Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 451–476 | Cite as

The positive effects of cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment

Article

Abstract

A meta-analysis of 58 experimental and quasi-experimental studies of the effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on the recidivism of adult and juvenile offenders confirmed prior positive findings and explored a range of potential moderators to identify factors associated with variation in treatment effects. With method variables controlled, the factors independently associated with larger recidivism reductions were treatment of higher risk offenders, high quality treatment implementation, and a CBT program that included anger control and interpersonal problem solving but not victim impact or behavior modification components. With these factors accounted for, there was no difference in the effectiveness of different brand name CBT programs or generic forms of CBT.

Key words

CBT cognitive-behavioral therapy cognitive-behavioral treatment criminal rehabilitation evaluation meta-analysis offenders recidivism treatment effectiveness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References1

  1. *Anderson, J. (2002). Overview of the Illinois DOC high-risk parolee re-entry program and 3-year recidivism outcomes of program participants. Cognitive–Behavioral Treatment Review 11(1–2), 4–6.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. (2002). The psychology of criminal conduct. 3rd edn. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.Google Scholar
  3. 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 28, 369–404.Google Scholar
  4. *Arbuthnot, J. & Gordon, D. A. (1986). Behavioral and cognitive effects of a moral reasoning development intervention for high-risk behavior-disordered adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 54, 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. *Armstrong, T. A. (2003). The effect of Moral Reconation Therapy on the recidivism of youthful offenders: A randomized experiment. Criminal Justice & Behavior 30(6), 668–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. *Barnoski, R. (2002a). Preliminary findings for the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration's dialectic behavior therapy program (Research Rep. No. 02-07-1203). Olympia, Washington: The Evergreen State College, Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  7. *Barnoski, R. (2002b). Washington State's implementation of Aggression Replacement Training for juvenile offenders: Preliminary findings. Olympia, Washington: The Evergreen State College, Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  8. *Berry, S. (1998). An evaluation of the Montgomery House Violence Prevention Program. Hamilton, NZ: Psychological Service, Department of Corrections.Google Scholar
  9. *Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S. & Rooney, J. (2000). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior 27(3), 312–329.Google Scholar
  10. *Bottcher, J. (1985). The Athena program: An evaluation of a girl's treatment program at the Fresno County Probation Department's juvenile hall. Sacramento, California: California Youth Authority.Google Scholar
  11. *Burnett, W. L. (1997). Treating post-incarcerated offenders with Moral Reconation Therapy: A one-year recidivism study. Cognitive–Behavioral Treatment Review 6, 2.Google Scholar
  12. *Bush, J. (1995). Teaching self-risk management to violent offenders. In McGuire, J. (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 139–154). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Bush, J., Glick, B. & Taymans, J. (1997, revised 1998). Thinking for a Change: Integrated cognitive behavior change program. Washington District of Columbia.: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  14. *Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent, F. & Friendship, C. (2003). Understanding what works: Accredited cognitive skills programmes for adult men and young offenders (Research Finding 226). London, UK: Home Office.Google Scholar
  15. *Coughlin, R. A., Cosby, J. & Landenberger, N. A. (2003). Thinking for a Change: Cognitive–behavioral treatment with high-risk offenders on intensive supervision probation (Preliminary Report). Nashville, Tennessee: Public Safety Collaborative, Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole.Google Scholar
  16. *Culver, H. E. (1993). Intentional skill development as an interventional tool (interpersonal problem-solving) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, A 54(06), 2053. (University Microfilms No. AAT 9329590).Google Scholar
  17. *Curulla, V. L. (1991). Aggression Replacement Training in the community for adult learning disabled offenders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(02-A), 627. (University Microfilms No. AAD92-16113).Google Scholar
  18. *Deschamps, T. (1998). MRT: Is it effective in decreasing recidivism rates with young offenders? (Master's thesis, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada). Master's Abstracts International.Google Scholar
  19. *Dowden, C., Blanchette, K. & Serin, R. (1999). Anger management programming for federal male inmates: An effective intervention (Research Report R-82). Ottawa, Canada: Research Branch, Correctional Service Canada.Google Scholar
  20. *Falshaw, L., Friendship, C., Travers, R. & Nugent, F. (2003). Searching for ‘what works’: An evaluation of cognitive skills programmes (Research Findings 206). London, UK: Home Office.Google Scholar
  21. *Finn, P. (1998). The Delaware Department of Correction life skills program. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  22. *Friedman, A. S., Terras, A. & Glassman, K. (2002). Multimodel substance use intervention program for male delinquents. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse 11(4), 43–65.Google Scholar
  23. *Friendship, C., Blud, L., Erikson, M., Travers, R. & Thornton, D. (2003). Cognitive–behavioral treatment for imprisoned offenders: An evaluation of HM prison service's cognitive skills programmes. Legal and Criminological Psychology 8(1), 103–114.Google Scholar
  24. *Golden, L. S. (2003). Evaluation of the efficacy of a cognitive behavioral program for offenders on probation: Thinking for a Change (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(10), 4902. University Microfilms No. (not avail. fr. UMI).Google Scholar
  25. Goldstein, A. P. & Glick, B. (1987). Aggression Replacement Training: A comprehensive intervention for aggressive youth. Champaign, Illinois: Research.Google Scholar
  26. Goldstein, A. P. & Glick, B. (1994). The prosocial gang: Implementing Aggression Replacement Training. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. *Goldstein, A. P., Glick, B., Irwin, M. J., Pask-McCartney, C. & Rubama, I. (1989). Reducing delinquency: Intervention in the community. 1st edn. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  28. *Grandberry, G. (1998). Moral Reconation Therapy evaluation, final report. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Correction.Google Scholar
  29. *Greenwood, P. W. & Turner, S. (1993). Evaluation of the Paint Creek Youth Center: A residential program for serious delinquents. Criminology 31(2), 263–279.Google Scholar
  30. *Guerra, N. G. & Slaby, R. G. (1990). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: 2. Intervention. Developmental Psychology 26, 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haddock, C. K., Rindskopf, D. & Shadish, W. R. (1998). Using odds ratios as effect sizes for meta-analysis of dichotomous data: A primer on methods and issues. Psychological Methods 3(3), 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. *Hall, E., Prendergast, M. L., Wellisch, J., Patten, M. & Cao, Y. (2004). Treating drug-abusing women prisoners: An outcome evaluation of the Forever Free program. The Prison Journal 84(1), 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. *Hanson, G. (2000). Pine Lodge intensive inpatient treatment program. Olympia, Washington: Planning and Research Section, WA State Department of Correction.Google Scholar
  34. *Henning, K. R. & Frueh, B. C. (1996). Cognitive–behavioral treatment of incarcerated offenders: An evaluation of the Vermont Department of Corrections' cognitive self-change programme. Criminal Justice and Behavior 23, 523–541.Google Scholar
  35. *Hughey, R. & Klemke, L. W. (1996). Evaluation of a jail-based substance abuse treatment program. Federal Probation 60(4), 40–44.Google Scholar
  36. *Johnson, G. & Hunter, R. M. (1995). Evaluation of the specialized drug offender program. In R. R. Ross & R. D. Ross (Eds.), Thinking straight (pp. 215–234). Ottawa, Canada: AIR Publications.Google Scholar
  37. *Kirkpatrick, B. L. H. (1996). Cognitive restructuring: Effects on recidivism (Doctoral dissertation, Ball State U.). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(6A), 2680. (University Microfilms No. AAM9632826).Google Scholar
  38. *Knott, C. (1995). The STOP Programme: Reasoning and rehabilitation in a British setting. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 115–126). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. *Kownacki, R. J. (1995). The effectiveness of a brief cognitive–behavioral program on the reduction of antisocial behavior in high-risk adult probationers in a Texas community. In Ross, R. R. & R. D. Ross (Eds.), Thinking Straight: The reasoning and rehabilitation program for delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation (pp. 249–257). Ottawa, Canada: Air Training and Publications.Google Scholar
  40. *Landenberger (2004). Evaluation of the Tennessee Bridges program (Report to the Reentry Steering Committee). Nashville, Tennessee: Tennessee Department of Correction.Google Scholar
  41. *Larson, K. A. (1989). Problem-solving training and parole adjustment in high-risk young adult offenders. In S. Duguid (Ed.), Yearbook of correctional education: 1989 (pp. 279–299). Burnaby, BC, Canada: Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  42. *Leeman, L. W., Gibbs, J. & Fuller, D. (1993). Evaluation of a multi-component group treatment program for juvenile delinquents. Aggressive Behavior 19, 281–292.Google Scholar
  43. Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lipsey, M. W. & Landenberger, N. A. (2005). Cognitive–behavioral interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims, and places. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Lipsey, M. W., Chapman, G. & Landenberger, N. A. (2001). Cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 144–157.Google Scholar
  47. Little, G. L. & Robinson, K. D. (1986). How to escape your prison. Memphis, TN: Eagle Wing Books.Google Scholar
  48. *Little, G. L., Robinson, K. D. & Burnette, K. D. (1993). Cognitive behavioral treatment of felony drug offenders: A five-year recidivism report. Psychological Reports 73(3), 1089–1090.Google Scholar
  49. *McCracken, L., Hearn, C. & Stuckey, S. (2003). Juvenile DWI/Drug Court Albuquerque, NM. Cognitive–Behavioral Treatment Review 12(1), 8–9.Google Scholar
  50. *Motiuk, L., Smiley, C. & Blanchette, K. (1996). Intensive programming for violent offenders: A comparative investigation. Forum on Corrections Research 8(3), 10–12.Google Scholar
  51. *Myers, W. C., Burton, P. R. S., Sanders, P. D., Donat, K. M., Cheney, J., Fitzpatrick, T. M. & Monaco, L. (2000). Project Back-on-Track at 1 year: A delinquency treatment program for early-career juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 39(9), 1127–1134.Google Scholar
  52. NIC (National Institute of Corrections) (1996). Cognitive interventions program: Think. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Corrections Information Center, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  53. Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., Cleland, C. M. & Yee, D. S. (2002). The effects of behavioral/cognitive–behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime and Delinquency 48(3), 476–496.Google Scholar
  54. *Pelissier, B. M., Rhodes, W., Saylor, W. G., Gaes, G. G., Camp, S. D., Vanyur, S. D. & Wallace, S. (2001). TRIAD drug treatment evaluation project. Federal Probation 65(3), 3–7.Google Scholar
  55. *Porporino, F. J., Fabiano, E. A. & Robinson, D. (1991). Focusing on successful reintegration: Cognitive skills training for offenders (Research Rep. No. 19). Ottawa, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada.Google Scholar
  56. *Pullen, S. (1996). Evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation cognitive skills development program as implemented in juvenile ISP in Colorado. Boulder, CO: Division of Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
  57. Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301–321). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  58. *Robinson, D. (1995a). The impact of cognitive skills training on post-release recidivism among Canadian federal offenders (Research Rep. No. R-41). Ottawa, Canada: Correctional Service Canada.Google Scholar
  59. *Robinson, S. C. (1995b). Implementation of the cognitive model of offender rehabilitation and delinquency prevention (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(8-A), 2582. (University Microfilms No. AAT9502199).Google Scholar
  60. *Robinson, D., Grossman, M. & Porporino, F. (1991). Effectiveness of the cognitive skills training program. From pilot project to national implementation. (Research Report No. B-07). Ottawa: Correctional Services of Canada, Research and Statistics Branch.Google Scholar
  61. Ross, R. R. & Fabiano, E. A. (1985). Time to Think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation. Johnson City: Institute of Social Sciences and Arts.Google Scholar
  62. *Ross, R. R., Fabiano, E. A. & Ewles, C. D. (1988). Reasoning and Rehabilitation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 32, 29–35.Google Scholar
  63. *Shivrattan, J. L. (1988). Social interactional training and incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Canadian Journal of Criminology 30, 145–163.Google Scholar
  64. *Spencer, E. G., Jr. (1986). An outcome study of social–behavioral skill development in male adolescent delinquency (Doctoral dissertation, The California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(5), 1891A. (University Microfilms No. 8618153).Google Scholar
  65. *State of Washington, Department of Corrections. (January 1998). Evaluation of the Work Ethic Camp (Report to the Legislature). Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Corrections.Google Scholar
  66. *T3 Associates under contract (1999). An Outcome Evaluation of CSC substance abuse programs: OSAPP, ALTO and Choices (Final Report, Volume 1). Ottawa, Canada: Correctional Services Canda.Google Scholar
  67. *Thambidurai, G. A. (1980). A comparative outcome study of a contract parole program for individuals committed to the youth correctional complex in the state of New Jersey (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(01), 371B. (University Microfilms No. 80-16503).Google Scholar
  68. *Van Voorhis, P., Spruance, L. M., Ritchey, P. N., Johnson-Listwan, S. & Seabrook, R. (2004). The Georgia cognitive skills experiment: A replication of Reasoning and Rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior 31(3), 282–305.Google Scholar
  69. *Van Voorhis, P., Spruance, L. M., Ritchie, P. N., Johnson-Listwan S., Seabrook, R. & Pealer, J. (unknown year). The Georgia cognitive skills experiment. Outcome evaluation phase II. Atlanta, Georgia: Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles and National Institute of Justice. (NCJRS Document Reproduction Service No. Grant #98-CE-VX-0013).Google Scholar
  70. *Walters, G. D. (1999). Short-term outcome of inmates participating in the lifestyle change program. Criminal Justice and Behavior 26(4), 322–337.Google Scholar
  71. Weisburd, D., Lum, C. M. & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 50–70.Google Scholar
  72. Wilson, D. B., Bouffard, L. A. & MacKenzie, D. L. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice and Behavior 32(2), 172–204.Google Scholar
  73. Yochelson, S. & Samenow, S. E. (1976). The criminal personality: Vol I. A profile for change. New York, New York: Aronson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy StudiesNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations