Changes in Probation Officer Behavior and Caseload Recidivism Following Training in Cognitive-Behavioral Techniques

• Published date: 01 October 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241253122
• Author: Damon Mitchell,Raymond Chip Tafrate,Stephen M. Cox,Tom Hogan,Guy Bourgon,Tanya Rugge
• Date: 01 October 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2024, Vol. 51, No. 10, October 2024, 1475 –1492.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241253122

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2024 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1475

CHANGES IN PROBATION OFFICER BEHAVIOR

AND CASELOAD RECIDIVISM FOLLOWING

TRAINING IN COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL

TECHNIQUES

DAMON MITCHELL

RAYMOND CHIP TAFRATE

STEPHEN M. COX

TOM HOGAN

Central Connecticut State University

GUY BOURGON

Clinical and Consulting Psychologist

TANYA RUGGE

Correctional Consultant

Implementation of risk-need-responsivity principles in probation has fostered the development of programs that train

probation officers (POs) to directly address clients’ criminogenic needs during office visits. This study examined changes

in PO office visit behavior and changes in caseload recidivism rates, following participation in the Forensic Cognitive-

Behavioral Techniques (CBt) training program. Training was delivered to 39 POs over 10 sessions. PO behavior and

skills were assessed using pre- and posttraining audio-recorded office visits. Coders blind to the pre/post nature of the

recordings rated them on multiple variables across three domains: (1) Use of CBt, (2) Office Visit Content, and (3)

Communication/Relationship Building skills. At posttraining, POs demonstrated increased use of CBt, greater focus on

criminogenic needs, and improved communication skills. Overall, caseload recidivism rates declined posttraining.

Despite challenges, training programs like Forensic CBt are associated with more skilled interactions during office visits

and reductions in recidivism.

Keywords: risk-need-responsivity; cognitive-behavioral interventions; community corrections; probation officer training

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors have no known conflicts of interest to disclose. This project was funded by

Federal Grant Award #2016-SM-BX-007, CFDA #16.812 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). We

thank the BJA’s Smart Probation: Innovations in Supervision program for their support throughout the process

of this project. We also thank Gary Roberge, Bethany LaPierre, Lisa Correa, and the staff of the State of

Connecticut Court Support Services Division who aided this project. Data Availability Statement: Restrictions

apply to the availability of the data for this study. Availability is subject to approval from the State of

Connecticut Court Support Services Division. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Damon Mitchell, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Central Connecticut State University, 1615

Stanley Street, New Britain, CT 06050; e-mail: mitchelldam@ccsu.edu.

1253122CJBXXX10.1177/00938548241253122Mitchell et al. / Cognitive-Behavioral Techniques in Probation

research-article2024

1476 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Community corrections and corrections agencies are being asked to do more than temporar-

ily monitor or sanction the millions of individuals under their authority: They are expected

to positively influence the behavioral trajectories of their clients to reduce reoffending (Lovins

et al., 2018). Therefore, probation officers (POs) are more frequently being trained in active

change skills, such as cognitive-behavioral techniques (CBt) to help their clients alter thinking

and behavior patterns likely to drive criminal behavior. This study describes the implementa-

tion and evaluation of Forensic CBt, a new training program designed to aid POs in applying

CBt to clients’ criminogenic needs. We use the acronym CBt to refer to the use of cognitive and

behavioral “techniques” versus the acronym CBT, which denotes cognitive-behavioral “ther-

apy.” Therapy is commonly delivered by mental health providers to address a variety of emo-

tional and behavioral disorders, whereas techniques derived from CBT models can be delivered

by nontherapists to a diverse range of problems, including criminal behavior.

THE MIGRATION OF CBT TO COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

Initially proposed as a model of mental health treatment, CBT has undergone consider-

able expansion; beginning with a focus on internalizing syndromes such as depression and

anxiety (A. T. Beck, 1967; Ellis, 1962), and later extended to externalizing problems such

as anger dysregulation (Novaco, 1975), substance misuse (Liese et al., 1977), personality

pathology (A. T. Beck et al., 1990), and criminal behavior (Tafrate & Mitchell, 2014) (these

publications represent the initial editions of professional books coming out of the CBT tra-

dition highlighting its progression into different clinical areas). CBT is not one approach,

but rather a collection of techniques and interventions that evolved from three diverse, intel-

lectual waves (behaviorism, cognitive, mindfulness/values; for an overview, see Tafrate

et al., 2021). Although a consensus definition is somewhat elusive, the CBT “package” can

generally be described as active-directive (led by the practitioner), collaborative (clients are

involved in changing problematic patterns), concentrated on changing problematic cogni-

tions and behaviors through a skills-building orientation, with structured and organized

sessions that incorporate homework assignments.

Given that POs are not psychotherapy providers and the primary goal in community cor-

rections is to reduce recidivism and increase public safety, the migration of CBT from the

mental health arena to community corrections involves several noteworthy adaptations.

First, based on a large body of theoretical and empirical work derived from the risk-need-

responsivity (RNR) model, the strategic focus of CBt is to address clients’ criminogenic

needs rather than mental health symptoms (Bonta & Andrews, 2023; Bonta et al., 2008;

Tafrate et al., 2018). Second, careful attention to the PO–client working relationship is war-

ranted. While a collaborative strategy is a hallmark of traditional CBT models (J. S. Beck,

2021), probation environments pose unique challenges due to the nature of mandated ser-

vices (Parhar et al., 2008), the complex, multifaceted role of POs (Kennealy et al., 2012), and

particular distortions in client thinking that can impede the therapeutic alliance (Seeler et al.,

2014). To that end, a set of PO-intervention skills (e.g., PO modeling, reinforcement, disap-

proval, and use of authority) derived from empirical work identifying core correctional

practices (CCPs; Dowden & Andrews, 2004; Trotter, 1996, 2013) are utilized. Third, an

alternative constellation of criminogenic thinking patterns associated with criminal and self-

destructive behaviors becomes a cognitive focal point for change, as opposed to cognitions

that amplify dysphoric symptoms (Kroner & Morgan, 2014; Mitchell et al., 2015, 2018).