Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is one of the most promising and widely used therapeutic approaches to reducing recidivism among criminal populations. Although many studies have evaluated CBT for this express purpose, few have done so in a community correctional environment. This article reports findings from a randomized field trial evaluating, “Choosing to Think, Thinking to Choose,” a CBT program designed specifically for a community correctional setting, and its impact on the recidivism of high-risk offenders. High-risk probationers were assigned to either standard, intensive probation (n = 447) or to the treatment condition (n = 457), where they received the same supervision intensity while also being directed to a classroom-based, 14-week CBT program. Twelve months after random assignment, intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses indicate that the overall CBT group was significantly less likely to reoffend, although this effect is concentrated in measures of nonviolent offending.
Adult Probation and Parole Department. (2014). Population report. Philadelphia: First Judicial District of Pennsylvania.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. 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.
3.
AosS.MillerM.DrakeE. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Federal Sentencing Review, 19, 275-290.
4.
BakerT. B.McFallR. M.ShohamV. (2008). Current status and future prospects of clinical psychology: Toward a scientifically principled approach to mental and behavioral health care. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 67-103.
5.
BarnesG. C.AhlmanL.GillC.ShermanL. W.KurtzE.MalvestutoR. (2010). Low-intensity community supervision for low-risk offenders: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 159-189.
6.
BarnesG. C.HyattJ. M. (2012). Classifying adult probationers by forecasting future offending. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
7.
BarnesG. C.HyattJ. M.AhlmanL. C.KentD. T. (2012). The long term effects of low intensity supervision for lower risk probationers: Updated results from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 200-220.
8.
BeckA. T. (1964). Thinking and depression II: Theory and therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 10, 561-571.
9.
BeckA. T. (1999). Prisoners of hate: The cognitive basis of anger, hostility and violence. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
10.
BeckJ.BeckA. (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
BeckR.FernandezE. (1998). Cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment of anger: A meta-analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 63-74.
12.
BerkR. A. (2008). Forecasting methods in crime and justice. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 219-238.
13.
BerkR. A. (2012). Criminal justice forecasts of risk: A machine learning approach. New York, NY: Springer.
14.
BerkR. A.ShermanL. W.BarnesG. C.KurtzE.AhlmanL. (2009). Forecasting murder within a population of probationers and parolees: A high stakes application of statistical learning. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A: Statistics in Society, 172, 191-211.
15.
BushJ.GlickB.TaymansJ.GuevaraM. (2011). Thinking for a change: Integrated cognitive behavior change program, Version 3.1. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
16.
BushwayS. D. (2011). Labor markets and crime. In WilsonJ. Q.PetersiliaJ. (Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 183-209). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
ButlerA. C.ChapmanJ. E.FormanE. M.BeckA. T. (2006). The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 17-31.
18.
ClarkD. A.BeckA.AlfordB. A. (1999). Scientific foundations of cognitive theory and therapy of depression. New York, NY: John Wiley.
19.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
DeRubeisR. J.BeckA. T. (1988). Cognitive therapy. In DobsonK. S. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive-behavioral therapies (pp. 273-306). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
GiffordS. L. (2002). Justice expenditures and employment in the United States, 1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
23.
GillC. E. (2014). Intensive probation and parole. In BruinsmaG.WeisburdD. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 2581-2592). New York, NY: Springer.
GuevaraM.SolomonE. (2009). Implementing evidence-based policy and practice in community corrections. Washington, DC: Crime and Justice Institute and The National Institute of Corrections.
27.
HollinC. R.McGuireJ.HounsomeJ. C.HatcherR. M.BilbyC. A.PalmerE. J. (2008). Cognitive skills behavior programs for offenders in the community: A reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 269-283.
28.
HollisS.CampbellF. (1999). What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 319, 670-674.
29.
HyattJ. M. (2013). The impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy on the recidivism of high risk probationers: Results from a randomized trial (Doctoral dissertation) (Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations, Paper 644). Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu
30.
HyattJ. M.BarnesG. C. (2014). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0011128714555757
31.
JalbertS. K.RhodesW.FlygareC.KaneM. (2010). Testing probation outcomes in an evidence-based practice setting: Reduced caseload size and intensive supervision effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49, 233-253.
32.
JucovyL.McClanahanW. S. (2008). Reaching through the cracks: A guide to implementing the youth violence reduction partnership. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
33.
KazemianL. (2007). Desistance from crime: Theoretical, empirical, methodological, and policy considerations. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(5), 5-27.
34.
LagesonS.UggenC. (2013). How work affects crime—and crime affects work—over the life course. In GibsonC.KrohnM. D. (Eds.), Handbook of life-course criminology (pp. 201-212). New York, NY: Springer.
35.
LipseyM. W.ChapmanG. L.LandenbergerN. A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 144-157.
36.
LipseyM. W.LandenbergerN. A. (2005). Cognitive-behavioral interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. In WalshB. C.FarringtonD. P. (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims, and places (pp. 57-71). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
37.
LipseyM. W.LandenbergerN. A.WilsonS. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders. Oslo, Norway: Campbell Systematic Reviews.
38.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.
39.
LittleG. (2000). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of offenders: A comprehensive review of MRT outcome research. Addictive Behaviors Treatment Review, 2(1), 12-21.
40.
LittleG.RobinsonK. (1993). Cognitive behavioral treatment of felony drug offenders: A five-year recidivism report. Psychological Reports, 73, 1089-1090.
41.
LöselF. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In McGuireJ. (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 79-103). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
42.
MacKenzieD. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 457-471.
43.
MatthewsA. (1997). Information processing biases in emotional disorders. In ClarkD. M.FairburnC. G. (Eds.), Science and practice of cognitive behaviour therapy (pp. 47-67). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
McGuireJ.BilbyC. A.HatcherR. M.HollinC. R.HounsomeJ.PalmerE. J. (2008). Evaluation of structured cognitive-behavioural treatment programmes in reducing criminal recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4, 21-40.
45.
MilkmanH. B.WanbergK. W. (2007). Cognitive-behavioral treatment: A review and discussion for corrections professionals. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.
46.
PaparozziM. A.GendreauP. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445-466.
47.
PearsonF. S.LiptonD. S.ClelandC. M.YeeD. S. (2002). The effects of behavioral/cognitive-behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 476-496.
48.
PetersiliaJ. (1998). Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
49.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1990). Intensive supervision for high-risk probationers. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
50.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice (pp. 281-335). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
51.
RedondoS.Sanchez-MecaJ.GarridoV. (1999). The influence of treatment programmes on the recidivism of juvenile and adult offenders: A European meta-analytic review. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 251-278.
52.
RobinsonD. (1995). The impact of cognitive skills training on post-release recidivism among Canadian federal offenders. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Research and Development, Correctional Service Canada.
53.
RossR. R.FabianoE. A.EwlesC. D. (1988). Reasoning and rehabilitation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 32, 29-36.
54.
SampsonR. J.LaubJ. H. (2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41, 319-339.
55.
SkeemJ. L.ManchakS. (2008). Back to the future: From Klockars’ model of effective supervision to evidence-based practice in probation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 220-247.
TaxmanF. S. (2002). Supervision-exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, 66(2), 14-27.
58.
TaxmanF. S.MarloweD. (2006). Risk, needs, responsivity: In action or inaction?Crime & Delinquency, 52, 3-6. doi:10.1177/0011128705281757
59.
TaxmanF. S.ThannerM.WeisburdD. (2006). Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 28-51.
60.
ThannerM.TaxmanF. S. (2003). Responsivity: The value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24, 137-147.
