Program Profile: Cognitive Life Skills (CLS)

This is a cognitive–behavioral intervention that seeks to reduce recidivism in people leaving secure confinement by addressing antisocial attitudes and decisionmaking. The program is designed for adult medium- and high-risk individuals. The program is rated Promising. Treatment group people were statistically significantly less likely to recidivate, compared with control group participants, during parole supervision.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Population

The Cognitive Life Skills (CLS) program is an intervention for paroled individuals reentering the community following secure confinement. The main objective is to help their reintegration into society by addressing common issues they face (such as antisocial attitudes, poor problem-solving skills, and weak decisionmaking skills) through improved cognitive thinking skills. CLS is designed specifically for adult medium- and high-risk individuals. The overall goal of CLS is to reduce recidivism.

Program Components

The CLS program was developed by the National Curriculum and Training Institute and consists of two levels. Level 1 has 11 sessions, with 16 hours of material; Level 2 has 22 sessions, with 48 hours of material. The program facilitator determines which program level is needed for each persons based on individual needs and risk level. For example, if an individuals is established as at high risk for reoffending, or has a greater number of individual needs, they are placed in Level 2. The sessions take place in a group setting, but individual sessions can also be included to address specific problems faced by the person, such as addiction, employment, family issues, and previous victimization.

The main learning objectives for both levels are to develop critical cognitive thinking skills; to establish positive, goal-directed behaviors; to gain and practice new life skills; to gain better self-control; to discover how attitude affects behavior and understand the process to change negative behavior; to utilize a personal awareness journal; and, finally, to make a commitment to be a law-abiding citizen (National Curriculum and Training Institute 2020). The program includes a user’s manual to guide the person through the components of each session. It also contains a manual for the instructor that assists in the delivery of the program, such as homework assignments, potential open-ended questions to direct conversation, and possible role-play scenarios to pose.

Program Theory

The CLS program is a cognitive–behavioral intervention, which is an approach that emphasizes cognitive development, such as decisionmaking, problem solving, and recognizing unrealistic or problematic thinking. Cognitive–behavioral approaches are based on the theory that criminal thinking and criminal behavior are associated, and therefore changing an individual’s criminal thoughts is the first step to changing that individual’s criminal behavior (Antonio and Crossett 2017; Antonio and Klunk II 2014). This is done primarily through behavioral components, such as modeling exercises and role playing, to assess comprehension.

Study

Antonio and Crossett (2017) conducted a quasi-experiment to determine the impact of the Cognitive Life Skills (CLS) program on the recidivism rates of convicted individuals. The study took place across 10 districts in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Scranton, Williamsport, Erie, Allentown, Mercer, Altoona, and Chester). Data were collected from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole on people who were released to parole supervision during January 2010 through May 2015. Propensity score matching was employed to create a treatment group that consisted of persons who completed the CLS program (n = 2,115) and an equivalent control group of persons who received standard parole supervision (n = 2,115). Matching variables included gender, age, race, location, offense type (such as sexual offense, robbery), history of violence, and risk level for reoffending. Risk level was determined by the Level of Service–Revised (LSI–R) instrument.

Participants in the treatment group were mostly male (90.4 percent) and had an average age of 34 years. The treatment group was 47.5 percent White, 43.3 percent Black, and 9.2 percent Hispanic. Most treatment group participants were considered at high risk for reoffending (59.7 percent), followed by medium risk (33.9 percent) and low risk (6.5 percent). Thirty-two percent of the treatment group had a history of violence. Those in the control group were predominantly male (90.3 percent) and had an average age of 34 years. The control group was 47.5 percent White, 44.1 percent Black, and 8.5 percent Hispanic. Most in the control group were considered high risk (55.0 percent), followed by medium risk (37.3 percent) and low risk (7.7 percent). Of the control group, 30.8 percent of those had a history of violence. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups in baseline characteristics.

The main outcome of interest was recidivism. Recidivism was measured as a violation of condition for parole that resulted in reincarceration while under parole supervision. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate the effect of the CLS program on recidivism. The study authors conducted subgroup analyses to examine the impact of the CLS program on high-risk individuals.

More information about the program, and a sample component from the Cognitive Life Skills workbook, can be found at the National Curriculum and Training Institute website: https://www.ncti.org/programs/adult-crossroads/cognitive-life-skills.

Subgroup Analysis

Antonio and Crossett (2017) conducted subgroup analyses to examine the impact of the Cognitive Life Skills (CLS) program on high-risk offenders. High-risk individuals in the CLS treatment group were less likely to recidivate, compared with high-risk offenders in the control group. Of the high-risk offenders in the treatment group, 23.9 percent were reincarcerated, compared with 31.7 percent of the high-risk offenders in the control group. This difference was statistically significant.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile: