1 / 14

Thinking for a Change Cognitive Skills Program

Thinking for a Change Cognitive Skills Program. Outcome Evaluation 2005-2007 Carver County Court Services. Notes about project:. Quasi-experimental design was used, which means that program and comparison samples were similar, however, true random sampling was not possible or realistic.

nam
Download Presentation

Thinking for a Change Cognitive Skills Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Thinking for a Change Cognitive Skills Program Outcome Evaluation 2005-2007 Carver County Court Services

  2. Notes about project: • Quasi-experimental design was used, which means that program and comparison samples were similar, however, true random sampling was not possible or realistic

  3. Notes, cont: • Thinking for a Change was curriculum used (National Institute of Corrections) • Dependent variables are recidivism, reoffense frequency, and reoffense severity • Independent variable is the completion of the T4C curriculum

  4. Notes, cont: • Data was collected for 3 time intervals: 6 month, 12 month, and 18 month • Sample sizes were dependent upon time intervals. For example, some participants in the program sample were too current to gather 18 month data, therefore were not included

  5. Notes, cont: • Program groups were similar to comparison groups in terms of YLS/CMI scores

  6. Results: 6 month interval • Recidivism percentage for the program group was slightly higher than the comparison group, but not statistically significant

  7. Results: 6 month interval • Out of those participants who recidivated in both program and comparison samples, the total number of offenses committed was the same

  8. Results: 6-month interval • Out of the participants who recidivated in both samples, the severity of the offenses committed was similar

  9. Results: 12 month interval • The recidivism rate for the program group was slightly lower than the comparison group but not statistically significant

  10. Results: 12 month interval • Out of the participants who recidivated in both samples, the program group committed fewer new offenses

  11. Results: 12-month interval • The program group had fewer misdemeanor reoffenses, while the number of gross misdemeanor and misdemeanor offenses were similar

  12. Results: 18-month interval • The program group’s recidivism rate was significantly less than the comparison group

  13. Results: 18-month interval • The comparison group committed twice as many reoffenses than the program group. Note that the program group was smaller than the comparison group, however

  14. Results: 18-month interval • The comparison group committed significantly more misdemeanors than the program group. They also committed more gross misdemeanors and felonies. Note that the program group was smaller than the comparison group, however.

More Related