About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

86 Fed. Probation 4 (2022)

handle is hein.journals/fedpro86 and id is 1 raw text is: 4 EEDERAL PROBATION Volume 86 Number 1 What Do Probation Staff Need to Know about Criminogenic Thinking? Many terms are used to describe the thinking that underlies criminal behavior: procrimi- nal attitudes, antisocial cognitions, criminal thinking, and criminal thought process, just to name a few.2 Since this type of thinking itself is not illegal, the term criminogenic thinking is more applicable and refers to cognitive pat- terns that facilitate antisocial, criminal, and self-destructive behaviors (Mitchell & Tafrate, 2012; Whited et al., 2017). The goal of forensic cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) interven- tions is to alter the thinking patterns that drive risky and criminal decisions in broad life areas (e.g., relationships, routines, and habits) while increasing thinking that leads to productive decisions, prosocial outcomes, and ultimately a non-destructive life (Morgan et al., 2018; Tafrate et al., 2018). Criminogenic thinking isn't unique to justice-involved clients. It's something we all have, to one degree or another. In training workshops, we sometimes make this point by having participants pair up; the trainee in the client role follows this instructional set: Talk about something you do or don't do that you think is not helpful or not healthy 1 This work was funded by Arnold Ventures. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the funding agency. 2 There are also many terms used to describe people receiving services in community corrections (e.g., probationer, parolee, probation client, justice- involved client/person, etc.). Throughout these practice guidelines we use the term client in the interest of brevity. (this type of exercise is also called a real-play). Trainees in the client role often pick a lifestyle issue such as unhealthy eating habits, reck- less driving, shopping sprees, staying up too late, or procrastinating on projects. Trainees in the probation officer role are instructed to interview their client with a goal of pin- pointing the specific thoughts that preceded the unhealthy behavior: What does it sound like in the client's mind when they give themselves permission to engage in self- defeating behaviors? After a few minutes or so, we debrief the group and get examples of these permission giving moments. Here are some typical examples that emerge in group after group: * I've had a long day, I deserve it * Just this one time. * No one will know. * It's not really hurting anyone, so why not * Fuck it. It quickly becomes obvious to trainees in the client role that they can sound a lot like justice-involved clients because we all have criminogenic thinking moments. This exercise is beneficial because once probation officers understand the nature of crimino- genic thinking, they know what to look for in their clients (e.g., the permission-giving moment prior to a risky/criminal behavior). Since probation clients are not making risky decisions 100 percent of the time, it is also instructive to identify the other voice- their prosocial thinking when healthier choices are made. To that end, in the second half of the real-play, trainees in the proba- tion officer role interview their client with a goal of pinpointing the specific thoughts Raymond Chip Tafrate Damon Mitchell Central Connecticut State University that preceded a time when the person made a healthy decision in the same situation: What are thoughts like in the client's mind when they don't give themselves permission to engage in self-defeating behaviors and instead choose a healthier outcome? Changing criminogenic thinking does not involve a sudden seismic shift in thinking so much as a gradual strengthening of thinking that is already (perhaps weakly) present in the client. The process of addressing criminogenic thinking in supervision is one of (1) building clients' awareness of the impact their thoughts have on decisions, (2) weakening crimino- genic thinking that precedes risky decisions, and (3) strengthening prosocial thinking that leads to better decisions and outcomes. What Are Common Pitfalls in Addressing Criminogenic Thinking? Several pitfalls may emerge in probation set- tings when it comes to assessment and case planning. We highlight three in particular that we believe can lead to misidentification of rel- evant cognitive supervision targets. Pitfall 1: The rearview mirror. Often crimi- nogenic thinking is assessed from a rearview mirror perspective in which clients are asked about their attitudes toward their most recent or past offenses. In this way of operating, probation officers are likely to obtain statements in which clients minimize the offense or avoid taking full responsibility for prior criminal behaviors. This maneuver typically produces minimizations and justifications (Maruna & Mann, 2006), and sometimes expressions of regret. Unfortunately, this type of conceptualization misses the main 4 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 86 Number 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most