes (e.g. Lipsey, Landenberger, & Wilson, 2007), a new criminogenic programme
was developed to address high-risk offenders. The new programme will address all the seven dynamic
criminogenic needs (Bonta & Andrews, 2007) using a cognitive-behavioural approach. The programme will
give added emphasis on skills modelling and practice as well as incorporating the elements that are foundby research to be effective. Proper attention will be given to train Rehabilitation Specialists to deliver the
new programme, to the maintenance of programme integrity and to minimise offenders dropping out from
criminogenic programmes.
The new programme will also address the motivation of offenders more systematically. Motivational
Interviewing concepts and processes will be included (Miller & Rollnick, 2002; McMurran, 2009). Insteadof just prescribing the goal of reducing risk, the programme will engage offenders in discussing fundamental
aspects of their lives and what they believe to be worthwhile pursuing as their own future oriented goals.
This aspect draws inspiration from the work of Tony Ward (Ward & Brown, 2004) in engaging offenders toconsider the type of “primary goods” that they would pursue in their lives. The importance of including
future-oriented goals has also been articulated by Andrews, Bonta and Wormith (2011) in the “Expanded
Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model.”The programme will also engage offenders to explore their narrative identities. This aspect of the
programme tries to incorporate research from the literature of desistance (Maruna, 2001; Maruna & Roy,
2007). The use of “narrative identity” draws also from the experience with another programme addressing
interpersonal violence called, “Man Alive.” The programme was introduced by Hamish Sinclair in 2008.
In “Man Alive,” the violent offenders are guided to explore and construct a prosocial narrative identitythat would guide their future non-violent actions. Through our experiences with “Man Alive,” it was foundto be a worthwhile enterprise to engage offenders to relook at their identities and the ways they viewed
themselves (Gilligan & Bandy, 2005). The concept of narrative identity will be further described later in thepaper. It is an experimental component of the programme that will be subjected to evaluation.
2. Re-Entry Regime
High-risk offenders will undergo a 3-phase gradual re-entry into the community. The overall philosophy
is to provide structured support and supervision as offenders are released gradually into the community. The
phases are:• Living in a structured community residence• Living at home with curfew hours and electronic monitoring• Living at home without electronic monitoring
The structured community residence will provide a graduated process for newly released ex-offenders
to have access to the community. The residence will allow rehabilitative activities to continue, such ascontinued relapse prevention programmes, individualised counselling, etc.
Returning home to live will also involve a gradual transition from restricted freedom of movement(curfew hours at night) to free access according to the assessment of their dynamic risks and needs carriedout by the supervision officers and caseworkers.
3. Development of a Pre-Release Centre for Offenders
The fundamental aim of a Pre-Release Centre is to prepare offenders for re-entry into the community
under the conditional remission system. The Centre will provide intensive Criminogenic Programmes tohigh-risk offenders and a range of reintegrative programmes aimed at enhancing adjustments to community
living and employability.

98

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The Centre will deliberately focus on developing a positive environment optimised for learning andreflection. The Centre will also foster a culture of hope, personal responsibility, respect, honesty andperseverence. The system of privileges and rewards will be skewed towards positive reinforcement
according to behavioural principles (Gendreau, Little & Goggin, 1996; Andrews & Bonta, 2006). All staff
members will play an active part towards developing and maintaining the desired culture irrespective of
their roles within the Centre.
A pilot Pre-Release Centre commenced operations in April 2012 to house high-risk pre-release inmates.
The duration of stay will be ten months before offenders are released for supervision and casework. The
pilot Pre-Release Centre will undergo process and outcome evaluations. The learning and evaluation resultsfrom the pilot will be utilised to refine and design the eventual Pre-Release Centre that will house inmatesof various risk categories.
4. Development of an Integrated Supervision and Offender Casework Model
Inmates in the Pre-Release Centre will be reassessed using the Level of Service Case Management
Inventory – LS/CMI (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004). Their case management needs will then be
identified by specialist caseworkers, who will continue to work with them in the community. Both thesupervision officers and caseworkers will work in teams to share the management of these offenders. Hencedecisions affecting the case and the application of sanctions for breaches of conditions should be agreed upon
between the supervision officer and caseworker, after taking into consideration the dynamic risk and needprofile of the individual offender.
Supervision officers and specialist caseworkers will be given training in the “Risk, Need and Responsivity”
model. They will also be equipped to address the criminogenic needs of ex-offenders. The conditions ofremission will be tailored according to the identified “Risk, Need and Responsivity” issues of each inmate.
A common set of evidence-based skills will be used, such as those identified and taught in the Strategic
Training Initiative for Community Supervision – STICS (Bonta, Bourgon, Rugge, Scott, Yessine, &Gutierrez, 2010; Bonta, Gutierrez, & Ashton, 2012) and Effective Practices in Community Supervision –EPICS. EPICS was created by criminal justice researchers from the University of Cincinnati. As of May
2012, professional specialists and supervision officers had received training in STICS and EPICS.

B. Training and Development of Staff
The expansion into a throughcare system will require recruitment of staff to increase coverage ofcriminogenic programmes in prison and in the community. Supervision officers and caseworkers will
be recruited and the latter will provide throughcare support for the offenders from pre-release into thecommunity. There will also be a need for existing and new staff to be trained in evidence-based rehabilitativeskills.
For officers working in prison, there will be a gradual rollout of skill sets that are effective in addressing
criminogenic needs (Gendreau & Goggin, 1996; Dowden & Andrews, 2004; Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005).
This will complement their operational skills as Prison Officers. Over the past ten years, the Service has
been able to recruit staff aligned to the Vision and also helped existing officers transit into a rehabilitativeenvironment. While there is a general support for rehabilitation, evidence-based behavioural skills relevant
to reducing recidivism have yet to be fully incorporated into the training doctrine for Prison Officers. The
Prison Service has begun to systematically address this gap in 2011.
The past ten years have also seen new thinking in rehabilitation (Maruna, 2001, Ward & Steward, 2004,
Ward, 2010; McNeill & Weaver, 2010, McNeill, 2012). This has occurred as rehabilitation researchers andpractitioners from different disciplines reflect on the complex issues surrounding offender rehabilitation
and reintegration. This has also led to Andrews, Bonta and Wormith (2011) rearticulating in a fresh way the
Risk, Need and Responsivity model to address a broader range of rehabilitation issues.
There will be a need for prison administrators and senior officers in leadership roles to keep abreast of
the evidence base and rehabilitation discussion. This will enable the leadership to form sound rehabilitation
policies based on a good understanding of the evidence base in rehabilitation.

99

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

C. Greater Role for Community Partners and Volunteers
Community partnerships will be one of the fast growing areas in the correctional landscape. Community
groups, volunteer organisations and religious groups together with the families of offenders will play agreater role in helping ex-offenders reintegrate. Examples include family related programmes and services,
general counselling, befriending and mentoring services, employer engagement to increase the job poolfor ex-offenders, and provision of religious services. There will be scope for local communities to be
mobilised to assist families whose members are incarcerated. An initiative named the “Community Outreach
Programme,” has already gained momentum in the local community. This scheme operates with the consent
of the offenders to help to buttress their families against the threats and vulnerabilities to the family ecosystem resulting from incarceration.
D. Transferring Knowledge to the Community
For rehabilitation efforts to achieve their maximum outcome, the knowledge needed to reduce recidivism
has to go beyond the Prison Service and be used by community partners. When both the Prison Service andcommunity partners share a similar vision of changing lives and possess the “know how” to do so effectively,
the benefits reaped are likely to be superior.
Increasingly, there will be opportunities for specialised community agencies to provide criminogenic
programmes based on the Risk, Needs and Responsivity principles. Beginning in 2010, the CARE Network
members have been introduced to the “Risk, Needs and Responsivity” model of offender rehabilitation. Thiswas welcomed by community partners. The transfer of such knowledge has continued as more community
agencies and their members are equipped with the knowledge of evidence-based practices.
The hope in sharing evidence-based knowledge is that the increasing community organisations involved
in offender work will be able to direct their energies and resources towards services that have a more direct
impact on reducing recidivism. The use and understanding of common terminology (e.g. Risk, Needs andResponsivity, cognitive-behavioural approaches etc.) will allow for better collaboration between the Prison
Service and community partners in furthering effective interventions and services.

E. Research, Evaluation and Knowledge Innovation
The expanding field of offender rehabilitation in Singapore will also allow for greater developments inoffender research and evaluation. Research will include the development and refinement of assessment
technologies, and the generation of “practice knowledge” that will help improve direct interventions throughprogrammes and the setting up of specialised transformational regimes.
Research and evaluation should support the generation of new knowledge that will further the Vision
and Mission of the Prison Service. SPS’s experience in utilising and attempting to integrate organisational
development knowledge, innovation, security and operational management of a prison system, and theintroduction of evidence-based rehabilitation reflects a shift towards a knowledge-based system that is open
to integrating diverse strands of knowledge through innovation and experimentation.
Changes within the prison system in the past ten years appear to parallel the strategic shift in Singapore
towards a knowledge-based economy. In a knowledge-based system, the generation of new knowledge
and the integration of knowledge to better meet the needs or demands of a system become key drivers ofprogress.
In a similar way, correctional systems are challenged to bring together the various knowledge domainsthat are relevant to its mission. While the established empirical evidence informing rehabilitation must form
the basis for rehabilitation of offenders, there should also be room to explore and benefit from knowledge
from other areas. Within the field of rehabilitation, one area that has attracted the attention of the Service isthe emerging knowledge from desistance research.

IV. THE RELEVANCE OF DESISTANCE IN REHABILITATION
A. Incorporating New Knowledge into Rehabilitation
A meeting with Dr. Shadd Maruna in 2007 saw the beginning of an interest in desistance research.

100

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Maruna’s Liverpool Desistance Study (Maruna, 2001) described significant differences in how desisters
saw and described themselves in contrast to those who offended and returned to prison (the persisters). He
pointed to a key concept that desisters appeared to take on a new narrative identity as opposed to persisters
who remain largely unchanged in their own narrative identities.
Unfortunately, desistance research does not offer a unified theory of offender change as does the Psychologyof Criminal Conduct established by Andrews and Bonta (2006). The nature of desistance research thus makes
it difficult to operationalise some of these concepts for practice (Andrews & Bonta, 2011). Frank Porporino(quoted by McNeill & Weaver, 2010) draws attention to this:“Desistance theory and research, rich in descriptive analysis of the forces and influences thatcan underpin offender change, unfortunately lacks any sort of organised practice framework.”
Despite these challenges in operationalising the findings in practice, the richness of the information
obtained from the research is too compelling to be ignored.
This is where the work of Fergus McNeill (McNeill & Weaver, 2010) has contributed to looking at
rehabilitation from a different lens. McNeill was able to pull together separate strands in criminological anddesistance research, and present them in a coherent way that can add value to rehabilitation.
Desistance can be understood as an “act of stopping from crime” or as a “process of stopping from
crime.” The second understanding accepts that desisting from crime for many is not a one-off event but
a continual process. Another way to look at desistance is to see it as a “messy zigzag” process (Glaser,1964) with the offender drifting in and (eventually) out of crime (Matza, 1964). This journey is not astraightforward one but one that often involves starts and stops, reversals and moving forward again.
The implication of this is that for those who are working with offenders (e.g. prison officers, rehabilitation
specialists, caseworkers, volunteers), an appreciation and understanding of such a process will enable them
to work through these shifts. An understanding that a reversal or decline does not mean an ex-offender has“failed” and the “good work” done thus far (by the prison officers, probation officers, therapists, and theinmates themselves) has been wasted but allows the rehabilitation practitioner to continue to be able toprovide the appropriate type and level of support needed when the offender experiences a standstill or reversal
in her/his journey of desistance.
McNeill and Weaver (2010) identified several crucial and important findings from the literature that is
important for those who are trying to help and bring about offender change. These are:
•
•
•
•
•

A need for hope and agency
Having people who believe in them
Having opportunities to change
Reconstructing a new prosocial identity
Practical and emotional support (Human and Social Capital)

This paper will highlight three aspects of desistance research: hope, agency and narrative identity, as
examples of their potential contribution to rehabilitation. The reader is encouraged to refer to McNeill
and Weaver (2010) for a more in-depth discussion on the relevance of desistance research to offender
rehabilitation and reintegration.

B. Hope
Hope can be seen as not just having a desire for a future outcome but also having the means to achieve
this outcome, i.e. “having the wills and the ways.” In fact, medical and other psychological arenas havesince recognised the construct of hope as an important buffer to life stressors and setbacks. In the fieldof correctional practice, Burnett and Maruna (2004) found that a sense of hope predicted post-release
success, even after ten years. Martin and Stermac (2010) also found encouraging results that having hope
has a positive correlation with reduced recidivism. Regardless of whether it is a causal or a correlational
relationship that mediates other factors, it is clear that an offender’s subjective experience of hope acts as

101

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

an important protective factor that can result in lowered risk and augment their ability to make positivechanges.
These findings have important implications for rehabilitation and for rehabilitation practitioners. In termsof rehabilitation, hope can be utilised to encourage and motivate individuals to enact positive changes andto prepare them for other treatment programmes. Maintaining a sense of hope is also a powerful protective
factor to prevent prisoner suicide (Beck, Steer, Kovacs, & Garrison, 1985).
An understanding of the dynamics of desistance, of the journey being a “zigzag” with offenders
moving forward and backward, helps sustain the element of “hope” in the staff and those involved inrehabilitation as well. Even with the best criminogenic programmes, working with high-risk offenders canbe very challenging, especially if the risk involves interpersonal or verbal violence. Offenders undergoingrehabilitation may assault fellow inmates or officers. Inmates dropping out of programmes or being removed
due to disciplinary problems, offenders reoffending and returning to prison, can cumulatively lead tostaff burnout and discouragement. This can dent staff morale and also cause staff to question the value of
rehabilitation. Therefore, a good understanding of the desistance process can buffer against disappointment
and continue to give staff a sense of hope. Desistance research strengthens the perspective that staff can be
the “harbingers of hope” to offenders struggling with issues and help inculcate and augment this sense ofhope amongst them.
The Yellow Ribbon Project can be seen as one which brings hope to the ex-offender and his/her family.
Hope can also be fostered by correctional leaders in the manner in which policies and practices aredeveloped. Some questions a prison administrator interested in providing rehabilitation might want to ask
are:
•
•
•

Do we present prison policies and practices in ways that engender hope or “suffocate” it?
What practices in the system augment this sense of hope in offenders?
How do the people (usually correctional staff) who spend the most time with offenders contribute todeveloping and maintaining the sense of hope in the offenders?

C. Agency
One of the effects of imprisonment is the loss or reduction in personal agency. The ability to makechoices and decisions are limited within prison. As offenders spend more time in prison, their ability to makedecisions and choices often deteriorate, through lack of use and the reduction of options to the most basic
level. Paradoxically, good decision-making skills become increasingly important as the offender prepares
to re-enter society and is faced with multiple, complex choices. The challenge then for every rehabilitation
system is to increase the level of decision-making in areas that are possible. Cognitive reasoning andproblem-solving programmes provide avenues for offenders to learn such skills. However, learning “outside
the class room” needs to continue for the skills to be generalised to new situations. Step-down (security)
prisons in which offenders are given increasing levels of decision-making and autonomy, appear to be one
such possible means to encourage this. The State of Victoria in Australia uses such an approach in an
innovative way in one of their specially designed rehabilitation prisons, Marngorneet Correctional Centre,
where inmates progressively learn to hone their decision-making skills and choices.
D. Narrative Identity
Maruna’s (2001) research revealed stark differences in how offenders described their lives. Persisters
who returned to prison had narrative scripts that depicted themselves as victims of circumstances with little
sense of control over their lives. They saw little hope for themselves, and they tended to externalise blame
for their situation.
Desisters on the other hand, described having a new sense of empowerment and agency; a sense thatthey can act to change their lives. They tended to see themselves as having different identities. Desisters
are also generally involved in prosocial generative activities. They commonly expressed a desire “to giveback to society” as a display of gratitude (Maruna, 2001).
Part of this process of change for the desister is the discovery of agency to overcome the challenges

102

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

brought about by their criminal lifestyle and patterns. The discovery of agency, of one’s ability to change,
appears to have been made possible by the presence of significant others who believed in them and saw inthem the possibility of being a different person, i.e. to have an alternative identity.
For desisters, the psychological change to seeing themselves as different people is an important process
in ensuring long-term success in the journey of desistance. Thus, a key task in rehabilitation could be toengage offenders to examine their own narrative identities and scripts, and to explore the possibility ofre-scripting their identities towards a prosocial one that would sustain them in their positive change. For
instance, Andrews, Bonta and Wormith (2011) suggest practical approaches to helping offenders with their“narrative identities” by using self-regulatory and self-monitoring skills.

V. CONCLUSION
Evidence-based knowledge exists today that enables correctional systems to be confident in developing
rehabilitative systems that will be effective in lowering the recidivism rate of offenders. The use of theseevidence-based principles can and should form the basis for rehabilitation. In addition to that, it is also
important that correctional systems are open to other strands of research and knowledge that could enhance
the system of providing rehabilitation. The use of organisational development knowledge and practices to build
a rehabilitation system has already been covered in a previous paper. The study of offender desistance canpotentially complement and enrich the current evidence-based principles in offender rehabilitation.

REFERENCES
Andrews, D. A. (2001). “Principles of effective correctional programs,” in Motiuk , Laurence L. and
Ralph C. Serin (eds.). Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming (pp. 9-17). Ottawa,
Ontario: Correctional Service Canada.
Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct, 4 th Edition. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing Co.
Andrews, D., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. (2004). The Level of Service / Case Management Inventory (LS/
CMI): Users Manual . Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. (2011). “The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model: Does Adding
the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention?” Criminal Justice and Behavior , 38(7), 735-755.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., Kovacs, M., & Garrison, B. (1985). “Hopelessness and eventual suicide: A
10-year prospective study of patients hospitalized with suicidal ideation.” American Journal of
Psychiatry , 42 (5), 559-63.
Bogue, B., Campbell, N., Carey, M., Clawson, E., Faust, D., Florio, K., Joplin, L., Keiser, G., Wasson,
B., & Woodward, W. (2004). Implementing evidence based practice in community corrections: The
principles of effective intervention . Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Instituteof Corrections.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment andRehabilitation . Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.
Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T. L., Yessine, A., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J. (2010). The strategic
training initiative in community supervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the real world . User Report
2010-01. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.
Bonta, J., Gutierrez, L., & Ashton, J. (2012). From case management to change agent: The evolution of“What Works” community supervision . User Report 2012-01. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.
Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. (2005). “Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a ‘real

103

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

world’ prison setting.” Criminal Justice and Behavior , 32 (1), 3-25.
Burnett, R., & Maruna, S. (2004). “So ‘Prisons Work.’ Does it? The criminal careers of 130 men released
from prison under home secretary Michael Howard.” Howard Journal of Criminal Justice , 43 (4),390-404.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D.A. (2004). “The importance of staff practice in delivering effective
correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice.” International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 48 (2), 203-214.
Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1996). “Principles of effective correctional programming.” Forum on Corrections
Research , 8 (3), 38-41.
Gendreau, P., Little, T. & Goggin, C. (1996). “A meta-analysis of adult offender recidivism: What works?”
Criminology , 34(4): 575–607.
Gilligan, J., & Bandy, L. (2005). “The resolve to stop the violence project: Reducing violence in thecommunity through a jail-based initiative.” Journal of Public Health , 27 (2), 143-148.
Glaser, D. (1964). Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System . Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). “Beyond correctional quackery- professionalism andthe possibility of effective treatment.” Federal Probation , 66 (2), 43-49.
Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2007). “Effects of cognitive-behavioural programs forcriminal offenders.” Campbell Systematic Reviews , 6, 1-27.
Martin, K., & Stermac, L. (2010). “Measuring hope: Is hope related to criminal behavior in offenders.”
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 54 (5), 693-705.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives . Washington, D. C.:
American Psychological Association.
Maruna, S., & Roy, K. (2007). “Amputation or reconstruction? Notes on the concept of ‘Knifing Off’ anddesistance from crime.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 23 (1), 104-124.
Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and Drift . New York: Wiley.
McMurran, M. (2009). “Motivational interviewing with offenders: A systematic review.” Legal andCriminological Psychology , 14, 83-100.
McNeill, F. (2012). “Four forms of ‘offender’ rehabilitation: Towards an interdisciplinary perspective.”
Legal and Criminological Psychology , 17(1), 18-36.
McNeill, F., & Weaver, B. (2010). Changing Lives . Glasgow: Scottish Centre of Crime and Justice Research.
Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change (2nd ed.). New
York: Guilford Press.
Ward, T. (2010). “The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: Basic assumptions, aetiologicalcommitments, and practice implications,” in F. McNeil, P. Raynor, & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offendersupervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 41-64). New York, NY: Willan.
Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2004). “The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation.”
Psychology, Crime and Law , 10 (3), 243-257.

104