Current Knowledge on Economic Impacts of Correctional Programs

Number: RIB-25-02

Date: 2025

Alternative format:

Background

Correctional programming within the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is intended to reduce criminogenic risk factors via evidence-based interventions, with the underlying goal of reducing recidivism and promoting public safety. CSC’s suite of interventions is based on the “Risk-Needs-Responsivity” model, whereby the level of intervention corresponds with level of risk, programs address criminogenic risk factors, and delivery of programming is tailored to the characteristics and needs of the offender (Andrews et al., 2011; CSC, 2021).

A key measure of the efficacy of correctional programming is recidivism (reoffence or returns to custody). Analysts have also considered outcomes from an economic framework, with a focus on organizational, governmental and/or societal costs. Two main models of economic analysis have been used; such as, cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost benefit analysis (CBA; Welsh, 2004). CEA discerns the cost (in monetary value) and impact (in non-monetary value) of a program; for example, number of crimes prevented for every $1,000 program dollars spent (Welsh, 2004). Cost benefit analysis monetizes the impact, e.g., tax dollars saved for every program dollar spent (Brown, 2000), thereby focusing on the ‘costs avoided.’ Across studies, cost avoidance measures vary, however, common considerations include taxpayer costs associated with crime and criminal justice (e.g., police, emergency services, courts, prisons, community supervision), offender costs (income loss), monetary costs to victims (e.g., healthcare services, property loss, income loss), and intangible (quality of life) costs to victims (Aos et al., 2001; Schabses 2013; WSIPP, 2024).

A foundational framework for CBA was developed by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP). The approach is intended to empirically estimate the benefits and costs of programs and policies so as to inform strategic spending and decision-making. The model involves: identification of evidence-based programs with proven results (“what works”); assessment of the outcome in monetary terms (“return on investment”); and calculation of risk of investment and likelihood that the program will at least break even (“riskiness”; WSIPP, 2024). The WSIPP maintains a program inventory that includes a cost benefit analysis and classification of programs as evidence-based, research-based, or promising (Goodvin et al., 2024).

Economic Assessments of CSC Programs

Within the Canadian federal correctional context, different analyses have included economic assessments of CSC programs.

• A 2009 study (Conference Board of Canada, 2009) employed the WSIPP framework to analyze the cost benefits of CSC programs. Reduced likelihood of re-offence and reduced crime severity were factored into the model to calculate fiscal benefits. The study found that most CSC programs had a positive fiscal net benefit for taxpayers. Overall, costs of program delivery^{Footnote 1}   ($21.5 million) were outweighed by benefits ($58.4 million), with a net benefit of $36.8 million. When analysis was expanded to include broader tangible benefits beyond those incurred by the federal government (e.g., foregone income), benefits ($84.9 million) resulted in a net benefit of $63.3 million.
• A 2009 evaluation of CSC’s program suite included assessments of cost effectiveness, measured in relation to saved costs associated with “avoided incarceration days” (tied to earlier releases and absence of readmissions; CSC Evaluation Branch, 2009). Overall, for every dollar spent on programming, between $1 and $8 were saved.
• More recently, a 2019 evaluation of CSC’s updated programming model (i.e., the Integrated Correctional Programming Model) found the men’s model to be cost-effective when considered in relation costs saved by successful release/avoidance of readmissions (CSC Evaluation Branch, 2019). Specifically, there was a cost savings of $5,675 per program participant (compared to eligible non-participants) in avoided readmission costs.

International Findings

International studies have generally demonstrated positive economic benefits in relation to a wide range of correctional programming, including multisystemic therapy (Klietz et al., 2010), education (Davis et al., 2014; Stickle & Schuster, 2023), faith-based programming (Duwe, & Johnson, 2013), substance use treatment (Daley et al., 2004; French et al., 2010; McCollister et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2009), sex offender treatment (Donato & Shanahan,1999), peer-based health programs (South et al., 2014), and animal therapy (Cooke et al., 2021). Systematic reviews have also synthesized the results of cost benefit analyses of correctional programs:

• A recent “benefit-to-cost” review of 19 correctional treatment studies primarily conducted within the United States (Zane et al., 2023) found that all studies had positive benefit-to-cost ratios, with financial benefits substantially outweighing costs.
• A review by Duwe (2017) included an examination of cost benefit results for a range of correctional programs in the United States, including education, employment, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), chemical dependency (CD), sex offender treatment, social support, domestic violence (DV), mental health, and re-entry programs. Findings across studies provide evidence for positive returns on investment for nearly all programs (except DV programs), with CBT programs demonstrating the strongest returns.
• A review by Settumba et al. (2018) synthesized economic evaluations of behavioral interventions intended to reduce offending. Results demonstrated that program investment yielded positive economic benefits, although the authors noted only 17 studies met inclusions criteria.

What it means

Effective correctional programming is integral to achieving the core correctional objectives of reducing the likelihood of future criminal behaviour. Efficacy in service delivery translates into direct and indirect costs benefits for taxpayers, with studies consistently demonstrating positive returns on investment in evidence-based correctional programs.

References

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385481140635

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime. Washington: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED453340

Brown, S. L. (2000). Cost-effective correctional treatment. Forum on Corrections Research, 12(2). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada. https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/csc-scc/compendium_2000-e/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_27_e.shtml

Conference Board of Canada (2009). The net federal fiscal benefit of CSC programming. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/407815/publication.html

Cooke, B. J., Hill, L. B., Farrington, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2021). A beastly bargain: A cost-benefit analysis of prison-based dog-training programs in Florida. The Prison Journal, 101(3), 239-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885521101040

Correctional Service Canada (CSC). Correctional Programs. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/programs/offenders/programs/correctional-programs.html

Correctional Service Canada (CSC) Evaluation Branch. (2009). Evaluation report: Correctional Service Canada’s Correctional programs. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/csc-scc/migration/text/pa/cop-prog/cop-prog-eng.pdf

Correctional Service Canada (CSC) Evaluation Branch. (2019). Evaluation of Correctional Reintegration Programs. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/transparency/evaluation-reports/correctional-reintegration-programs.html

Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) (2021). Correctional programs. https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/programs/offenders/programs/correctional-programs.html

Daley, M., Love, C. T., Shepard, D. S., Petersen, C. B., White, K. L., & Hall, F. B. (2004). Cost-effectiveness of Connecticut's in-prison substance abuse treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(3), 69-92. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v39n03_04

Davis, L. M., Steele, J. L., Bozick, R., Williams, M. V., Turner, S., Miles, J., Saunders, P. & Steinberg, P. S. (2014). How effective is correctional education, and where do we go from here? The results of a comprehensive evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Donato, R., & Shanahan, M. (1999). The economics of implementing intensive in-prison sex-offender treatment programs. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 134. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi134

Duwe, G., & Johnson, B. R. (2013). Estimating the benefits of a faith-based correctional program. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2, 227-239. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2013.02.22

Duwe, G. (2017). The use and impact of correctional programming for inmates on pre-and post-release outcomes. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/use-and-impact-correctional-programming-inmates-pre-and-post-release-outcomes

French, M. T., Fang, H., & Fretz, R. (2010). Economic evaluation of a prerelease substance abuse treatment program for repeat criminal offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2009.06.001

Goodvin, R., Wanner, P., Ippolito, H., Patel, A., & Grob, H. (2024). Inventory of evidence-based, research-based, and promising programs for adult corrections: Final report. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1810

Klietz, S. J., Borduin, C. M., & Schaeffer, C. M. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis of multisystemic therapy with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020838

McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., Inciardi, J. A., Butzin, C. A., Martin, S. S., & Hooper, R. M. (2003). Post-release substance abuse treatment for criminal offenders: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(4), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOQC.0000005441.49529.61

Settumba, S. N., Chambers, G. M., Shanahan, M., Schofield, P., & Butler, T. (2018). Are we getting value for money from behavioral interventions for offenders? A research note reviewing the economic evaluation literature. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9399-1

Schabses. M. (2013). Cost benefit analysis for criminal justice deployment and initial application of the results first cost benefit model. New York: Office of Justice Research and Performance, New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/resultsfirst/rf-technical_report_cba1_oct2013.pdf

South, J., Bagnall, A., Hulme, C., Woodall, J., Longo, R., Dixey, R., Kinsella, K, Raine, G., Vinall-Collier, K. & Wright, J. (2014). A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions to maintain and improve offender health in prison settings. Health Services and Delivery Research, 2(35). https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr02350

Stickle, B., & Schuster, S. S. (2023). Are schools in prison worth it? The effects and economic returns of prison education. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, 1263-1294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-023-09747-3

Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP). (2024). Benefit-cost technical documentation. https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/TechnicalDocumentation/WsippBenefitCostTechnicalDocumentation.pdf 

Welsh, B. C. (2004). Monetary costs and benefits of correctional treatment programs: Implications for offender reentry. Federal Probation, 68(2), 9-13. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-20646-002

Zane, S. N., Pupo, J. A., & Welsh, B. C. (2023). Correctional treatment as an economically sound approach to reducing the high costs of recidivism: A review of the research. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 33(2), 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2284

Zhang, S. X., Roberts, R. E., & McCollister, K. E. (2009). An economic analysis of the in-prison therapeutic community model on prison management costs. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(4), 388-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.06.006

For more information

Please email the Research Branch. You can also visit the Research Publications section for a full list of reports and one-page summaries.

Prepared by: Laura McKendy