Assessing the Delivery of the Thinking for a Change Program in Modified Formats: An Experimental Approach

• Author: Eric G. LaPlant,Stephanie Starr,Paul E. Bellair,Brian R. Kowalski,Dionne Addison
• Published date: 01 June 2021
• Date: 01 June 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20975159
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20975159

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2021, Vol. 65(8) 832 –857

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20975159

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Assessing the Delivery of

the Thinking for a Change

Program in Modified Formats:

An Experimental Approach

Eric G. LaPlant1, Paul E. Bellair1,

Brian R. Kowalski2, Dionne Addison2,

and Stephanie Starr2

Abstract

This paper evaluates whether participation in the Thinking for a Change cognitive

behavioral program produces improvement in social problemsolving skills in a prison

context. Data are derived from a randomized experiment, with a focus on whether

improvement in social problemsolving skills varies across modified delivery formats, and

whether improvements are attributable to program completion or program dosage.

We find that there are significant improvements in social problem solving between

the pre- and post-test, and that delivery of the curriculum using video conferencing

technology or inmate co-facilitated formats produces equivalent outcomes relative

to traditional classroom administration. On average, significant improvements accrue

to participants who receive greater program dosage. However, program completion,

commonly viewed as a primary marker of satisfactory program performance, is not

associated with improvement in social problem solving. Implications of the findings

for rehabilitation programming are discussed, including considerations in a pandemic

context.

Keywords

inmate, cognitive behavioral therapy, Thinking for a Change, video conference, inmate

co-facilitation

1The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

2Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Columbus, USA

Corresponding Author:

Eric G. LaPlant, Sociology, The Ohio State University, 238 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall,

Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

Email: laplant.7@osu.edu

975159IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20975159International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyLaPlant et al.

research-article2020

LaPlant et al. 833

Introduction

Rehabilitative philosophy has shifted significantly over the last half-century, marked

by the growth and subsequent rejection of the “nothing works” sentiment (Allen,

1981; Martinson, 1974). Throughout the 1980s, criminal justice policy turned towards

deterrence and incapacitation, supplanting a more community-oriented rehabilitative

philosophy (Garland, 2001). Most U.S. states embraced a tough on crime approach

that included a dramatic expansion in carceral punishment (Gottschalk, 2006, 2016;

Petersilia, 2003). Although much of the country remains grounded in that approach,

there is enduring recognition of the economic benefits of reducing the prison popula-

tion. Many states have embraced justice reinvestment and sentencing reform, includ-

ing diversion of low-level, non-violent clients and expansion of community-based

supervision. Also critical is the development of evidence-based cognitive behavioral

therapy (CBT) for justice-involved populations (Cullen & Gendreau, 1989; Gendreau

& Ross, 1979; Lipsey, 1992; Smith et al., 2009).

Developed with assistance from the National Institute of Corrections, Thinking for

a Change (TFAC) (Bush et al., 1997) provides a CBT curriculum specifically tailored

to the needs of prisoners, emphasizing the direct relationship between one’s thoughts

and actions. The program focuses on cognitive restructuring and prosocial skills train-

ing and encourages new methods of problem solving (Golden et al., 2006; Lipsey

et al., 2007). The TFAC literature is still developing but is very promising. In particu-

lar, program participation is associated with prosocial cognitive improvement and

recidivism reduction (Golden et al., 2006; Lowenkamp et al., 2009).

The goal of this paper is to fill a set of research gaps in the TFAC literature. The

analysis draws from a preliminary, randomized experiment that was piloted to com-

pare improvements in social problem solving between clients enrolled in two alterna-

tive delivery formats of the TFAC curriculum (experimental groups) with those

observed in the traditional classroom format (control group).1 First, utilizing pre- and

post-tests that are central to our experimental protocol, we ask whether participation in

TFAC produces significant, within-individual improvements in social problem solv-

ing among clients, irrespective of the delivery format. Second, we assess whether any

of the observed within-individual improvements are attributable to program comple-

tion, or alternatively to program dosage (i.e., the number of treatment days) (Bourgon

& Armstrong, 2005; Makarios et al., 2014; Sperber et al., 2013). Finally, the experi-

mental approach provides an assessment of whether improvements in social problem

solving vary across treatment groups based on the delivery format.

If the TFAC curriculum can be delivered effectively using mediums that require

fewer staff facilitators to be present in a given facility, the number of prisoners that

could be enrolled in the program can be increased, potentially expanding the pro-

gram’s rehabilitative reach. In the current social context, it is noteworthy that the abil-

ity to offer programming utilizing a video conference or inmate co-facilitated format

could help to expand program delivery amidst the ongoing spread of the coronavirus

within prisons, potentially reducing staff and client health concerns while providing

social distancing to help mitigate spread of COVID-19. In the next sections, we situate