International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative
Criminology
http://ijo.sagepub.com/
Reducing Juvenile Recidivism With Cognitive Training and a Cell Phone
Follow-Up: An Evaluation of the RealVictory Program
Bert O. Burraston, David J. Cherrington and Stephen J. Bahr
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol published online 2 December 2010
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X10388635
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/12/02/0306624X10388635
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
XXX10.1177/0306624X10388635Burraston et al.International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology
Reducing Juvenile
Recidivism With
Cognitive Training
and a Cell Phone FollowUp: An Evaluation of the
RealVictory Program
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology
XX(X) 1­–20
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav 
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X10388635
http://ijo.sagepub.com
Bert O. Burraston1, David J. Cherrington1,
and Stephen J. Bahr1
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effects of a cognitive training and
cell phone intervention on the recidivism of 70 juvenile offenders. Median days to
rearrest were 106 for the control group, 191 for the class-only group, and 278 for the
class plus cell phone group. Using rearrest as the survival criterion, the survival ratios
of the class-only and class plus cell phone groups were 2.64 and 2.94 times longer
than the control group, respectively. After controlling for gender, prior arrests, and
risk score, the Poisson regression indicated that the class-only and class plus cell
phone groups were 51% lower in total arrests than the control group. These results
suggest that cognitive training supplemented with a cell phone coach is an effective
and cost-efficient intervention for reducing recidivism.
Keywords
juvenile probation, recidivism, desistance from crime, prosocial attitudes, rearrest,
cognitive training, technology, treatment
In 2008, juveniles ages 15 to 19 years comprised 7.1% of the U.S. population but committed 21% of all crimes (Pastore & Maguire, 2010). Juveniles accounted for 16% of all
arrests for violent crime and 26% of all arrests for property crime (Puzzanchera, 2009).
1
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
Corresponding Author:
Bert O. Burraston, Department of Sociology, 2035 JFSB, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602
Email: bert_burraston@byu.edu
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
2
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology XX(X)
In 2010 more than 31 million youth were under the supervision of juvenile courts
(Puzzanchera, Adams, & Sickmund, 2010). Many juveniles under correctional supervision have difficulty desisting from crime and completing their probation successfully (Shinkfield & Graffam, 2009). When juvenile offenders do not desist from crime,
their chances of success later in life decrease significantly, and large societal costs are
incurred (Cohen & Piquero, 2009; Piquero, Farrington, Nagin, & Moffitt, 2010). A
critical policy question is what can be done to help more juvenile offenders avoid
probation violations and future criminal behavior.
For years, a dominant theme among many employees in the correctional system was
that most programs had little impact on recidivism. This belief was bolstered by
Martinson’s (1974) review of correctional programs and his conclusion that “nothing
works.” However, during the past 35 years, there has been increasing evidence that
some types of treatment programs can help reduce recidivism (Cullen, 2005, 2006). In
a review of 58 experimental and quasi-experimental studies, Landenberger and Lipsey
(2005) found that individuals who received treatment in a cognitive–behavioral program
were about 25% less likely to recidivate than comparable individuals who did not
receive treatment. In a meta-analysis of 69 studies, Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, and Yee
(2002) found that behavioral programs (such as behavior modification, token economy, and aversive conditioning) did not reduce recidivism but that cognitive–behavioral programs produced a mean reduction in recidivism of about 30%. Similarly, in a
meta-analysis of 20 studies, Wilson, Bouffard, and MacKenzie (2005) reported that
cognitive–behavioral programs reduced criminal behavior by 20% to 30% compared to
control groups. Overall, the evidence indicates that juveniles and adults who receive
cognitive–behavioral therapy tend to have lower recidivism rates than comparable persons who do not receive treatment. Although some uncertainty remains about the longterm impacts of cognitive–behavioral programs, recent research confirms that they are
useful interventions that tend to reduce drug use and recidivism (Dutra et al., 2008;
Magill & Ray, 2009; Milkman & Wanberg, 2007).
Meta-analytic studies indicate that the most effective treatment programs (a) use
cognitive–behavioral methods that focus on thinking patterns and skill development,
(b) target high-risk offenders, (c) focus treatment on the specific needs of the offender
(such as anger management, peer associations, or chemical dependencies), (d) are intensive in nature (lasting 3-9 months), (e) are implemented well, and (f) are conducted by
trained therapists (Lipsey, 1995, 1999; Lipsey, Chapman, & Landenberger, 2001; Lipsey
& Cullen, 2007; Lipsey & Landenberger, 2006) .
Despite the growing body of research on treatment effectiveness, relatively few
policy decisions in corrections use scientific evidence to assist in making informed
decisions (MacKenzie, 2000). Visher (2006) noted that research and practice are moving on independent tracks and that the gulf between them is wide. One way to narrow
that gap is to conduct high-quality research to determine the conditions under which
treatment is effective and to evaluate new treatment programs (Sherman, Farrington,
Welsh, & MacKenzie, 2002; Visher, 2006). Areas where research is needed include
evaluations of innovative technologies, detailed process evaluations, and examinations of how programs work (Visher, 2006; Wormwith et al., 2007).
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
3
Burraston et al.
The purpose of this study is to report an evaluation of a new treatment program that
combines cognitive training and an innovative use of cell phone technology. The
objective is to provide evidence as to whether this type of program may be useful in
helping juvenile offenders desist from crime. It is one of the first evaluations to use
cell phone technology as a correctional tool. Although innovative technologies are
being used more frequently in corrections, there has been little empirical research that
evaluates their effectiveness (Wormwith et al., 2007).
The cognitive training program teaches individuals to examine their principles and
beliefs, explore how their beliefs influence their behaviors, and align the results of their
behaviors with their basic principles and goals. The cell phone technology is used as a
follow-up tool to reinforce concepts taught in the training and remind individuals of their
specific goals. Before describing the program and our specific research procedures, we
turn to a discussion of desistance and the theory underlying the intervention program.
Desistance
The basic question underlying all offender intervention programs is, What will help
offenders desist from future criminal behavior? Despite the existence of extensive
research on recidivism, desistance is not well understood (Bottoms, Shapland, Costello,
Holmes, & Muir, 2004; Bushway, Piquero, Broidy, Cauffman, & Mazerolle, 2001).
Some of the major questions include the following: What factors make it more likely
that an offender will desist from crime? Do different types of individuals desist in
different ways? Does treatment help individuals desist and, if so, how?
Life Course Theory
To understand how people change over time, it is useful to view desistance as a process rather than a discrete event (Bottoms et al., 2004; Bushway et al., 2001; Maruna,
2001; McNeil, 2006). Maruna, Immarigeon, and LeBel (2004) distinguished between
primary and secondary desistance. Primary desistance refers to the immediate move
away from criminal behavior, such as when an offender remains drug free for 2 months.
Secondary desistance refers to becoming a law-abiding person on a permanent basis,
and it emerges over time as one gradually develops a new identity and becomes a
changed person (Healy & O’Donnell, 2008; Maruna & Toch, 2005).
Laub and Sampson (2001, 2003) developed a life course theory that integrates
social learning, social control, and cognitive transformation theories. They viewed
desistance as a process that depends on both subjective (internal) and social (external)
characteristics. Subjective influences are internal characteristics such as attitudes, selfesteem, identity, and motivation. Social influences include employment, marriage,
parenthood, and treatment interventions. Laub and Sampson focused on social factors
and emphasized the importance of structured routine activities and social controls, but
they acknowledged that agency and internal factors also play a significant role in
desistance. Structured activities, such as employment or treatment interventions, are
important because they reinforce legal activities and provide networks of social support.
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
4
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology XX(X)
Creating bonds with family members and friends also helps individuals desist from
crime. Conversely, associations with deviant peers appeal to individuals who are
unsuccessful in developing meaningful relationships at home or work.
The relative importance of subjective versus social characteristics is unclear. Some
emphasize subjective influences and maintain that change will not occur unless
offenders have an internal motivation to change (Gideon, 2010). Others emphasize
the social context and argue that motivation to change will have little influence unless
the social circumstances of offenders support their desistance (Laub & Sampson,
2001). LeBel, Burnett, Maruna, and Bushway (2008) found support for a combined
subjective-social model in which desistance is associated with both types of factors.
They suggested that the two factors may interact: Desistance is enhanced when treatment is combined with high subjective motivation.
Cognitive Transformation Theory
According to the cognitive transformation theory of Giordano, Cernkovich, and
Rudolph (2002), there are four key elements in the desistance process. First individuals develop an openness to change. Through their experiences and agency, individuals
may begin to conceive of personal change as a possibility. Agency refers to personal
choice—whether one seeks change. Some offenders like their life as it is and do not
wish to change; others say they would like to change and are willing to attempt to
change their behavior. In a study of 73 offenders, Healy and O’Donnell (2008) found
that 95% desired to change and 85% said they were capable of changing.
Second, individuals are exposed to particular circumstances, or “hooks,” that may
help them move toward change. Hooks for change include social characteristics such
as obtaining a good job or attending a treatment program (Giordano et al., 2002). Laub
and Sampson (2001) emphasized the importance of social institutions, especially marriage and work, as forces that influence the desistance process.
The third element in their desistance theory is the development of a conventional
replacement self. They maintain that part of change is seeing yourself in a different
light and changing your identity.
Finally, there is a reinterpretation of previous illegal behavior. For example, those
who were previously enmeshed in the drug culture might begin to view it as something
that hurts people and that they want to avoid.
Consistent with Giordano et al. (2002), Terry (2003) described desistance as a conversion process that takes a considerable amount of time. He observed that the process
often begins with an event that helps individuals reassess their lives. Some were motivated to change when they were unable to function after they became ill. Others
decided to change when they realized the damage they had inflicted on their family. A
new arrest was a turning point for some—they were faced with the choice of going
back to prison or entering a treatment program. With support from treatment, some
were able to rebuild their self-worth, develop new associations, and become assimilated into a different social world.
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
5
Burraston et al.
Maruna (2001) also argued that desistance requires a reformulation of one’s identity. After analyzing in-depth interviews of “desisters” and “persisters,” he observed
that desisters tended to describe redemption narratives in which they viewed their
“real selves” as noncriminals. They differentiated themselves from their previous mistakes, crafted a moral tale from their experiences, and expressed a desire to use their
experiences to help others (Maruna, 2001). Similarly, Shover (1996) and Rumgay
(2004) found that desisters were able to conceive of change as possible and alter their
perceptions of their previous activities. In summary, cognitive transformation theory
provides a complement to other theories by focusing on the transformation of one’s
identity in the process of desistance from crime.
Character Development Model
A theory that explains the internal change processes that lead to desistance is the
Character Development Model of Cherrington and Cherrington (2000). This model
was the conceptual framework on which the current treatment program was based. It
is built on the work by Bandura (1986) and Kohlberg (1981) and postulates that
change is facilitated by the reciprocal interactions of attitudes and behavior. The
model describes, on a practical level, the change process and how it is influenced by
subjective and social factors.
The Character Development Model uses four key concepts: attitudes, behavioral
intentions, behavior, and behavioral explanations. Behavioral intentions and behavioral explanations serve as intervening variables that explain the reciprocal impact of
attitudes and behavior on each other. For example, attitudes influence behavior by first
influencing behavioral intentions. A general, undefined intention is less likely to lead
to action than a specific intention to do something at a specific time and place.
On the other hand, behaviors influence attitudes by the rationalizations and justifications that are created in the behavioral explanation process (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
People tend not to view themselves as capricious, random actors but as rational beings
whose behavior is conscious and planned and whose actions are consistent with their
attitudes (Bem, 1972; Festinger, 1957). When behavior is not consistent with attitudes,
the easiest way to create harmony is to change one’s attitudes. Therefore, when people
misbehave and create an inconsistency between their attitudes and behavior, the easiest
way to reestablish harmony is to rationalize and justify their misbehavior.
The amount of change in one’s attitudes and values increases as the need to justify
behavior increases. Change is most likely to occur when (a) people are asked to explain
their behavior, (b) the explanation is public, (c) there are alternative ways to behave,
and (d) they are free to choose how to behave (Elms, 1966; Festinger & Carlsmith,
1959; Harvey & Beverly, 1961).
This rationalization process can be reversed if people recognize that their behavior
is improper and make a plan to change. This reversal could be facilitated by various
external interventions that change the internal processes, as shown in Figure 1. These
external interventions can occur independently or in combination, and the strength of
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
6
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology XX(X)
Behavioral
Intention
Interventions
Behavioral Intentions
Attitudes and Values
Attitude
Change
Interventions
Behavioral
Change
Interventions
Behavior
Behavioral Evaluations
and Justifications
Behavioral
Evaluation
Interventions
Figure 1. Character Development Model
a treatment intervention would be expected to increase as the number of components
being influenced increases.
The Character Development Model is a useful supplement to the desistance theories of Laub and Sampson (2003) and Giordano et al. (2002) because it provides clarity regarding the change process. It served as the conceptual basis for designing the
treatment program evaluated in this research consisting of a cognitive class and a cell
phone coach. We now turn to a brief description of these two interventions.
The Cognitive Training
The cognitive training consists of six 90-minute training sessions that teach the
Control Model and how it can be used to analyze one’s behavior and attitudes. The
Control Model was first proposed by Robert Bennett in his book Gaining Control
(1987) and is designed to help individuals examine their principles and beliefs, understand how their beliefs influence their behaviors, and align the results of their behavior with their basic principles and goals.
This model is illustrated in Figure 2. It assumes that all human behavior is motivated by a desire to satisfy one of four basic needs: the need to live (survive), the need
to love and be loved, the need to feel important, and the need to experience variety. All
persons have a unique “belief window” through which they view the world, and this
window includes a set of principles that form expectations: “If I do X, then Y will happen.”
These beliefs are seen as the forces that determine behavior. During the training,
participants examine their behaviors and assess the consequences of their actions.
They are asked to assess whether the results of their behaviors are satisfying their basic
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
7
Burraston et al.
Needs Wheel
Live
Feel
Important
Love
and Be
Loved
Belief
Window
Behavior
Results
Variety
Feedback
Do my results meet my needs?
Figure 2. The Control Model
needs; and if they are not, they are asked to identify which incorrect beliefs may be
causing their problems.
The Control Model is consistent with the Character Development Model discussed
earlier, particularly in examining how attitudes influence behavior. However, we use
the Control Model in our training not because of its theoretical value but because it
appeals to our audience and helps them examine the consequences of their behavior.
Trainees seem to readily accept the idea that everyone has basic needs that deserve to
be fulfilled.
The Control Model is intended to provide a value-neutral framework for examining
one’s beliefs and adjusting one’s behaviors to achieve desired results. This nonjudgmental approach allows participants to discover for themselves why they need to
change their behavior without feeling that they are being “preached to.” However, this
training does not endorse a relativistic philosophy because the training focuses on
helping participants assess the natural consequences of their actions. Group discussions of the natural consequences of one’s behavior, especially for others, facilitate the
behavioral evaluation process.
The class consisted of six sessions taught over a period of 6 weeks. During each
class there were discussions of key concepts, video clips to illustrate concepts, in-class
exercises, examples from newspapers and other media, and homework assignments.
The assignments were designed to identify key concepts in their own lives. At the
beginning of each class, there was a review of key ideas from the previous class and a
discussion of assignments.
The Cell Phone Program
The cell phone program is an intervention centered on the idea that behavior drives
beliefs. Phone calls are used to monitor behavior during the training and serve as aftercare when the training is completed. The cognitive class is much shorter than many
interventions and a key question is whether a 6-week class can effectively produce
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
8
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology XX(X)
lasting change. The cell phone program is designed to be an aftercare component that
reinforces the learning from the cognitive class and reminds individuals of their goals.
Near the end of the class, the participants set personal goals with lists of specific
activities that will help them accomplish both short- and long-term goals. After setting
specific goals, they decide how often they will be called and the prime question they
will be asked. Most participants receive two phone calls per day at preestablished
times. Each call consists of three short questions. First, the phone coach asks if the
participant has followed the goal since the last phone call, such as “Have you followed
all the rules of your probation since the last phone call?” Next, it asks how much effort
the participant has put forth to accomplish one of the steps to achieve the goal. Finally,
it asks what results the efforts have produced.
Participants answer each question using the keypad on their phone. If there has
been progress, a prerecorded positive message is played at the end of the call. If correction is needed, a prerecorded encouragement message is played. These messages
can be recorded by friends, family, or anyone the participant invites. The messages
and goals can be updated at any time, as directed by participants, case managers, or
professional counselors. Responses are automatically recorded on a secure Internet
site and can be analyzed to assess their progress.
If participants lose hope or abandon the change effort, they are asked to record why
the failure occurred. These stories provide useful information for identifying reasons
for the failure or ideas for future adjustments. Participants can also receive immediate
help from a professional counselor or a help line. Data obtained from the cell phone
calls provide useful diagnostic information long after the participants have completed
treatment.
During the next to last class, the cell phone program is described and they are given
cell phones. The cell phone program is tried for a week to make certain all equipment is
working properly and each participant understands how to use the phone coach. After
the last class, each participant begins the phone coach system for a period of 1 year.
During the 1-year follow-up period, research workers telephone each participant
periodically to confirm that the phone is working and to answer questions. These calls
helped maintain contact with the juveniles and enabled them to make adjustments in
calling times and recorded messages as needed.
Research Method
Participants
The participants were recruited from probationers in the juvenile court in one county in
Utah. The juvenile court categorizes the youth as low, moderate, or high risk based on
their history, background, and type and number of offenses. Initially, we were given a
list of 16 low- to moderate-risk probationers and randomly assigned them to two treatment groups (class only and class plus cell phone) and a control group. We are aware
of the limitations of risk assessments but they were used by the juvenile court as one
factor in planning appropriate treatment activities for the juveniles (Kemshall, 2008).
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
9
Burraston et al.
After the completion of one 6-week class, the same procedure was used to recruit
and teach a second class. Before beginning the third class, the juvenile court decided
not to allow random assignment for future classes. Rather, they identified eight to nine
moderate- to high-risk probationers for the class and then allowed us to use current
juvenile probation records to identify a control group. For each treatment juvenile, we
searched juvenile probation records to identify a juvenile who was the same age, gender, race, and risk category (low, medium, or high) and similar on type of offense.
Using these procedures, a total of 76 juveniles were recruited for participation in the
study, 43 treatment and 33 controls. Each of the 43 treatment subjects participated in
one of five classes that were taught. Attrition was small—2 of the control and 4 of the
treatment juveniles were lost from the study because they moved from the state, leaving
a final sample of 70 juveniles—39 treatment and 31 control participants.
The 39 juveniles who received treatment were assigned to one of two treatment
conditions—11 to the class-only option and 28 to the class plus cell phone condition.
The class-only group is small because after the second class, this option was discontinued. Given the smaller than expected sample sizes, we chose to focus on the effects
of the combined treatment. The 31 juvenile offenders in the control condition received
standard programming available to juveniles on probation. Each probation officer met
with the probationer periodically and developed an individualized treatment plan.
They encouraged the juvenile probationer to attend school, comply with probation
requirements, and attend programming. Most attended some type of class such as a
drug treatment class.
Recruitment
After identifying the potential participants, a probation officer invited the juveniles and
their parents or guardian to an orientation meeting. At the beginning of each class, we
held two different orientation meetings, one for the treatment group and one for the
control group. At the treatment orientation meeting, we explained the purpose, expectations, and benefits of the class and invited them to participate. The juvenile and parent
signed a consent form and completed a background questionnaire. For the control
group, we explained that we were doing a study to understand better what helps juvenile
probationers succeed and invited their participation. In addition to completing a background questionnaire and a consent form, we asked if each month they would complete
a brief questionnaire to assess how they were feeling and how things were going. With
the encouragement of the probation officers, we were able to obtain 100% cooperation
of the participants, although as noted above, six later dropped out of the study.
Analysis
The dependent variables were (a) recidivism, which was measured by the first arrest
during the year following the class, and (b) total arrests during the year following
completion of the class. These data were obtained from the juvenile court, which
keeps a detailed record of each juvenile and the types and frequency of all offenses.
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
10
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology XX(X)
Table 1. Mean of Background Variables by Experimental Condition
Variable
Age
Prior arrests
Prior felonies
Risk
Gender (% female)
Sample size
Control
Class-only
Class + cell phone
Range
15.7
9.3
0.9
1.8
12.9
31
16.5
6.0
1.7
1.5a
9.1
11
16.1
10.2
1.0
2.1
10.7
28
13-18
1-28
0-7
1-3
0-1
a. The only difference close to statistical significance was that the class-only group had a lower mean risk
score than the class plus cell phone group, p = .06, post hoc Bonferroni test.
Because previous research has shown that age, criminal history, and gender are
associated with future criminal behavior, we were particularly concerned about differences among the groups on those variables (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996).
To minimize selection bias, each program juvenile that was not randomly assigned
was matched with a nonprogram juvenile on age, gender, race, risk category (low,
medium, or high), and type of offense. In addition, in all analyses, we controlled for
number of prior arrests (natural log transformation), risk score, and gender (male = 0,
female = 1).
A comparison of the treatment and control groups on key background variables is
shown in Table 1. There were no significant differences among the three groups on
age, prior arrests, prior felonies, gender, or risk. However, the average risk score for
the class-only group was somewhat lower than for the class plus cell phone group
(marginally significant, p = .06). The ages of the participants ranged from 13 to 18
years, with a mean of 16. Prior arrests ranged from 1 to 28, with an average of 9. Males
comprised 87% of the sample.
We used survival analysis to test for differences in how soon the participants
were rearrested because it is appropriate for time-to-event data (time to rearrest)
with censored cases (those not rearrested; Schmidt & Witte, 1988; Yamaguchi,
1991). It enabled us to take into account exposure time since the five cohorts began
treatment at different times. We used parametric survival regression with a lognormal distribution because the arrest data did not meet the proportional assumption of
a Cox regression model (Schmidt & Witte, 1988). To determine which parametric
model to use, we compared graphs of the hazard functions and used the Akaike
information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion (Cleves, Gould,
Gutierrez, & Marchenko, 2008). We found no nesting by cohort nor any interaction
or quadratic effects.
Because total arrests have a Poisson distribution, we used Poisson regression to
assess the association between treatment and total arrests during the year after completion of the class. We found no nesting by cohort or any interaction effects, but there
was a significant quadratic effect for risk score (Rabe-Hesketh & Skrondal, 2008).
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
11
Burraston et al.
Table 2. Juvenile Arrests by Experimental Condition
Condition
Control (n = 31)
Class (n = 11)
Class + cell phone
(n = 28)
Total
arrests
Mean
arrests per
participant
Median
days to first
rearrest
Never
rearrested,
n (%)
Rearrested,
n (%)
71
10
33
2.29
0.91
1.25
106
191
278
3 (9.7)
5 (45.4)
13 (46.4)
28 (90.3)
6 (54.6)
15 (53.6)
Results
The first research question was whether the treatment groups had less recidivism than
the control group. The time to first rearrest for both experimental groups was significantly longer than for the control group. As shown in Table 2, the median days to
first rearrest was 106 for the control group, 191 for the class-only group, and 278 for
the class plus cell phone group. These differences are illustrated in Figure 3. The
percentage of control participants who were rearrested was significantly higher than
for the experimental groups. As shown in Table 2, 90% of the control participants had
been rearrested compared to 55% of the class-only group and 54% of the class plus
cell phone group.
Table 3 shows the results of the parametric survival regression model. The survival
ratio of the class plus cell phone group was 2.9 times longer than for the control group
(p < .05), indicating that they survived without getting arrested much longer than the
control group.
The survival ratio of the class-only group was 2.6 times longer than for the control
group; however, this difference was not statistically significant because of the small
sample size. The difference between the class-only and the class plus cell phone
groups was also not statistically significant. A graph of the three survival ratios is
shown in Figure 4.
The survival ratio was 80% smaller for females than for males—(0.20 − 1) × 100,
p < .05—suggesting that girls were more likely to be rearrested. Prior arrests and risk
score were not associated significantly with survival.
The results shown in Table 4 indicate significant effects for both experimental
treatments and risk score in the Poisson regression model. After controlling for all
variables in the model, there was a significant intervention effect for both experimental
groups on total arrests: The incidence-rate ratio was .49 for both the class-only (p ≤ .05)
and class plus cell phone group (p ≤ .001), implying that they were 51% lower in total
arrests than the control group. The data indicated that the predicted number of total
arrests increased with risk level, but the increase was nonlinear as shown in Figure 5.
The total arrests increased much more from Risk Level 1 to 2 than from Risk Level 2
to 3. Gender and prior arrests were not significantly associated with total arrests.
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
12
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology XX(X)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Control
Class-Only
Class + Cell
Figure 3. Median days to first rearrest by experimental condition
Table 3. Time to Rearrest: Survival Regression Controlling for Gender, Prior Arrests, and
Risk Score
Class
Class + cell phone
Female
Prior arrests
Risk score
Constant
Ln(σ)
σ
Coefficient
Exp(coefficient)
Standard error
z
0.97
1.08*
−1.61**
−0.29
−0.32
5.80**
0.44**
2.64
2.94*
0.20
0.75
0.73
0.60
0.44
0.60
0.29
0.28
0.74
0.11
0.17
1.62
2.48
2.69
−1.01
−1.13
7.89
4.07
1.55
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Discussion
Juveniles who participated in the class followed by the cell phone coach had less
recidivism than comparable juveniles who did not receive the program. Because of the
small sample size, the results for the class-only group were not as significant, although
they were in the expected direction; the class-only group had lower recidivism than
the control group but slightly higher recidivism than the class plus cell phone group.
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
13
.2
.4
Survival
.6
.8
1
Burraston et al.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Days
Class Only
Control
Class Plus Cell
Figure 4. Time to rearrest: survival ratio for control, class only, and class plus cell phone
groups controlling for prior arrests and risk level
Table 4. Total Arrests: Poisson Regression Controlling for Gender, Prior Arrests, Risk Score,
and Risk Score Squared
Class
Class + cell phone
Gender
Prior arrests
Risk score
Risk score squared
IRR
SE
z
0.49*
0.49**
1.31
1.18
8.63**
0.66*
0.17
0.10
0.36
0.17
7.03
0.13
−2.03
−3.39
0.97
1.15
2.65
−2.13
Note: IRR = incidence-rate ratio.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The class helps individuals set goals, develop specific behavioral intentions
to change, and assess the consequences of their behavior. It is based on the Control
Model, which provides a value-neutral framework for examining the consequences
of one’s behavior and testing whether it meets one’s needs. The cell phone coach
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
14
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology XX(X)
3.5
Predicted Arrests
3
2.5
2
Class Only & Class Plus Cell
1.5
Control
1
0.5
0
1
2
3
Risk Score
Figure 5. Total male arrests by experimental condition and risk score, controlling for prior
arrests
Note: The arrests curve for both the class only and the class plus cell phone groups are essentially the
same.
provides a year-long follow-up that can help participants assess progress toward
goals regularly.
The class was only 6 weeks long and entailed only 9 total contact hours. This is
considerably shorter than the length recommended by prior research that has shown a
significant relationship between the length of the training and treatment effectiveness
(Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005). Consequently, it was impressive to see positive results
with a short program supplemented with a cell phone intervention.
The success of the cognitive training and cell phone programs may be explained by
the fact that they incorporated several program characteristics that have been found to
be associated with lower rates of recidivism (Springer et al., 2004). First, the cognitive
class focused on thinking patterns, it was interactive, and it emphasized building skills.
There were many different assignments that required the participants to interact and
respond. The cell phone intervention reinforced those skills.
Second, effective programs tend to be structured and focused but also adapted to
the needs and risk levels of the participants (MacKenzie, 2000). The cognitive class
had a specific curriculum that focused on thinking about and evaluating behavioral
results. Assignments were structured according to the needs of the individuals, and all
participants set specific goals that they chose.
Third, the program used a unique cell phone technology to reinforce the training for
a year following the class. This reinforced the principles learned in the class and
required participants to monitor their behavior and report on it. Research has shown
that aftercare may be an essential component if treatment programs are to have lasting
effects (Inciardi, Martin, & Butzin, 2004; Kurlychek & Kempinen, 2006). Innovative
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
15
Burraston et al.
use of cell phone technology may be a cost-effective way to reinforce learning and
provide follow-up that is similar to aftercare.
Lynch (2006) suggests that we need to move beyond the assessment of whether a
program succeeds to a more complex understanding of the principles that explain what
succeeds under different conditions and for different types of offenders. In the present
research, the cognitive training focused on the Control Model, which examines how
attitudes and beliefs influence behavior and whether behavior meets one’s needs.
However, the Character Development Model provided the theoretical foundation for
understanding how moral development occurs by examining the reciprocal relationship between attitudes and behaviors and how behavioral intentions and behavioral
evaluations have an impact on changing behavior.
The program is also consistent with the cognitive transformation and life course
theories because the class helps participants see that change is possible. Participation
in the program is a “hook” for change in that it has the potential to help them make a
cognitive shift and begin fashioning a replacement self in which they see themselves
and their behavior in a different light. Some of the most significant program elements
include the following:
1. Perceive that change is possible. The development of manageable goals and
support from significant others helps individuals develop self-efficacy and
recognize that change is possible. Asking people to describe the effort they
are expending to accomplish their goals raises their self-awareness.
2. Manageable goals. The class and cell phone help participants break large
goals into manageable parts with achievable time frames. Participants set
their own goals and design the calling schedule to fit the time frame that
works best for them. For example, one drug addict in a pilot study said that
remaining clean and sober for an entire day was entirely unrealistic, but he
knew he could make it to the next phone call.
3. Understanding the natural consequences of misbehavior. By examining the
natural consequences of their behavior, the class helps participants see their
behavior in a new light. This may help individuals fashion a replacement
self as suggested by Giordano et al. (2002). As participants perceive that the
results of their behavior are not satisfying their needs, they are motivated to
make changes. The cell phone reinforces efforts to see the consequences of
their behavior.
4. Moment-of-decision support. Life course theorists (Laub & Sampson, 2003)
emphasize that there are critical turning points where support may be particularly essential. The class plus cell phone provides a low-cost method that supports participants when they are most at risk. The cell phone coach becomes
a hook for change at critical decision points. Contact and encouragement
from significant others can be timed to come at the most vulnerable times to
strengthen a participant’s resolve. The participant can choose not to answer
the phone, but even if the call is refused it is a reminder of previous decisions.
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
16
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology XX(X)
5. Support of “significant others.” Both the social-subjective model of LeBel et al.
(2008) and the life course theory of Laub and Sampson (2001, 2003) indicate
that social support and the development of bonds are critical in helping offenders
desist from crime. In the cell phone program, significant others can leave voice
messages of support without requiring them to know or have access to any of
the details of the person’s goals or efforts. These messages can be recorded at
any time and from any location and made available to the participants.
6. Accountability. In the class, participants are taught to examine the consequences of their actions, including the impacts on others. During each phone
call, participants are asked if they have stayed with their goal since the last
phone call. If they have, they receive praise; and if they have not, they are
asked to explain what they have done and why. These types of questions reinforce personal accountability.
Limitations
Although the results of this research appear promising, there are also limitations. First,
the sample was relatively small and from one geographical area. The program needs
to be tested on larger, more diverse samples in different geographical locations. In
addition, it needs testing on adults. The authors are in the process of conducting additional evaluations of the program with juvenile and adult samples
Second, the cognitive training class was taught primarily by two people. This provided consistency and fidelity for the program. However, it is important to test the
program with different instructors to demonstrate that the program can be implemented on a larger scale.
Third, given that desistance is a long-term process, a 1-year follow-up may not be
sufficient to capture future criminal behavior. Additional research over longer periods
of time is needed.
Conclusion
The results of this study provide evidence that a brief cognitive training program followed by a cell phone coach is a useful tool that helps juvenile probationers reduce
their recidivism. It appears that the process of evaluating the consequences of one’s
behavior, setting short- and long-term goals, and using a cell phone to reinforce goal
accomplishment can help some individuals avoid further criminal behavior. One of the
participants commented that carrying a cell phone around with him was like carrying
his probation officer with him. The cell phones provide daily reminders of goals they
have set for themselves and there is immediate social support and encouragement.
Although the cognitive class included several elements that have been recommended by previous researchers, it contained these unique elements: (a) It was shorter
than most other cognitive interventions, (b) it was built on concepts from the Control
Model and the Character Development Model, and (c) it included the cell phone
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
17
Burraston et al.
coach as an aftercare component. If the results reported here are confirmed in future
research, it will indicate that the combined class and cell phone intervention can
be useful in fostering behavioral change. Particularly promising is the possibility of
using the cell phone coach as a follow-up to reinforce training and provide an aftercare component.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful for the cooperation of the juvenile respondents, their parents, and the Utah
Fourth District Juvenile Court. Research assistance was provided by undergraduate and
graduate students at Brigham Young University. Camm Clark, Miriam Walther, and Michael
Rutkowski were particularly helpful as research assistants. We would like to thank Stephen
Liddle and Ken Millard for their work on developing the RealVictory database. RealVictory
is a 501(c)3 organization separate and independent from Brigham Young University. The
team that conducted the research is independent from those who designed and implemented
the RealVictory program.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication
of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This research was supported by the Family Studies Center; the Department
of Sociology; the Rollins Center for eBusiness; and the College of Family, Home, and Social
Sciences at Brigham Young University.
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (pp. 1-62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bennett, R. F. (1987). Gaining control. Salt Lake City, UT: Franklin International Institute.
Bottoms, A., Shapland, J., Costello, A., Homes, D., & Muir, G. (2004). Towards desistance:
Theoretical underpinnings for an empirical study. Howard Journal, 43, 368-389.
Bushway, S. D., Piquero, A. R., Broidy, L. M., Cauffman, E., & Mazerolle, P. (2001). An empirical
framework for studying desistance as a process. Criminology, 39, 491-516.
Cherrington, J. O., & Cherrington, D. J. (2000). Moral leadership and ethical decision making.
Provo, UT: CHC Forecast.
Cleves, M. A., Gould, W., Gutierrez, R., & Marchenko, Y. (2008). An introduction to survival
analysis using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
18
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology XX(X)
Cohen, M. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high
risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 25-49.
Cullen, F. T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology
made a difference. Criminology, 43, 1-42.
Cullen, F. T. (2006). It’s time to reaffirm rehabilitation. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 665-672.
Dutra, L., Stathopoulou, G., Basden, S. L., Leyro, T. M., Powers, M. B., & Otto, M. W. (2008).
A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 179-187.
Elms, A. C. (1966). Influence of fantasy ability on attitude change through role playing. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 36-43.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender
recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.
Gideon, L. (2010). Drug offenders’ perceptions of motivation: The role of motivation in rehabilitation and reintegration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 54, 597-610.
Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. A. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance:
Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107,
880-1064.
Harvey, O., & Beverly, G. (1961). Some personality correlates of concept change through role
playing. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 125-130.
Healy, D., & O’Donnell, I. (2008). Calling time on crime: Motivation, generativity and agency
in Irish probationers. Probation Journal, 55, 25-38.
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., & Butzin, C. A. (2004). Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime & Delinquency,
50, 88-107.
Kemshall, H. (2008). Risks, rights and justice: Understanding and responding to youth risk.
Youth Justice, 8, 21-37.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Kurlychek, M., & Kempinen, C. (2006). Beyond boot camp: The impact of aftercare on offender
reentry. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 363-388.
Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal
of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451-476.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. In M. Tonry (Ed.),
Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 1-69). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to
age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
19
Burraston et al.
LeBel, T. P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. (2008). The “chicken and egg” of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5,
131-159.
Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatments with juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending—
Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 63-78). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders?
An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. Virginia Journal of Social Policy
& the Law, 6, 611-641.
Lipsey, M. W., Chapman, G., & Landenberger, N. A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs
for offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578,
144-157.
Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review
of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 1-40.
Lipsey, M. W., & Landenberger, N. A. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral interventions. In B. C. Welsh
& D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims,
and places (pp. 57-71). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Lynch, J. P. (2006). Prisoner reentry: Beyond program evaluation. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 401-412.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 457-471.
Magill, M., & Ray, L. S. (2009). Cognitive-behavioral treatment with adult alcohol and illicit
drug users: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Studies on Alcohol
& Drugs, 70, 516-527.
McNeill, F. (2006). A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology & Criminal
Justice, 6, 39-62.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public
Interest, 35 (Spring), 22 -54.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Maruna, S., Immarigeon, R., & LeBel, T. P. (2004). Ex-offender reintegration: Theory and
Practice. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to
offender reintegration (pp. 3-26). Cullompton, UK: Willan.
Maruna, S., & Toch, H. (2005). The impact of imprisonment on the desistance process. In
J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 139-178).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Milkman, H., & Wanberg, K. (2007). Cognitive-behavioral treatment: A review and discussion
for corrections professionals (NIC No. 021657). Washington, DC: National Institute of
Corrections.
Pastore, A. L., & Kathleen Maguire, K. (Eds.). (2010). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics
(Table 4.4). Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t442008.pdf
Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. S. (2002). The effects of behavioral/
cognitive-behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 476-496.
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010
20
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology XX(X)
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Nagin, D. S., & Moffitt, T. E. (2010). Trajectories of offending and their relation to life failure in late middle age: Findings from the Cambridge Study
of Delinquent Development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 151-173.
Puzzanchera, C. (2009). Juvenile arrests 2008 (OJJDP Bulletin, NCJ 228479). Washington,
DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice.
Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Sickmund, M. (2010). Juvenile court statistics 2006–2007.
Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata
(2nd ed.). College Station, TX: StataCorp.
Rumgay, J. (2004). Scripts for safer survival: Pathways out of female crime. Howard Journal
of Criminal Justice, 43, 405-419.
Schmidt, P., & Witte, A. D. (1988). Predicting recidivism using survival models. New York,
NY: Spring.
Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). Evidence-based
crime prevention. London, UK: Routledge.
Shinkfield, A. J., & Graffam, J. (2009). Community reintegration of ex-prisoners: Type and
degree of change in variables influencing successful reintegration. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 29-42.
Shover, N. (1996). Great pretenders: Pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Springer, J. F., Sale, E., Hermann, J., Sambrano, S., Kasim, R., & Nistler, M. (2004). Characteristics of effective substance abuse prevention programs for high-risk youth. Journal of
Primary Prevention, 25, 171-194.
Terry, C. M. (2003). The Fellas: Overcoming prison and addiction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/
Thomson Learning.
Visher, C. A. (2006). Effective reentry programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 299-302.
Wilson, D., Bouffard, L., & Mackenzie, D. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, grouporiented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32,
172-204.
Wormwith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D.
(2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some
future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 879-892.
Yamaguchi, K. (1991). Event history analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on December 6, 2010