RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57

MANAGING PRISON POPULATION GROWTH, DELIVERINGEFFECTIVE COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTIONS AND
TREATING DRUG-RELATED AND FEMALE OFFENDERS
Laurence L. Motiuk*
INTRODUCTION
Criminal justice policy makers andpractitioners have the lead role inmanaging prison populations, deliveringcommunity-based corrections and treating
offenders. Because of the enormous socialand economic costs to society, crime control
continues to present a serious challenge formany countries. Internationally, changes
in legal definitions coupled with reduced
public tolerance for crime and focused
media attention have led to increases insanctioning - both custodial and noncustodial - of offenders over the last decade.
Realizing that the public, in general,
does not fully understand the innerworkings of the criminal justice system(Roberts, 1993), service providers are being
called upon to provide accurate informationon the care, custody, control and safe
reintegration of offenders. Knowing alsothat the media has stretched public
acceptance to the limit for any correctional
failure means that service providers needto learn everything there is to know about
effectively and efficiently managing prison
population growth, delivering communitybased corrections and treating special
offender groups such as drug-related andfemale offenders.
To summarize - public opinion, staff andoffenders exert significant influence over
the realization of correctional objectives. In
particular, the task of safely reducing thesize of the prison population and returning
drug-related and female offenders to the*

Canada248

community falls squarely of those working
in correctional facilities and the community
at large. Certainly, these people are being
called upon to deliver more sophisticatedservices to a clientele constantly changing
and for a public that is uncertain.
Moreover, correctional staff and volunteers
must do so in a safe, effective and cost
efficient manner as possible. This, then,defines the problem statement forcorrections - the care, custody, control andsafe reintegration of offenders. The
following paper provides background anda framework for this important work.
A. Managing Prison Population
GrowthAs constant as growth in the use ofprison has been over recent decades, it is acommonly held notion that it will likely
continue well into this century. In North
America, roughly one-fifth of those undercorrectional supervision (2000 — 2 million
in the United States and 34,000 in Canada)
are in prison (growing at a rate of nearly
3% per year in the United States anddeclining at a rate of 3% per year in
Canada). Although international trends
indicate that there will likely be larger
prison caseloads to manage (Walmsley,1999), it is notable that Canada has begun
to experience a recent decline in theirprison population.
In Canada, the ten provinces are
responsible for accused persons remanded
to prison before trial, young offenders(under 18), probation, adult offenders
sentenced to under two years incarcerationand parole supervision in three provinces.

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
The federal government is responsible for
adult offenders sentenced to two years ormore prison and parole supervision. The
National Parole Board decides conditional
release for all federal offenders andprovincial offenders in most provinces.
Between 1990-91 and 1992-93 thenumber of Provincial/Territorial prison
admissions increased by 22.5%, from207,946 to 245,746. Similarly, federal
prison admissions increased 21.4%
between 1990-91 and 1993-94 (peaking one
year later than Provinces/Territories) from
4,646 to 5,642. The increase in admissions
contributed in large measure to the rapid
growth of the Canadian prison populationin the 1990’s. Moreover, the total actualin prison population rose by 16% between
1990-91 and 1994-95 from 29,224 to 33,882.
Because of this rapid growth in the prison
population, the Federal/Provincial/
Territorial Ministers responsible for Justicein Canada asked Deputy Ministers andHeads of Corrections to identify options todeal effectively with the growing prison
population (Motiuk & Serin, 2000). A paper
entitled ‘Corrections Population Growth’
was subsequently developed and presented
to the Ministers in May 1996 with a set of
eleven recommendations. Additional
recommendations were made in the ‘First
Report on Progress’ (CPG 1997).
Eleven recommendations made to assistin addressing correctional population
growth throughout Canada were:
1) endorsing a shared statement ofprinciples for the criminal justicesystem;2) making greater use of diversion
programs and other alternative
measures;3) de-incarcerating low-risk offenders;
4) increasing the use of charge screening;5) making wider use of risk prediction/assessment techniques in Criminal
Justice decision-making;6) increasing the use of Restorative
Justice and mediation approaches;7) supporting Provincial conditional
release recommendations to amend thePrisons and Reformatories Act for
greater administrative flexibility;8) better sharing information andtechnologies within the system;9) better informing the public about
criminal justice dynamics and issues;10) testing innovative, traditional methods
based on restoration and healing
through Aboriginal justice andcorrections pilot projects; and11) working more co-operatively on
programs and services throughFederal/Provincial/Territorial pilot
projects.
Additional recommendations included:
1) evaluating diversion programs toinclude a component on net-widening;2) developing technology to assist with the
integration of systems;3) sharing research findings on program
effectiveness; and4) amending a principle contained inrecommendation #1 - “incarceration
should be used primarily for the mostserious offenders and offences where thesentencing objectives are public safety,
security, deterrence or denunciation andalternatives to incarceration should besought if safe and more effective
community sanctions are appropriate
and available”.
These recommendations inspired theformation of numerous working groups at
all levels of government across Canada.
These people were tasked with designing,developing and implementing creative
options to deal more effectively andefficiently with prison population growth.
Another important step towards thisobjective was to gain a better
understanding of the most importantfactors influencing the size of the prison

249

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
population.

been declining in recent years.

Factors Influencing the Size of the
Prison Population
Throughout the 1990s, Canadian crime
control practices resulted in changes incriminal code, reporting of crime, court
processing, sentencing and conditional
release policy and practice. Aside frompublic policy for crime control and causal
factors linked to crime (such as childpoverty, family breakdown, poor education
and unemployment), six major factors areseen to account for the size of the prison
population. They are: 1) crime rates, 2)sanctioning (incarceration rates), 3)
sentence lengths, 4) release policy andpractice, 5) offender population profile and6) successful reintegration/recidivism.
Another important factor is the offender
profile (such as number and variety ofprevious youth or adult convictions, escapehistory, personal characteristics, etc.) of theprison population.

Sentence length and prison release
policy/practice are two determinates of theaverage length of stay in prison. Morespecifically, sentence length determines not
only how much time will be spent in a
prison but also the earliest possible date
for supervised release in the community.
Corrections practitioners can impact on the
average length of stay in prison by assistingin the selection and preparation of
offenders for early release and contributing
to their successful reintegration to thecommunity with prescriptive intervention
and appropriate supervision. Taken
together, shortening the average length ofstay of prisoners and reducing recidivism
should result in a lowering of the size ofthe prison population.

The crime rate, particularly the type ofcrime and the extent to which offenders aresentenced to a period of incarceration are
the main determinants of prison admission
rates (see CSC 2000). In contrast to earlier
periods, since 1991 the overall trend in thenumber of offences in Canada has been
downward. In fact, between 1991 and 1998
there has been a 15% decrease in theoverall number of offences reported bypolice. More importantly, since 1993, mostcategories of violent crime (homicide,sexual assaults and robbery) have also
decreased. Although comparisons ofEuropean and North American
imprisonment rates in 1997 show Canada
to be relatively high (129 per 100,000
population), it is significantly below theUnited States (645 per 100,000). While
there had been a notable increase in annual
Canadian prisons admissions in the early
1990s, sentenced offenders admitted toFederal/Provincial/Territorial prisons have250

Prison Population Management Offender Reintegration
Offender reintegration can be defined as
all activity and programming conducted toprepare an offender to return safely to thecommunity as a law-abiding citizen( T h u r b e r, 1 9 9 8 ) . R e i n t e g r a t i o nencompasses a broad range of decisions
intended to: place offenders in the least
restrictive setting possible, grant
temporary absence or conditional release,and invoke suspension or revocation of
conditional release when necessary(Motiuk & Serin, 1998). Correctional
service providers can impact on the numberof prison releases, the number of prisoners
granted conditional releases, the number
of offenders who remain incarcerated pasttheir parole eligibility dates; and thenumber of cases who are not reviewed
because they were not prepared in time.
Therefore, safe, effective and efficient
reintegration can yield fewer days spent inprison.
When there is a significant number ofdays less of incarceration for a prisoner this115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
has particular relevance for population
management when accumulated overmany cases. Sixteen reintegration levers
are suggested considerable opportunity for
impacting on the size of the prison
population (Motiuk, 1998).
Reintegration Levers
1. Classifying Initial Security Level
Initial security level placement has an
impact on the probability and timing of
discretionary release.
2. Profiling reintegration potentia
Accurate profiles of each offender ’s
release potential and post-releaseadjustment serves as a means to predict
good candidates for early release and canhelp to establish case preparation priorities.
3. Developing Correctional Plans
The correctional plan is the foundation
upon which prison release is predicated andoften the basis on which discretionary
release is supported or denied and often
understood or have the tendency to become“binding contracts”, especially when theplan is associated with a statement of
reintegration potential.
4. Improving Program Motivation
Offenders who are highly motivated tosucceed in programs represent prime
candidates for successful reintegration.
Motivation is often a critical factor in parole
officer support for program referral,
participation, progress and early release.
Accurately assessing offender motivation totarget offenders for program participationand to establish release priority can makean important contribution to safe
reintegration.
5. Increasing Program Participation
Institutional program participation often
consumes a large proportion of casepreparation time and often becomes a major
cause of delays in release. Successfulprogram participation has been
demonstrated to improve the likelihood of
post-release success. Indiscriminate
assignment to programs, where the need isn o t i d e n t i f i e d o r, t h e p r o g r a m i sinappropriate, may offer no benefit or
actually contribute to conditional release
failure.
6. Ensuring Program Completion
Program participation is a criticalfoundation for the safe release of offenders.
The full effects of programming are notalways fully known, however, completing
programs provides important information
about post-release success; and program
non-completers impose a cost both in termsof wasted resources and in depriving
motivated offenders program opportunities.
7. Improving Program Performance
The assessment of program performance
although critical in the decision to support
early release, is often subjective and largely
without guidelines. Assessing program
outcome/gain or relating program
performance to reintegration potential andpost-release adjustment is important.
8. Referring for Preventative Detention
Increasing preventative detention
referrals (to be held to the end of sentence)
results in longer incarceration periods.
Profiles of offenders who are returned tocustody following detention can beestablished and provide the basis for
improving detention referrals.
9. Moderating Segregation
Placement in segregation for disciplinaryor administrative reasons is a major
impediment to correctional progress andearly release. Profiles of offenders identified
as “at risk” to be segregated provide an
opportunity to develop interventions
designed to divert offenders fromsegregation and to ensure their quick
discharge; effective implementation of251

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
segregation policies can prevent the
segregation of some offenders and ensure
the speedy release of others.
10. Reclassifying Security Level
Reclassification and expeditious transfer
of offenders to the “least restrictive measuresof confinement” can improve the offender’schances for earlier, discretionary release.
11. Increasing Temporary Absence
Participation in either escorted or
unescorted temporary absence programs are
critical to establishing offender credibility
for early release and re-establishing the
temporary absence program can make amajor contribution to safe reintegration.
12. Enhancing Case Preparation
Case preparation is the total of allactivity designed to prepare appropriate
offenders for early release and manage themthroughout conditional release. Achieving
modest efficiencies at any one of a numberof critical stages along the casemanagement continuum can result insignificant reductions in “days ofincarceration” and a corresponding
increase in community supervision.
13. Encouraging Community Release
Participation in either work release orvarious types of early release programs(such as day parole, correctional halfway
house placement, community correctional
centres, attendance centres) are critical toestablishing offender credibility for full
release and re-establishing the view that
this type of programming can make a major
contribution to safe reintegration.
14. Enhancing Community Supervision
The effective use of minimum frequency
of contact guidelines and special conditions
can play an important role in determining
whether offenders successfully complete
their conditional release.

252

15. Reducing Suspensions
Reintegration success can also be
achieved by maintaining conditionallyreleased offenders in the community;
predicting offenders who will be suspended
is greatly improved by use of risk
measurement techniques; and suspension
practice is subject to broad interpretation,
often reflecting local decision-making
traditions and case management
efficiencies that can impact on thereintegration progress.
16. Reducing Revocations
Technical revocations (those not based ona criminal conviction, charge or absconding
from the parole jurisdiction) may provide
a source for additional reintegration gain.
There has been little study of decisionmaking processes and no technicalrevocation guidelines could be developed tosupport field staff; and a better
understanding of the process and corporate
guidelines, particularly that support
alternatives to revocation submissions may
offer additional reintegration gains.
Clearly, the number of reintegration
levers presented offer mechanisms for
reductions in incarceration days. Within
this context, the aforementioned levers canalso contribute substantially to theintegrity of custody, care, control and safe
reintegration practices and the success ofprison population management.
Prison Population Management Crime Reduction ThroughEffective Treatment
Research reviews on adult correctional
treatment have found that correctional
treatment is effective in reducing criminal
recidivism. Recent studies on offender
treatment have yielded overall average
reductions of 10% in recidivism among
treated offenders (Lozel, 1996). However,with appropriate interventions the results
are more impressive - around 30%

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
reduction in recidivism (Gendreau &Goggin, 1996). Meta-analyses of adult andjuvenile correctional interventions
demonstrate that juvenile interventions
are more effective than those designed for
adults (Gaes, Flanigan, Motiuk & Stewart,1999). While education, vocational training
and prison labor programs were found tohave modest effects on reducing criminal
recidivism, they increased positive
behavior in prison. Notwithstanding,studies on behavioral/cognitive treatments,
on average, have produced larger effects
of reducing recidivism than othertreatments, Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, andAndrews (2000) have noted that when it
comes to reducing offender recidivism, thebest approach is appropriate cognitivebehavioral treatments that embody known
principles of effective intervention.
For reporting on crime reduction as aresult of effective correctional treatment,
the change and reduction in recidivism iscalculated for program completers,
participants and dropouts. The change andreduction (reported as the difference inrecidivism rate over the comparison group- raises the overall magnitude of the effect)
in recidivism is measured relative to eithera matched comparison group, control group(sometimes waiting list controls) and or
general base rate for a similarly situatedcorrectional population. Accredited
programs offered by the Correctional
Service of Canada based on sound theory
and research with therapeutic integrity
report reductions in recidivism of 20% to80% (CSC, 2000).
In sum, it is possible to manage prison
population size through offender
reintegration and crime reduction througheffective treatment.
B. Delivering Effective CommunityBased Corrections
Among the various factors that influence

public safety, there is considerable evidence
that incarceration alone shows no successas a method of rehabilitating offenders.
Without other forms of intervention which
directly address criminal behavior andattempt to instill new patterns of behavior,prison on its own lacks promise. A major
review of accumulated findings (Andrews,
Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen,1990) provides clear evidence of theimpotency of criminal sanctions whenunaccompanied by appropriate
rehabilitative programming.
More recently, Gendreau et al. (2000)
examined over 103 comparisons ofoffenders who were either sent to prison
for brief periods or received a communitybased sanction. Basically, they found no
deterrent effect from prison, but actually
an increase in recidivism. The results ofanother meta-analytic review by Losel(1996) reports rehabilitation programmingthat takes place in prison settings is lesseffective than programming which occurs
in the community. Consequently, theevidence suggests that better correctional
outcomes can be obtained in thecommunity.
There is also solid evidence supporting
the premise that the gradual andstructured release of offenders is the safest
and most effective strategy for theprotection of society against new offences.
Post-release recidivism studies (Waller,
1974; Harman & Hann, 1986) have foundthat the percentage of safe returns to thecommunity is higher for supervised
offenders than those released with nosupervision. Therefore, offender
reintegration is seen as working to better
prepare offenders for release and providingthem with greater support once they arein the community. Reintegration efforts
should yield dividends in terms of higher
rates of safe return to the community andlower rates of criminal recidivism.

253

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
The public is concerned with who andhow offenders are managed in thecommunity, particularly those who are
violent or repeat, because those providing
supervision services are seen as being
responsible for their safety. The fact
remains most incarcerated offenders
eventually return to the community andthe majority of sentenced offenders are
given non-custodial sentences. In fact,
nearly four-fifths of offenders being
managed by North American correctional
authorities are in the community.
The best way, then, to serve the public
is to recognize the risk presented by anindividual, and to then put to good use thetools, the training and a fundamental
understanding of what it really means tomanage offender risk.
Risk Management Principles
Effective risk management incorrections implies that decisions are madeusing the best procedures available, andare in keeping with the overall goals of thesystem. For correctional service providers,the application of risk management
principles to reducing the chance ofcriminal recidivism is all that is required
to develop an effective risk management
program (or to improve on an alreadyexisting one). These risk management
principles (Motiuk, 1995) include:
1) the assessment of risk;
2) t h e s h a r i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n(communication);
3) t h e m o n i t o r i n g o f a c t i v i t i e s(evaluation); and4) if deemed appropriate, an intervention(incapacitation, programming).
Public safety is improved wheneverthese risk management activities areintegrated into every function and level ofthe correctional system providing care andcontrol.

254

Assessment Methods
In practice, the analysis of offender risk
serves to structure many of the decisions
made with respect to supervision
requirements and program placement. The
key to risk assessment is to be able to makedecisions after having considered all of theavailable information. However, thecapacity to conduct formalized risk
assessments is directly related to theamount of resources a correctional agency
has at its disposal.
Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge (1990) havepresented a number of principles to aid in
the classification of offenders to promote
effective rehabilitation. These include the“risk”, “need”, “responsivity” and“professional override” or discretion. The“risk” principle proposes that the more
intensive correctional interventions are
best applied with higher risk offenders(those who have a higher probability for
negative correctional outcomes) while lessintensive interventions should be reserved
for lower risk offenders. The “need”
principle proposes that when offenderneeds are targeted well and interventions
applied to meet those needs, then weshould expect a reduction in the amount ofrecidivism. The “responsivity” principle
proposes that an offender’s learning styleshould be matched with the appropriate
method of service delivery. Finally, the“professional override” principle assertsthat after having considered “risk”, “need”
and “responsivity”, case workers exercise
judgment in treating a particular offender.
Previous research by Motiuk andPorporino (1989) on the predictive value ofcommunity-based offender risk
assessments found that:1) criminal history factors are strongly
related to community supervisionoutcome;2) a consistent relationship exists
between the type and number of needs

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
that offenders present (unemployment,
substance abuse) and the likelihood of
their re-offending and, mostimportantly,3) the combined assessment of the levelof both risk and needs significantly
improves our ability to predict who islikely to re-offend and who will.
Static risk factors refer to criminal
history background such number andvariety of criminal convictions, breaches oftrust (escape, breach of probation) and
exposure/response to the criminal justicesystem (previous probation and/or
incarceration, placement in disciplinary
segregation). Dynamic risk factors referto case needs or criminogenic needs thatare capable of reflecting change in an
individual (Andrews et al., 1990). This isa critical component of not only offenderrisk assessment, but also of risk
management because this is whereintervention takes place.
Little can be done about static factors(e.g., criminal record or criminal history).
There is, however, considerable predictive
power in those variables. While criminal
history should not be ignored, you cannot
do much to change those variables; this iswhere dynamic risk factors come in. These
dynamic risk factors (or case needs) areconsidered to be a sub-set of overall risk.
The goal is to effectively target these factors
and apply appropriate interventions tohave an impact on the likelihood of acriminal future.
Using this conceptual framework is very
helpful for community corrections as it isallows one to vary frequency of contact,
level of supervision or amount of service tobe delivered if people do change. It is also
helpful, as there is a mechanism todemonstrate that an offender has changed.
This situation has resulted in a conceptual
shift in community-based corrections

towards a thorough examination of
offender needs as a set of dynamic risk
factors, thereby allowing some flexibility
in service delivery.
As part of the standards for community
supervision (Correctional Service ofCanada/National Parole Board), parole
officers are required to use a systematic
approach to assess the needs of offenders,
their risk of re-offending and any otherfactors which might affect successful
reintegration to the community. In keepingwith this standard, a ‘Community
Intervention Scale’ (formerly called theCommunity Risk/Needs Management
Scale) is used to capture case-specificinformation on ‘criminal history’ and acritical set of ‘needs’ for classification(employment, marital/family relations,associates/social interaction, substanceabuse, community functioning, personal/
emotional orientation, and attitude) whileon conditional release (Motiuk, 1997).
The Community Intervention Scale issystematically administered and readministered to all offenders undercommunity supervision by case managers
across Canada. It provides an efficientsystem for recording criminal history risk
and case needs, level of risk and need,required frequency of contact, and related
background information on each offender(i.e., release status, warrant expiry). More
importantly, the Community Intervention
Scale assists community staff in managing
sex offender risk. For example, the processof suspension of conditional release that
may or may not lead to a revocation is one
possible measure that can be used to assurethat the level of risk is acceptable.
To sum, this dynamic assessment
method serves to instruct communitybased service providers with important
information. More specifically, with whomthey are dealing, what they are like, what255

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
kinds of problems they faced out in thecommunity before they became in conflictwith the law, and what kind of problems
they experience while under supervision.
Such information can also help direct
limited resources to particular segments ofthe population under community
supervision to reduce risk.
Supervision Standards
Standards in community-based
corrections usually affirm many traditional
community supervision practices. They
also transform correctional services into
publicly acknowledged performance
criteria. For example, community
supervision standards might include thefollowing: Agency Mission Statement andServices, Basic Policy Information,
Information Sharing, Officer Selection,
Training, and Workload, Case Planning,
Case Conferencing and Documentation,
Initial and Ongoing Contact with the
Offender and Others in The Community,
Violation and Suspension, Police Liaison,
24 Hour Availability, Agency Policies,
Volunteers who provide supervision
services, Offender Files, and Community
Services and Resources (CSC, 1989).

much better than those who had not.
Secondly, community offices managed bythose who had established clear
operational standards, routinely monitored
work, and rejected substandard
performance showed the mostimprovement. Finally, community offices
whose field staff coordinated their efforts
towards achieving standards performancereceived the highest ratings.
Correctional plans determine the how,what and why of community supervision.
It is important to ensure that the plan isrelevant to the individual’s criminality,
specific and understood by them, feasible,
decent, humane, and legal. The releaseplan should focus upon: 1) reviewing
dynamic risk factors and criminal patterns,2) addressing concerns of the releasing
authorities, 3) establishing short and longterm goals and objectives of supervision,and 4) reviewing treatment programs,
resources and supervision techniques.

For community-based corrections, theaforementioned standards introduce
standardized methods of risk assessment
and case planning, promote uniform
decision-making, and clearly define areasof discretion. Luciani (1994) found thatcompliance with standards are vital topreserving the integrity of supervision andpromoting a professional ethic.

Finally, a critical source of control andassistance resides in the quality of theinterpersonal relationship between theoffender and other involved workers in thecommunity (Andrews, 1995). Morespecifically, the style and mode ofcommunication is very important in thecontext of supervision, particularly interms of interaction with different types ofcases. For example, chronically depressedindividuals may not respond well to highly
confrontational exchanges. Other specificresponsivity considerations encompass
gender, age, intelligence and ethnicity.

Focused research on compliance with
community supervision standards has
found from audit exercises a number ofkeys to success (Luciani, 1994). First andforemost, those community offices withentrenched supervision practices thatwould survive an audit exercise (as opposedto achieving immediate compliance) fared

W h e n a n o f f e n d e r ’s r i s k t o t h ecommunity is increased, the monitoring
and assistance functions of supervision canbe enhanced through disciplinaryinterviews and increased frequency ofcontact. Under certain conditions, when
the increased risk level of the offender is
no longer manageable, a suspension may

256

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
be in order (Motiuk & Brown, 1993). Thesesituations include undue risk of a breach
and/or re-offending; a breach of special or
additional conditions (i.e., curfews, not toassociate, abstain, etc.); and inability toassess risk because of failure to report.
In sum, careful attention to dynamic risk
assessment or problem identification andmonitoring are the keys to successfulcommunity-based supervision andintervention. A good community
supervision plan will include elements
aimed at avoiding high-risk situations (i.e.,social patterns, locale, drug use) andbuilding in added social support forcompliance and active participation in theplan.
C. Treating Drug-related andFemale Offenders
Fueled by public concerns for community
safety and demands for new measures toallay those concerns, the internationalcorrections community is being challenged
to respond with conceptual andmethodological advances in treatment for
special offender groups. Althoughjurisdictions may vary in the risk/needprofiles of their offenders and the
proportion of special groups in theirrespective correctional population, there
may be sufficient range in these groups tosuggest developing differentiatedtreatment strategies. The United Nations
Asian and Far East Institute (2000)
requested that this paper address issues
related to treating drug-related and female
offenders.
Drug-related Offenders
In North America, alcohol and drug
abuse affects millions of people. Surveys
on the prevalence of substance use
disorders estimate that around 14% of
adults have experienced Alcohol
Dependence at some time in their lives,with approximately 7% having had

Dependence in the last year. Due to thevariety of drugs that could be included inlarge-scale surveys on Drug Dependence,
reliable estimates of prevalence are
difficult to obtain. However, it is believedthat the prevalence of drug abuse is on thesame scale as alcohol abuse.
Surveys of correctional populations findthat significant proportions have substanceabuse problems. Consistently, studies ofprison samples show more than two-thirds
evidence some degree of substance abuseproblems. Recently, the Canadian Centre
for Justice Statistics conducted a census
of prisoners in all adult correctional
facilities across Canada. Althoughsubstance abuse was the highest need area
identified among Provincial/Territorial
prisoners (less than 2 years), it was higher
for federal inmates. In addition, substanceabuse problems (such as intoxication,
trafficking and importation) among theprison population was the most frequently
identified security concern.
The high prevalence of drug abuse
among criminal offenders indicates astrong association between substanceabuse and various types of crime (Dowden& Brown, 1998). Alcohol is suspected ofcontributing to the loss of ability to control
aggressive behavior. Some illicit drugs
such as cocaine may elicit paranoid
thoughts that lead to aggressive acts.
Furthermore, obtaining the money topurchase drugs often involves criminal
activity. Although the particular nature of
the association is not clear, substance abusehas been found to be associated with violent
acts among adults and young offenders.
Substance abuse has been especially
implicated in murders. Moreover,substance abuse is a well-establishedpredictor of recidivism among sexual
offenders and mentally disordered
offenders.

257

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
In relation to treatment, there is strong
empirical support for the assertion that
effective treatment of drug abuse reduces
crime (Andrews & Bonta, 1998). Average
reductions in recidivism of 30% have beenreported in effectiveness studies of drug
abuse and appropriate treatment. A recent
outcome evaluation of Correctional Serviceof Canada’s substance abuse programs in1999 found a 31% reduction in newconvictions for 2,432 federal offenders whocompleted the Offender Substance Abuse
Pre-release Program.

intervention.
A recent review of the literature (Serin,2000) would reveal that there are six
essential components of an effective drug
abuse program for offenders. These include
the following: 1) assessment, 2) pretreatment motivational analysis, 3) formal
treatment, 4) relapse prevention, 5)maintenance and 6) evaluation.

Drug-related offender subgroups havedifferent risk/need profiles and are mostly
comprised of property, assaultive androbbery offenders in correctional systems.
Antisocial associates, relationship to theoffender and circumstance regarding theircontact have been found to be very
important dynamic risk factors to consider
for drug-related offenders. For the mostpart, drug-related offenders present anelevated risk for re-offence.

Assessment. Identifying the range andseverity of treatment needs, conducting
client selection for a program; doing afunctional analysis of use of alcohol anddrugs and their relation to criminality;
determining the role of alcohol and drugs
in the offenders’ use of violence, identifying
treatment goals (abstinence or self-control/
moderation); matching offender to program
alternatives; conducting pre/posttreatment assessments of needs,
knowledge and skills; and finally, doing
follow-up re-assessments during
maintenance phase.

However, there are a number of risk
factors that are not unique to drug-related
offenders but which are associated with reoffence: previous offenses, substance abuse,criminal associates, and antisocial
attitudes. Risk factors unique to drugrelated offenders include: early age of
onset, family supervision/affection,scholastic/vocational maladjustment, andself-control.

Pre-treatment motivational analysis.
Assessing prior treatment experience andperformance (not just for drug abuse);developing a motivational strategy
consistent with needs or stage of readiness;considering obstacles to successful program
completion; establishing support system for
maintaining treatment gains; andconsidering the role of therapeuticcommunities in facilitating treatment.

Drug Abuse Programs for Offenders
Offenders with drug abuse problems
differ in terms of: the etiology of the abuse,presentation of the problem, its specificrelation to criminality, and their responseto treatment (Lightfoot, 1995).
Fundamental to effective intervention is
the matching of offenders to the mostappropriate intervention, although higher
risk offenders with greater severity ofabuse typically require more intensive

Formal treatment. Using accepted adultlearning strategies, addressing treatment
needs as identified in assessment phase;
focusing on knowledge and skill acquisition
using various procedures, incorporatingteaching aids and presenting materials at
the appropriate level; and consideringgroup and individual sessions to enhancetreatment performance.

258

Treatment targets for substance abuse

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
programs typically include most or all of
the following: (from the Correctional
Service Canada’s Offender Substance
Abuse Pre-release Program manual)orientation, alcohol and drug education,
self-management training, social skills
training, job skills, leisure and lifestyle,pre-release planning, and relapse
prevention.
Relapse prevention. Identifying offense
cycle and markers for relapse; consideringresilience factors and skill acquisition
regarding Relapse Prevention; practicing
coping with high risk situations ofincreasing difficulty; and establishing aplan for maintaining treatment goals.
Maintenance. Identifying and developing
support systems to maintain treatment
gains; considering treatment boosters tomaintain gain; establishing continuity ofcare in release planning; and determining
the role of special conditions such as
urinalysis and post-release intervention.
Evaluation. Establishing intermediate
measures of treatment gain (reduced levelsof substance use while incarcerated, fewer
institutional misconducts related to drug
abuse); calculating change scores for each
offender on knowledge and skills relating
to treatment targets; rating offenders’performance in the program; gatheringsatisfaction ratings (offenders, unit staff,
nursing, correctional staff, parole officer,
psychology); following up on drop-outs andrefusals in evaluation of effectiveness;finding out the impact of other treatment
program involvement; and comparing witha control group or cohort.
Female Offenders
Female offender subgroups also havedifferent risk/need profiles with property,
drug and sex trade offenders most common
in correctional systems (Motiuk, 1999).
The social context, relationship to female

offender and circumstance regarding theircontact are very important to consider. For
the most part, female offenders present thelowest risk for re-offence.
There are a number of risk factors thatare not unique to female offenders but
which are associated with re-offence:previous offenses, substance abuse, family
breakdown, marital problems, education/
employment difficulties, and criminal
associates. Risk factors unique to female
offenders include: histories of trauma,
victimization, parenting responsibilities,
physical and mental health problems, andpoverty.
Clinical measures of capacity for
relatedness and connection are importantin determining treatment responsivity ofa female offender (Bloom, 1999). In
keeping with general principles of effective
treatment it remains important to matchrisk/need profiles to intervention intensity
levels (Andrews & Dowden, 1999).
Offenses committed by females are notusually impulsive acts. Consequently,
gender responsive programming for female
offenders should be delivered in a womancentered environment that is safe, trustingand supportive (Stableforth, 1999).
Women-centered Programs
Current assessment and classification
paradigms are composites orreformulations of what is known aboutvariables pertaining to female offender risk
and need (Motiuk & Blanchette, 1998).
Comprehensive evaluation strategies forfemale offenders are paramount for
appropriate security placement,prescribing treatment, and risk
management. There is growing evidence
that the objective assessment instruments
used in Canadian corrections are bothreliable and valid for female offenders(Motiuk & Nafekh, 1999). While current
assessment tools appear to be accurate in

259

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
identifying static and dynamic variables forfemale offenders, there is room for
improvement.
Dowden and Blanchette (1999) foundthat drug abusing female offenders tend to:start their criminal careers at an earlier
age; have previous adult court experience;possess histories of breaches of trust(escape, unlawfully at large) andplacements in disciplinary segregation; beclassified as high need; and experience
difficulties in associates/social interaction,
attitudes, employment, and marital/family
relations. Their research also suggests that
substance abuse problems are not unidimensional and interact with a numberof criminogenic need areas. Clearly,
reliable differences exist between female
offender substance abusers and nonabusers in a variety of areas. Examples ofwomen-centered programs offered by theCorrectional Service of Canada include:
Mother-child program (children (0 - 12)
visitation or full- and part-time residency
program); Anger and Emotions
Management; Women’s Substance Abuse
Program (a substance abuse program thatmeets the needs of women); Empowerment
Group for Women; Anti-fraud; Anticriminal Thinking; Cognitive Skills
Training (to think in non-criminal ways);
Canine Program (introduces women to thebasics of dog grooming and training);
Native Sisterhood (provides support to
Native and Non-Native women in Native
culture, particularly in relation to Native
craft and livelihood skills); Parenting Skills
Program (a short general education
program); Survivors of Abuse and Trauma
Programming (education/ awareness;
intensive group therapy, post-programsupport); Peer Support (intensive training
women inmates to provide emotional
support to their peers); and Dialectical
Behavior Therapy (a cognitive behavioral
treatment program for borderline
personality disorder).

260

CONCLUSION
Corrections has always been about
people, not just numbers. State-of-the-art
offender assessment tools, treatment
programs, and practice guidelines orstandards are helpful. But unless anorganization’s people, at all levels, arecommitted to both effective and efficientcorrectional service delivery (custody, care,
control and safe reintegration), andsupportive of various initiatives, within
their respective jurisdictions, corrections
will be unable to move forward into the
future.
REFERENCES
Andrews, D.A. (1995). The psychology ofcriminal conduct and effective treatment.
In J. McGuire (Ed.) What Works? Reducing
Reoffending. (pp.35-62). New York: Wiley.
Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The
psychology of criminal conduct. Second
Edition. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J. & Hoge, R.D.
(1990). Classification for effective
rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology,
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
Andrews, D.A. & Dowden, C. (1999). A
meta-analytic investigation into effective
correctional intervention for female
offenders. Forum on Corrections Research,
11(3), 18-21.
Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R.D.,
Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990).
Does correctional treatment work? Aclinically relevant and psychologicallyinformed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28,
369-404.
Bloom, B. (1999). Gender-responsive
programming for women offender: Guiding
principles and practices. Forum on
Corrections Research, 11(3), 22-27.

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Boland, F., Henderson, K., & Baker, J.
(1998). Substance abuse assessment
review. Forum on Corrections Research,
10(3), 32-34.
Corrections Population Growth. (1997).
First report on progress for Federal/
Provincial/Territorial Ministers responsible
for justice. Fredricton, New Brunswick.
Correctional Service Canada (2000). The
safe return of offenders to the community.
(April 2000). Research Branch, CSC.
Dowden, C, & Blanchette, K. (1999). An
investigation into the characteristics ofsubstance abusing women offenders: Risk,
need and post-release outcome. Report No.
81. Research Branch, Correctional Serviceof Canada.
Dowden, C., & Brown, S. (1998). Substanceabuse. Forum on Corrections Research,
10(3), 28-31.
Gaes, G., Flanigan, T., Motiuk, L.L., &Stewart, L. (1999). Adult correctional
treatment. In Prisons. (M. Tonry & J.
Petersilia, Eds). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1996).
Principles of effective correctional
programming. Forum on Corrections
Research, 8(3), 38-41.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F.T., &Andrews, D.A. (2000). The effects ofcommunity sanctions and incarceratioon
on recidivism. Forum on Corrections
Research, 12(2), 10-13.
Harman, W.G., & Hann, R.G. (1986).
Predicting general release risk forpenitentiary inmates. User report.
Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada,
No. 1986-32.

Lightfoot, L.O. (1995). Assessment andtreatment of substance abuse in offenders:
Practice guidelines for correctional
psychologists. In Leis, T.A., Motiuk, L.L.,& Ogloff, J.R. (Eds.). Forensic Psychology:
Policy and Practice in Corrections. Ottawa:
Correctional Service Canada.
Lozel, F. (1996). Effective correctional
programming: What empirical researchtells us and what it doesn’t. Forum on
Corrections Research, 8(3), 33-37.
Luciani, F. (1994). Conditional releasesupervision standards revisited: An
examination of compliance in Ontario
Region. Forum on Corrections Research,
6(3), 26-29.
Motiuk, L.L. (1995). Refocusing the role ofpsychology in risk management:
Assessment, communication, monitoringand intervention. In Leis, T.A., Motiuk,
L.L., & Ogloff, J.R. (Eds.). Forensic
Psychology: Policy and Practice inCorrections. Ottawa: Correctional Service
Canada.
Motiuk, L.L. (1997). The Community Risk/
Needs Management Scale: An effective
supervision tools. Forum on Corrections
Research, 9(1), 8-12.
Motiuk, L.L., (1998). 16 levers for
reintegration. A published paper presented
at the National Parole Board - Correctional
service of Canada Retreat. Waskesiu,
Saskatchewan.
Motiuk, L.L. (1999). Special offender risk/needs groups: Youthful offenders, female
offenders and foreign nationals. A
published paper presented at theInternational Roundtable on Corrections.
Oslo, Norway.
Motiuk, L.L., & Blanchette, K. (1998).
What works: Assessments for women. A

261

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
published paper presented at theInternational Community Corrections
Association 6th Annual Research
Conference. Arlington, Virginia.
Motiuk, L.L., & Brown, S. (1993). The
validity of offender needs identification andanalysis in community corrections. Report
No. 34. Research and Statistics Branch,
Correctional Service of Canada.
Motiuk, L.L., & Nafekh, M. (1999).
Reintegration potential profiles forfederally sentenced women. Forum on
Corrections Research, 11(3): 13-17.
Motiuk, L.L., & Porporino, F. (1989). Field
tests of the Community Risk/Needs
Management Scale: A study of offenders on
caseload. Report No. 6. Research andStatistics Branch, Correctional Service
Canada.
Motiuk, L.L., and Serin, R. (1998).
Situating risk assessment in thereintegration potential framework. Forumon Corrections Research, 10(1): 19-22.
Motiuk, L.L., and Serin, R. (2000). A
compendium on “what works” in offender
programming. Forum on Corrections
Research, 12(2): 19-22.
Roberts, J. (1993). Risk management: The
views of the public and the challenges tocorrections. Forum on Corrections
Research, 5(2), 19-21.
Stableforth, N.L. (1999). Effective
corrections for women offender. Forum on
Corrections Research, 11(3), 3-5.
Serin, R. (2000). Personal communication.
Thurber, A. (1998). Understanding offender
reintegration. Forum on Corrections
Research, 10(1): 14-19.

262

Waller, I. (1974). Men Released from
Prison. Centre of Criminology, Universityof Toronto Press.
Walmsley, R. (1999). World Prison
Population List. Home Office Research,
Development and Statistics Directorate.