assignment 2

based on ONLY the notes : 2. Chapter 1: Rehabilitation in Canadian Corrections

To understand Canadas approach to rehabilitation in correctional settings, it is important to read a bit about where we came from and how our approach has changed over time.

The “Nothing Works” Era: 1970s Pessimism

In the 1970s, a wave of skepticism about rehabilitation swept through the field of corrections, largely fueled by Robert Martinsons (1974) influential meta-analysis, which concluded that “nothing works” in offender rehabilitation. Martinsons review led to a shift toward punitive policies, as it suggested rehabilitation had minimal impact on recidivism. The idea that offenders could not be reformed contributed to:

• Harsher sentencing policies, including longer prison terms and mandatory minimum sentences.
• The rise of incapacitation-based strategies, under the assumption that keeping offenders locked up was the only effective way to reduce crime.
• Reductions in funding for rehabilitation programs, as policymakers focused on punishment rather than reintegration.

However, Martinson later revised his stance, acknowledging that some rehabilitative programs did show positive effects when implemented correctly (Martinson, 1979). Despite this, the damage had been donerehabilitation took a backseat in criminal justice policy for much of the decade (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).

The Rehabilitation Revival: The 1980s and 1990s

As noted in Module 2, a criminal justice system that relies entirely on deterrence is likely not to see changes in crime rates. This soon became apparent in Canada. By the 1980s, criminologists began to re-examine the effectiveness of correctional treatment. New research by Andrews, Bonta, and Gendreau (1990) provided strong evidence that structured, skills-based cognitive-behavioral interventions could significantly reduce recidivism. The key shift in this era was:

• Rejection of unstructured, insight-oriented therapies, which had little impact on behavior change.
• Development of evidence-based correctional programs that emphasized structured skill-building, behavior modification, and individualized risk assessment.
• Growing support for evidence-based models of treatment (see below), such as the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model, which remains the dominant framework in modern correctional programming (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

2. Chapter 1: Rehabilitation in Canadian Corrections

2.1. Modern Rehabilitation in Canada: 2000s to Today

Since the early 2000s, structured cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches have become a dominant treatment method in correctional settings, particularly in North America and Europe. Below are key features of modern rehabilitation programs in Canadian corrections:

1. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT): CBT focuses on changing offenders’ thought patterns, improving problem-solving skills, and developing prosocial behaviors. Research has shown that CBT-based interventions significantly reduce recidivism when properly implemented (Lipsey et al., 2007; Wilson, 2013).

• Teaches offenders to recognize and change distorted thinking patterns.
• Helps individuals develop emotional regulation, problem-solving, and social skills.
• Reduces recidivism by addressing criminogenic needs (Gendreau et al., 1999).
• Programs such as the Thinking for a Change (T4C) Program and Aggression Replacement Training (ART) have demonstrated success in correctional settings (Wilson et al., 2005).

2. Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model

Building on these rehabilitation advancements, correctional programs increasingly adopted structured models, with the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model becoming the foundation of offender rehabilitation. The RNR model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) is one of the most widely used frameworks in offender rehabilitation. It consists of three key principles:

1. Risk Principle Treatment should match the offender’s level of risk, meaning higher-risk individuals require more intensive interventions. Researchers have identified the central eight risk factors that are highly predictive of criminal behaviour (see the table below; Andrews and Bonta, 2010).

Type

Factor

Type

The “Central Eight” Risk Factors

History of antisocial behaviour

The “Big Four” Risk Factors

Antisocial Personality pattern

Antisocial cognition

Antisocial Associates

Family and/or martial

School and/or work

Leisure and/or recreation

Substance abuse

2. Need Principle Interventions should target criminogenic needs, such as those that are most strongly predictive of criminal behaviour (i.e., the big four risk factors in the table above) antisocial attitudes, substance abuse, and lack of problem-solving skills.

3. Responsivity Principle Programs should be delivered in a way that aligns with the learning style, motivation, and abilities of the offender.

The RNR model is evidence-based and has been shown to significantly reduce recidivism when properly implemented (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Meta-analyses have found that treatment programs following the RNR model reduce recidivism by an average of 1030%, with structured cognitive-behavioral interventions demonstrating the strongest effects (Lipsey, Landenberger, & Wilson, 2007; Andrews & Bonta, 2010). A systematic review of over 500 studies further supports these findings, showing that high-quality RNR-based programs can achieve recidivism reductions closer to 30% under ideal conditions (Dowden & Andrews, 2004). Because of this, adherence to RNR principals is considered current best practice in most correctional programs. However, critics argue that it focuses too much on risk factors and neglects positive, strengths-based approaches to rehabilitation.

4. Skills-Based Interventions

• Instead of relying on punitive measures, modern rehabilitation emphasizes teaching practical life skills that promote reintegration.
• Programs like the Integrated Correctional Program Model (ICPM) combine CBT, relapse prevention, and social learning strategies.

5. Restorative Justice (see Module 2) and Desistance-Based Approaches

• Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) help offenders reintegrate into society.
• The Good Lives Model (GLM) focuses on building prosocial skills and helping offenders achieve meaningful life goals (Ward & Maruna, 2007).

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has developed Nationally Recognized Correctional Programs (NRCP), which are structured, skills-based interventions designed for different offender populations. Below is detailed table that includes additional correctional treatment programs used by CSC, their descriptions, effectiveness, and research citations.

Program Type

Description

Effectiveness

Substance Abuse

Programs

Helps offenders understand the link between substance use and criminal behavior, develop coping skills, and prevent relapse.

Therapeutic communities within correctional settings can reduce recidivism by up to 20%. Since drug and alcohol use is a major criminogenic need, programs that combine CBT with medication-assisted treatment (MAT) have high success rates (Marlowe, 2018).

Violence Prevention

Program (VPP)

Targets factors associated with violent behavior, including anger management, problem-solving, and social skills.

Participants show improved institutional behavior and reduced violent recidivism.

Sex Offender

Treatment Programs

(SOTPs)

Uses cognitive-behavioral approaches to help offenders recognize and change harmful thoughts and behaviors related to sexual offending.

Reduces sexual recidivism by approximately 10-30%, depending on program intensity ().

Indigenous-Specific

Programs (e.g.,

Healing Lodges,

Spirit of a Warrior, In

Search of Your

Warrior)

Integrates Indigenous cultural practices, teachings, and traditions into rehabilitation to address trauma and intergenerational impacts.

Indigenous-specific rehabilitation programs, such as Healing Lodges, have demonstrated a 9% lower recidivism rate compared to standard correctional programming, particularly for moderate-risk offenders (Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, 2013). However, effectiveness varies based on program implementation, cultural alignment, and offender engagement levels (Trevethan, Crutcher, & Rastin, 2002).

Family Violence

Prevention Program

(FVPP)

Targets individuals with a history of domestic violence, focusing on attitudes, emotional regulation, and relationship skills.

Research shows a significant reduction in intimate partner violence post-release.

Cognitive Skills

Training (CST)

Enhances offenders problem-solving, self-control, and critical thinking skills to improve decision-making.

Participants exhibit lower rates of general reoffending.

Correctional

Program Referral

Guidelines (CPRGs)

Provides structured assessments to match offenders with appropriate correctional programs based on criminogenic needs.

Ensures targeted interventions, which improve program effectiveness.

Integrated

Correctional

Program Model

(ICPM)

Combines multiple treatment elements (e.g., violence prevention, substance abuse, cognitive-behavioral therapy) into a single, streamlined program.

Demonstrates positive outcomes in reducing reoffending across multiple risk factors.

Employment and

Vocational Training

Programs

Teaches practical job skills and provides employment training to support reintegration into society.

Employment programs are linked to reduced recidivism rates, particularly among lower-risk offenders (Wilson et al., 2000).

Circles of Support

and Accountability

(CoSA)

A community-based initiative that provides social and emotional support to high-risk sex offenders post-release.

Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) programs have been shown to significantly reduce recidivism, particularly among high-risk sex offenders. A Canadian study found that CoSA participants had a 70% lower rate of repeat sexual offenses compared to a matched control group of offenders who did not receive community-based support (Wilson, Cortoni, & McWhinnie, 2009). However, recidivism reductions for general offenses were lower, with an overall reduction closer to 4050% across multiple studies (Duwe, 2013; McNeill, 2019).

Dialectical Behavior

Therapy (DBT) for

Offenders with

Emotional

Dysregulation

Adapted for offenders with severe emotional dysregulation and personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder.

Studies indicate improvements in emotional control and reductions in violent incidents.

Mental Health

Treatment &

Psychological

Services

Provides therapy and psychiatric care for offenders with mental health conditions, including depression, schizophrenia, and PTSD.

Effective in reducing self-harm and improving institutional adjustment.

Sexual Offender

Maintenance

Programs

Follow-up programs for offenders who have completed primary SOTPs, focusing on relapse prevention and community reintegration.

Enhances long-term success and prevents recidivism among sex offenders (Hanson et al., 2009).

3. Chapter 2: Correctional Programming in Saskatchewan

The Saskatchewan Ministry of Corrections, Policing, and Public Safety provides a range of rehabilitation programs for inmates at the Regina Correctional Centre. As discussed in Module 2, all sentenced inmates undergo a risk assessment using the Primary Risk Assessment (PRA) tool (insert link to relevant section in Module 2).

Based on the SPRA results, correctional officers responsible for case management assess each inmate’s criminogenic needs across 12 key categories, including:

1. Substance use
2. Academic/vocational skills
3. Employment
4. Attitude
5. Address stability
6. Peers/companions
7. Financial stability
8. Family and marital relationships
9. Domestic violence
10. General violence
11. Sexual offending
12. Emotional instability

Using this assessment, the case manager recommends targeted treatment programs designed to address the inmates specific criminogenic needs. The programs offered at the Regina Correctional Centre include the following.

DSATU (Dedicated Substance Abuse Treatment Unit)

Targeted Criminogenic Need(s):

Substance abuse

Information:

The DSATU is a specialized unit that provides comprehensive in-patient addiction treatment for high-risk male offenders at the RCC. A study published in the evaluated the effectiveness of DSATU and found that participants demonstrated significant improvements in substance abuse behaviors and attitudes. The program’s structured approach and focus on high-risk individuals contributed to its success in reducing substance-related issues among inmates.

Targeted Criminogenic Need(s):

Employment

Information:

Targeted Criminogenic Need(s):

Attitude, peers, sexual offending

Information:

T4C is a cognitive-behavioral program designed to address criminal thinking patterns, social skills, and problem-solving abilities. It has been widely implemented across various correctional settings in North America. Research indicates that T4C participants exhibit reductions in recidivism rates compared to non-participants. The program’s emphasis on cognitive restructuring and skill development is instrumental in facilitating behavioral change among offenders.

Targeted Criminogenic Need(s):

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for emotional regulation and general problem-solving

Information:

Targeted Criminogenic Need(s):

General violence

Information:

LWV programs aim to address violent behaviors by helping participants understand the roots of their aggression and develop non-violent coping strategies. While specific studies on LWV are limited, similar violence reduction programs have shown effectiveness in decreasing violent incidents among participants. These programs are utilized in various correctional institutions to manage and mitigate violent behaviors.

Targeted Criminogenic Need(s):

Domestic violence

Information:

The SAFE program targets individuals involved in domestic violence, focusing on accountability, understanding the impact of abuse, and developing healthy relationship skills. have been implemented in multiple jurisdictions and have demonstrated success in reducing instances of domestic violence among participants (Soursa et al., 2024).

4. Chapter 3: Alternative Approaches to Rehabilitation

Restorative Justice: Healing and Reconciliation

While traditional sentencing focuses on retribution, restorative justice prioritizes healing and reconciliation. Restorative justice views crime as a violation of relationships rather than just a legal offence. Consider the case of a 17-year-old youth charged with robbery. Under a punitive model, a person might receive a prison sentence. However, under a restorative justice program, someone could instead meet with a survivor, understand the harm caused, and complete community service as a form of reparation.

Restorative justice emphasizes:

• Healing and accountability.
• Voluntary participation of the survivor, perpetrator, and community.
• Repairing harm rather than just punishing.

Types of Restorative Justice Programs

1. Survivor-perpetrator mediation: A facilitated dialogue between the survivor and the individual who committed the crime.
2. Survivor assistance: Providing resources and support to victims.
3. Support for formerly incarcerated individuals: Helping reintegrate them into society.
4. Restitution: Offenders compensate survivors financially or through services.
5. Community service: Encourages offenders to give back to society.

Does Restorative Justice Work?

Restorative justice has been applied successfully in various criminal cases. In Canada, programs like the Community Justice Initiatives (CJI) in Ontario facilitate meetings between survivors and offenders, leading to higher satisfaction rates than traditional sentencing (Latimer et al., 2005). Similarly, research shows that Indigenous healing lodges significantly reduce recidivism among Indigenous offenders by integrating cultural teachings and community support into rehabilitation (Bonta et al., 2013). These examples highlight how restorative justice can promote meaningful change beyond punitive measures.

Restorative justice programs have been found to significantly reduce recidivism and improve victim satisfaction rates compared to traditional sentencing. A meta-analysis by Strang et al. (2013) found that restorative justice programs reduced recidivism by approximately 1425%, with stronger effects observed for property crimes than for violent offenses. Similarly, Bolitho (2017) found that victims in restorative justice programs reported higher satisfaction levels (6080%) compared to those in conventional court proceedings.

The Good Lives Model (GLM): A Strengths-Based Alternative

The Good Lives Model (GLM) (Ward & Gannon, 2006) has been increasingly incorporated into rehabilitation efforts. The Good Lives Model (GLM), developed by Ward and Maruna (2007), takes a strength-based approach to rehabilitation. Instead of focusing solely on risk reduction, GLM emphasizes helping offenders develop the skills and resources necessary for a fulfilling, prosocial life. The GLM complements RNR by emphasizing offenders’ strengths and personal goals rather than just their deficits, promoting positive identity development to support long-term desistance.

Core Principles of GLM

• Human Needs and Goals People commit crimes because they seek to fulfill universal psychological, social, and material needs, but in maladaptive ways (Ward & Brown, 2004).
• Building Strengths Treatment should not only address risks but also enhance strengthssuch as developing career skills, improving relationships, and increasing emotional regulation.
• Holistic Approach Programs should help offenders construct meaningful life plans that are incompatible with crime.

Evidence for GLM

The Good Lives Model (GLM), when integrated with the RNR framework, has been shown to enhance motivation and treatment engagement. Research on sex offender rehabilitation programs found that GLM-based interventions significantly improved program completion rates and reduced sexual recidivism by 1225% when combined with cognitive-behavioral therapy (Willis & Ward, 2013; Looman & Abracen, 2013). However, more longitudinal studies are needed to assess its effectiveness across different offender populations.

5. Chapter 4: Crime Desistance Models: How and Why do People Stop Committing Crimes?

Crime desistance is the process through which individuals stop engaging in criminal behavior, often without formal intervention. Unlike rehabilitation, which focuses on structured treatment programs, and unlike deterrence, which aims to prevent crime through fear of punishment, desistance research examines the natural and social processes that lead individuals to move away from crime. Understanding these processes is crucial in designing policies and interventions that support individuals in maintaining crime-free lives. While rehabilitation programs attempt to actively change behavior, desistance theories explore why some individuals stop committing crimes on their own.

Several models have been proposed to explain why and how people desist from crime. While some individuals may naturally “age out” of crime, others require external supports and cognitive shifts to maintain long-term desistance (Maruna, 2001; Laub & Sampson, 2001).

1. Maturational Theories of Desistance: Aging Out of Crime

One of the earliest explanations for crime desistance is maturational reform theory, which argues that individuals “age out” of crime naturally as they mature. The age-crime curve demonstrates that criminal behavior tends to peak during adolescence and early adulthood before declining in the mid-to-late 20s (Glueck & Glueck, 1940).

According to this perspective, factors such as:

• Neurobiological development (e.g., improved impulse control and decision-making skills).
• Cognitive maturity (e.g., greater awareness of long-term consequences).
• Shifts in lifestyle priorities (e.g., increased focus on work, family, and stability).

These factors contribute to a natural decline in criminal behavior over time. However, this model does not explain why some individuals desist earlier or why others persist in crime despite aging.

2. Social Bonding and Turning Points Model (Sampson & Laub, 1993)

Sampson and Laub’s Turning Points Theory emphasizes that desistance is often triggered by major life events that strengthen an individuals social bonds. Their life-course perspective suggests that while some individuals engage in persistent criminal behavior, key turning pointssuch as:

• Marriage (providing emotional and financial stability).
• Employment (offering structure and pro-social reinforcement).
• Military service (instilling discipline and a sense of purpose).

These factors help individuals shift away from crime by increasing social control and personal responsibility (Laub & Sampson, 2001).

This model is supported by longitudinal research, showing that individuals who develop stable social relationships and employment opportunities are more likely to desist from crime (Sampson & Laub, 1993). However, this model does not account for those who desist without major life events or those who struggle to form strong social bonds due to systemic disadvantages.

3. Cognitive Transformation and Identity Change Models

Another major desistance model focuses on personal identity transformation. Giordano et al. (2002) propose that desistance requires individuals to redefine their self-concept, moving away from an identity associated with criminal behavior.

Their Cognitive Transformation Theory outlines four key cognitive shifts:

1. Open to Change: The individual recognizes the need to abandon crime.
2. Exposure to a Hook for Change: This could be a job, a mentor, or a religious/spiritual commitment.
3. Redefinition of Self: The person begins to see themselves as someone capable of leading a prosocial life.
4. Shift in Criminal Thinking Patterns: They reject past behaviors and develop new goals and values.

Maruna (2001) expands on this with the concept of making good, where desisters reconstruct their past criminal behavior in a way that allows them to see themselves as resilient survivors rather than lifelong criminals.

4. Ralph Serins Integrated Risk-Desistance Model

Ralph Serin (2016) proposed an Integrated Risk-Desistance Model (IRD) that builds on previous theories by combining risk assessment with desistance-oriented factors. Traditional risk assessment tools focus on static and dynamic criminogenic factors (e.g., prior criminal history, substance abuse, antisocial personality traits), which help predict recidivism but do not capture how individuals move toward desistance. Watch the video below for information on the IRD model of desistance.

6. Chapter 5: Policy Implications and Effective Strategies for Promoting Desistance

Given the insights from Serin and other desistance theorists, criminal justice policies should prioritize rehabilitative and support-based approaches over purely punitive measures.

A. Rehabilitation Programs that Support Cognitive and Identity Change

• Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is one of the most effective interventions for changing antisocial attitudes and behaviors (Lipsey et al., 2007).
• Motivational interviewing techniques help individuals internalize their own desire for change and commit to personal transformation (Serin et al., 2016).

B. Employment and Social Reintegration Programs

• Providing vocational training, job placement assistance, and mentorship increases the likelihood of desistance (Wilson et al., 2000).
• Criminal record expungement programs may improve employment prospects and reduce recidivism rates (Uggen, 2000).

C…. [Content truncated to 3000 words]

WRITE MY PAPER