Implementation and Outcomes in Cognitive‐Behavioral Therapy Among Female Prisoners

• Published date: 01 May 2015
• Author: Gary Zajac
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12137
• Date: 01 May 2015

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

OUTCOME EVALUATION PROGRAM FOR

FEMALE OFFENDERS

Implementation and Outcomes in

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Among

Female Prisoners

Gary Zajac

Pennsylvania State University

Abody of evidence has emerged over the past several decades about “what works”

in rehabilitating criminal offenders (Andrews and Bonta, 2003; MacKenzie, 2006;

MacKenzie and Zajac, 2013). Much of this evidential basis is summed up in

the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) framework (Andrews and Bonta, 2010), which by now

should be sufficiently well known that I will not bother with a summary of it in this

brief introductory piece. The “what works” and RNR literatures inform a set “principles

of effective offender intervention” that can be used, with appropriate caveats and limita-

tions, as a guide to the design of correctional interventions (Andrews and Bonta, 2003;

Van Voorhis, Braswell, and Lester, 2004). These principles direct that any specific type

of treatment intervention delivered to criminal justice clients should be supported by

evidence of effectiveness in reducing recidivism or having impacts on other criteria of in-

terest (e.g., reducing drug relapse or improving compliance with supervision). One widely

used treatment approach that has accumulated a strong basis of support in the research

is cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). In brief, CBT addresses antisocial cognitions and

dysfunctional thinking patterns that support criminal behavior with highly structured be-

havioral therapies targeting problem solving, decision making, coping mechanisms, peer

associates, and other factors, with a strong emphasis not only on learning new skills but

also on practicing and rehearsing those skills to instill more prosocial behavioral routines, for

example, to help the client deal with high-risk situations (Van Voorhis et al., 2004). A num-

ber of studies and meta-analyses have established considerable support for this approach

(Landenberger and Lipsey,2005; Lipsey, Landenberger, and Wilson, 2007; Pearson,Lipton,

Cleland, and Yee, 2002; Wilson, Bouffard, and MacKenzie, 2005).

Direct correspondence to Gary Zajac, Penn State University, Justice Center for Research, 327 Pond Building,

University Park, PA 16802 (e-mail: gxz3@psu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12137 C2015 American Society of Criminology 295

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 14 rIssue 2