![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Considerable research has been conducted to understand the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral programs in reducing recidivism. This is a result of continued interest in understanding ‘what works’ in correctional programs. However, there has been comparatively little focus devoted to understanding how or why these programs may be effective. Theories of crime that examine desistance in terms of cognitive change may be particularly helpful in providing context to the discussion of how and why cognitive-behavioral programs work in reducing recidivism. Using propensity score matching and multiple mediation analysis, this study examined the effect of participation in cognitive-behavioral programming on recidivism through three measures of cognitive change: self-efficacy, perceptions of deviance, and motivation to change one’s behavior. Data collected as part of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) was used for these analyses.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Lattimore and Visher (Citation2009) note some facilities received exceptions to this requirement.
2. There was not a statistically significant difference between individuals who completed all three post-release interview waves and those who did not in terms of the key variables in this study.
3. Orrick (Citation2012) also combined elements of these two scales to create a single self-efficacy scale. However, her analysis utilized a total of eight items. These two additional items are not included in the present analysis because confirmatory factor analysis indicates they do not load on the same factor as the other six survey items.
4. This is similar to Orrick (2012)’s approach, though Orrick (2012) used only three question pairs to measure motivation.
5. The SVORI legal cynicism scale was also utilized in Taylor (Citation2012). However, this analysis used all five items from the SVORI legal cynicism scale.
6. Hayes (Citation2013) argues it is worthwhile to pursue mediation analysis even if there is not a statistically significant relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Although it makes sense to require an association between these variables, ‘a lack of correlation does not disprove causation’ and ‘correlation is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of causality’ (Bollen Citation1989, 52). Meaning, important relationships between treatments, mediators, and outcomes may exist even if there is not a significant relationship between the X and Y variables (Hayes Citation2013).
7. Prior to PSM, approximately 53% of respondents report participating in CBT while approximately 47% report they did not. Since Nevada required CBT participation as part of its SVORI package (Lattimore et al. Citation2004), it can be used as a gauge of this measure. Approximately 90% of Nevada SVORI offenders reported CBT participation. This is close to what would be expected given Nevada’s SVORI treatment parameters, indicating offenders may be correctly interpreting this question.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Kristin Rose
Kristin Rose is an assistant professor in the Justice Systems program at Truman State University. She graduated with a Ph.D. in Criminology and Justice Policy at Northeastern University. Her research interests include correctional programming, the collateral consequences of incarceration, and prisoner reentry. Her work has appeared in the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, as well as Crime, Law and Social Change.