Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Criminal Offenders January 14, 2008
Posted by rickbarth in Uncategorized.trackback
Mark Lipsey and his colleagues have released a Campbell Collaborative Review on the use of CBT with criminal offenders which offers considerable promise. A brief summary of key findings is extracted below. The entire review is available at:
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/doc-pdf/lipsey_CBT_finalreview.pdf. My experience is that few systematic reviews are this positive–many have difficulty making the case that interventions do what they promise.
Implications for Practice It thus appears to be the general CBT approach, and not any specific version, that is responsible for the overall positive effects on recidivism. Within that framework, inclusion of distinct anger control and interpersonal problem solving components in the CBT program enhances the effects while victim impact and behavior modification components appear to diminish it. What seems to most strongly characterize effective CBT programs is high qualityimplementation as represented by low proportions of treatment dropouts, close monitoring of the quality and fidelity of the treatment implementation, and adequate CBT training for theproviders. It suggests that any representative CBT program that is well-implemented might have results in practice that approach the very positive effects on recidivism produced by the most effective programs documented in the available research studies. It is also encouraging that the effects of CBT were greater for offenders with higher risk ofrecidivism than those with lower risk, contrary to any presumption that higher risk offendersmight be less amenable to treatment. The effectiveness of CBT with higher risk offenders isconsistent with the principles of effective correctional treatment that the best results occurwhen higher-risk offenders receive more intensive services that target criminogenic needs (e.g.,criminal thinking patterns) using cognitive behavioral and social learning approaches.
I’m still not getting a clear definition of general offender. It does mention what types of criminals are not a part of the study (drug offenders, sexual offender), but overall a vague definition.
Many confined could have the potential to benefit from therapy, but there are a lot of environmental aspects to consider at least when the subject of recidivism is concerned. Therapy can be beneficial, but adequate housing, employment. liveable wages have to be considered and any other environmental barrier that could become a potential threat in terms of successfully reintegrating back into society. Therapy, specifically CBT does have great potential given that their environmental conditions are stable.
Are there criminals that are not subject to criminal thinking patterns?
Are these thought processes that unique in comparison to noncriminals?
I really have not considered the definition of criminal thinking pattern CTP. If CTP is looked at as thought processes that are initiated that have the potential to cause physical or emotional damage to others or self, then therapy specifically CBT, should be able to address that given that the therapy itself seeks to change thinking patterns specifically negatively thinking patterns. To call the therapy itself successful by noting lower recidivism rates seems to compliment the therapy itself without considering the environmental factors in this case that led to a lower recidivism rate.
I do appreciate that researchers have shown an interest in those that become part of the legal system. It does shed light on a very exploited population who are being punished for those acts that put them there. Confinement without treatment or rehab has usually been the answer, at the very least, programs such as those that implement CBT can attempt to “rehabilitate” offenders with the goal of sucessfully reintegrating back into society.