Social & Economic Factors Education Employment Income Family & Social Support Community Safety Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT): recidivism

Health Factors: Community Safety
Decision Makers: Government - Local, Government - State, Government - Federal
Evidence Rating: Scientifically Supported
Population Reach: 1-9% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: No impact on disparities likely

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) helps clients discover and change the thought processes that lead to maladaptive behavior (Wilson 2005). Programs for offenders emphasize personal accountability and help offenders understand the thoughts and choices that led to their crimes. Offenders learn alternative behaviors and thought processes (Campbell-Lipsey 2007).

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Decreased recidivism
Decreased violent crime
Reduced illicit drug use

Evidence of Effectiveness

There is strong evidence that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) reduces recidivism among youth and adults (Campbell-Lipsey 2007, Wilson 2005). Effects are strongest for offenders with a high risk of recidivism (Campbell-Lipsey 2007).

CBT can also reduce recidivism by persons who abuse substances (McMurran 2007) and sex offenders (Schmucker 2008). For serious juvenile offenders, CBT is particularly effective at reducing the recurrence of serious crimes (Campbell-Garrido 2007).

The most effective programs usually include anger management and interpersonal skills training. Training providers in CBT, closely monitoring programs, and ensuring program fidelity also result in stronger outcomes (Campbell-Lipsey 2007).

Implementation Examples

United States

Six CBT programs are widely used in the US criminal justice system: Aggression Replacement Training (ART), Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment-Strategies for Self-Improvement and Change (SSC), Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT), Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R and R&R2), and Thinking for a Change (T4C). Of these, MRT and R&R are the most extensively evaluated (US DOJ-CBT).

Implementation Resources

MRT - Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT). Accessed on August 23, 2012
Webpage: http://www.moral-reconation-therapy.com/
R&R - Ross RR, Fabiano E, Ross RD. The reasoning & rehabilitation (R&R) program. Cognitive Centre of Canada. Accessed on January 16, 2013
Webpage: http://www.cognitivecentre.ca/RRProgram

Citations - Description

Campbell-Lipsey 2007 - Lipsey MW, Landenberger NA, Wilson SJ. Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2007;6. Accessed on August 23, 2012
Webpage: http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/29/
Wilson 2005* - Wilson DB, Bouffard LA, Mackenzie DL. A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2005;32(2):172–204.
Accessed on August 23, 2012
Webpage: http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/32/2/172

Citations - Evidence

Campbell-Garrido 2007 - Garrido V, Morales LA. Serious (violent or chronic) juvenile offenders: A systematic review of treatment effectiveness in secure corrections. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2007;7. Accessed on August 23, 2012
Webpage: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/news_/worth_treating_juvenile_offenders.php
Campbell-Lipsey 2007 - Lipsey MW, Landenberger NA, Wilson SJ. Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2007;6. Accessed on August 23, 2012
Webpage: http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/29/
McMurran 2007* - McMurran M. What works in substance misuse treatments for offenders? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. 2007;17(4):225–33. Accessed on August 23, 2012
Webpage: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cbm.662/abstract
Schmucker 2008 - Schmucker M, Lösel F. Does sexual offender treatment work? A systematic review of outcome evaluations. Psicothema. 2008;20(1):10–9. Accessed on August 23, 2012
Webpage: http://www.psicothema.com/PDF/3423.pdf
Wilson 2005* - Wilson DB, Bouffard LA, Mackenzie DL. A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2005;32(2):172–204.
Accessed on August 23, 2012
Webpage: http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/32/2/172

Citations - Implementation Examples

US DOJ-CBT - Thigpen ML, Keiser GM. Cognitive-behavioral treatment: A review and discussion for corrections professionals. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice (US DOJ), National Institute of Corrections (NICIC); 2007. Accessed on August 23, 2012
Webpage: http://nicic.gov/library/021657

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

X
 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
 Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
 Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
 Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities