Due to the popularity of cognitive behavioral interventions, programs that follow this model are often assumed to be effective. Yet evaluations of specific programs have been slow in coming. The current investigation seeks to bridge this gap by evaluating the effectiveness of Thinking for a Change (TFAC), a widely used cognitive behavioral curriculum for offenders. Furthermore, this evaluation provides a “real-world” test of TFAC, because it was implemented by line staff in a community corrections agency as opposed to being a pilot project implemented by program developers. The results of the analyses indicate that offenders participating in the TFAC program had a significantly lower recidivism rate than similar offenders that were not exposed to the program.
Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
2.
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 17, 19-52.
3.
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S.J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7-27.
4.
Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R.D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F.T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology , 8, 369-404.
5.
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy .
6.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7.
Bush, J., Glick, B., & Taymans, J. (1997). Thinking for a change: Integrated cognitive behavior change program. National Institute of Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
8.
Cohen, R.L. (1995). Probation and parole violators in state prison , 1991. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
9.
Cullen, F.T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In J. Horney (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000, volume 3: Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (pp. 109-175). Washington, DC : National Institute of Justice.
10.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D.A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 449-467.
11.
Garrett, C.J. (1985). Effects of residential treatment on adjudicated delinquents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 22, 287-308.
12.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective interventions with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective correctional programming . Forum on Corrections, 8, 38-41.
14.
Gendreau, P., French, S., & Taylor, A. (2002). What works (what doesn't work)-revised 2002: The principles of effective correctional treatment. Unpublished Manuscript, University of New Brunswick at Saint John.
15.
Gifford, S. (2002). Justice expenditures and employment in the United States, 1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
16.
Glaze, L.E., & Bonczar, T.P. (2006). Probation and parole in the United States, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
17.
Golden, L.S., Gatchel, R.J., & Cahill, M.A. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of the National Institute of Corrections' "Thinking for a Change" program among probationers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 42, 55-73.
18.
Hanley, D. (2002). Risk differentiation and intensive supervision: A meaningful union?Doctoral Dissertation, Division of Criminal Justice: University of Cincinnati. (UMI No. 3062606)
19.
Harrison, P.M., & Beck, A.J. (2006). Prisoners in 2005. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
20.
Landenberger, N., & Lipsey, M. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive behavioral programs for offenders: A meta analysis of factors associated with effective treatment . Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451-476.
21.
Latessa, E.J., & Smith, P. (2007). Corrections in the community. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
22.
Latessa, E.J., Cullen, F., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery-Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation , 66, 43-49.
23.
Lipsey, M.W. (1995). What have we learned from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works? Reducing reoffending (pp. 63-78). New York: John Wiley .
24.
Lipsey, M.W., Chapman, G.L., & Landenberger, N.A. (2001). Cognitive behavioral programs for offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 144-157.
25.
Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2005). Evaluation of Ohio's CCA funded programs. Unpublished Report, University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice.
26.
Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective interventions. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575-594.
27.
Lowenkamp, C.T., Pealer, J., Latessa, E.J., & Smith, P. (2006). Adhering to the risk principle: Does it matter for supervision-based programs? Federal Probation, 4, 3-8.
28.
Palmer, T. (1995). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful intervention: New directions for research. Crime & Delinquency , 41, 100-131.
29.
Petersilia, J. (2000). When prisoners return to the community: Political, economic, and social consequences. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
30.
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime & Justice: A Review of Research (pp. 281-335). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Public Safety Performance Project. (2007). Public safety, public spending: Forecasting America's prison population, 2007-2011 . Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
32.
Reeves, D.W. (2006). Investigation of the impact of a cognitive skills educational program upon adult criminal offenders placed on supervised probation . Doctoral Dissertation, Northern Arizona University. (UMI No. 3213110)
33.
Taxman, F.S., Yancey, C., & Bilanin, J. (2006). Proactive community supervision in Maryland: Changing offender outcomes. Baltimore: Maryland Division of Parole and Probation.
34.
Weisfeld, N.E. (2007). Realigning state-local relationships to save correctional dollars. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
35.
Wilson, D.B., Bouffard, L.A., & MacKenzie, D.L. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 32, 172-204.
36.
Wilson, D.B., Gallagher, C.A., & MacKenzie, D.L. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal on Research in Crime & Delinquency, 37, 347-368.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
