Georgia Cognitive Skills Experiment: Outcome Evaluation, Phase II

• NCJ Number: 248530
• Author(s): Patricia Van Voorhis Ph.D.; Lisa M. Spruance M.S.; P. Neal Ritchie Ph.D.; Shelley Johnson-Listwan Ph.D.; Renita Seabrook M.S.; Jennifer Pealer M.S.
• Date Published: 2003
• Length: 157 pages
• Grant Number(s): 98-CE-VX-0013
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ); Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles
• Publication Format: Document; Document (Online)
• Publication Type: Research Paper; Report (Study/Research); Report (Grant Sponsored)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: CrimeSolutions Program ID #568 This study was funded through the Office of Justice Programs for the National Institution of Justice (Grant #98-CE-VX-0013) and by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles. The report reflects conclusions drawn by the authors and not the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles or the National Institute of Justice.

Annotation

This report describes Phase II of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles (GBPP) evaluation of their implementation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Program (R&R).

Abstract

This document reports the outcome findings for Phase II of the Georgia Cognitive Skills Experiment. It is the fourth and final report of this project. Both Phase I and Phase II of the Georgia Cognitive Skills Experiment utilized a randomized controlled experimental design to compare outcomes for offenders who participated in the Cognitive Skills Program to those who did not. The central question of the Phase I study concerned the overall effectiveness of the Cognitive Skills Program. Phase II expanded on this inquiry to determine whether: 1) the program was more effective for some types of offenders than for others, and 2) specific program characteristics could improve offender outcomes. The following sets of research questions were addressed in Phase II: 1) What was the overall effectiveness of the Georgia Cognitive Skills Experiment? How did recidivism rates and test scores for offenders participating in the Cognitive Skills Program compare to those who were assigned to the comparison group? 2) Did the program benefit some types of offenders more than others? Did some types of program participants actually do worse than those who did not participate? And, 3) What sorts of program and facilitator characteristics differentiated the most effective cognitive programs from the least effective? Do such factors as group size, program completion, and facilitators' skills impact offender recidivism?