FORUM on Corrections Research

The Auditor General of Canada's report on Correctional Service of Canada offender programs

Since most inmates will eventually be released back into the community, the impact of the Correctional Service of Canada on offenders extends beyond incarceration. Many argue that the Service's most important mandate is actually to rehabilitate the offenders in its care. This argument is persuasive, given that almost one in three offenders who are released go on to commit another offence.

The Service spends approximately 7% of its one billion dollar annual budget on programming that targets factors that contribute to criminal behaviour, such as sexual deviancy, substance abuse and antisocial behaviour. The Service's current range of programs is extensive, with some having received international recognition.

The Auditor General of Canada recently released his 1996 audit of selected federal government agencies. Chapter 10 of this report focused on Correctional Service of Canada offender programs.⁽¹⁾ It examined both the practicality and cost effectiveness of intervention programming designed to change inmate behaviour, as well as of more traditional employability skills training. This article summarizes this analysis.

Intervention programs

The current thrust of the Correctional Service of Canada approach to offender treatment is to concentrate its resources on programs that research has indicated have the most potential for reducing recidivism (such as substance abuse and sex offender treatment) -- programs aimed at offender characteristics related to criminal behaviour.

Some intervention programs try to influence attitudes and behaviour indirectly by conveying information, while others try to change behaviour directly.

While the Service's range of programs is impressive, there is always room for improvement. For example, the Service's treatment of sex offenders varies considerably from region to region. A high-risk sex offender may receive a year of treatment in a psychiatric facility in one region, but would receive just six months of non-residential treatment in another.

The costs of sex offender programming also vary widely -- even within the same risk level. Some moderate-intensity programs cost $2,000 to treat an offender, while other similar programs cost up to $7,000 per offender. Similar cost discrepancies were found for both high- and low-intensity treatment.

In short, a disproportionate amount of resources is also being spent on a few offenders. Given these variations in program length and cost, the Service needs to focus on the most cost-effective programs.

Another intervention program weakness is that the Service has not established a continuum of programs that support offenders properly in their transition from the institution to the community. It is critical that offenders continue to have access to appropriate treatment or assistance after they return to the community, because that is when they are most forcefully confronted with the factors that led to their original criminal conviction.

However, the Service is currently able to meet only 65% of the demand for community-based sex offender relapse-prevention programs. Similar problems are present for many other types of programming. Further, many of the Service's community-based programs are essentially duplicates of those offered in institutions, rather than being booster or follow-up programming.

Given these weaknesses (and in keeping with the principles of its correctional strategy), the Service should ensure that its resource allocation is based on sound cost and program benefit information -- among similar program types and across all rehabilitation programs.

Employability programs

Research indicates that offenders who find good jobs after release are less likely to be reincarcerated. Employability (academic, personal management and teamwork) skills are the key to success in the Canadian workforce. The Service, therefore, offers education, vocational and employment programming to help offenders acquire these skills.

However, there are significant cost variations across these three program areas. Both education and vocational training are much less expensive per inmate than institutional employment. It costs about $13,000 per year to provide one institutional job, but only $7,500 to provide either education or vocational training for one inmate.

Further, both education and vocational training appear to be given to those who need it, while roughly half of the offenders who are placed in some form of institutional employment do not necessarily need this type of training.

The Service also does not have sufficient programming to help offenders make the transition from the institution to the community. Only limited assistance is available to offenders trying to find and keep a job after release. More than 95% of the Service's employability resources are spent in institutions, which leaves very little to help offenders after they return to the community.

Finally, the Service needs a framework for deciding how to spend its employability training resources, as well as a periodic reassessment process for these programs.

Given these concerns, the Service should evaluate the costs and benefits of its employment, education and vocational training expenditures to establish clear guidelines on who should be trained and which programs are the most cost effective.

Program management

The Service's recent rehabilitation initiatives represent a significant accomplishment. The Service has put a great deal of effort and resources into improving its programs, and these efforts to reduce recidivism through strong rehabilitation programming are laudable.

The Service has recently shifted responsibility for many aspects of its programs to its regions, institutions and parole offices. This decentralized approach means that all levels of management need clear goals, targets and measurement systems that provide information on how well criminogenic needs are being addressed and what results are being achieved.

However, the Service has only limited overall cost information on its programming efforts. In short, senior managers do not focus enough attention on determining the best match of resources to the overall objective of re-integrating offenders safely into the community. To achieve this balance, the Service will require better information on the cost and benefits of its rehabilitation programs. Without such information, the Service cannot strategically reassess and reallocate its program funding.

The Service should, therefore, develop the capability to strategically reassess its programming expenditures and reallocate funds as necessary. The Service should also develop performance measures so that all levels of management can truly manage the rehabilitation effort.

---

⁽¹⁾ For more detailed information, see "Correctional Service Canada -- Rehabilitation programs for offenders," Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Chapter 10 (Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996).