Study Details | Pathways to Work

28394-Study of Re-Integrat

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Re-Integration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) Program

Population and employment barriers:

Specific employment barriers (Former incarceration)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Financial incentives, Health services (Substance use disorder treatment and mental health services), Supportive services, Training, Work and work-based learning (Transitional jobs), Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

This study was a randomized controlled trial. All participating sites used a common set of criteria to determine eligibility. All participants were required to be age 18 or older, convicted as an adult, incarcerated for at least 120 days, enrolled in RExO within 180 days of release, and not convicted of a sex-related offense or a violent crime. Some sites imposed additional eligibility criteria. The exact timing of random assignment varied by participating site. Each site used one of the following models for conducting random assignment: (1) assign potential participants while they were incarcerated; (2) assign potential participants after they were deemed eligible to participate and after they had completed a brief program orientation; or (3) assign potential participants after they were deemed eligible to participate and after they had completed more intensive screening, including assessments and orientation activities. Of the 24 participating sites, 1 site used Model 1, 15 sites used Model 2, and 8 sites used Model 3. Each site recruited 112 to 260 participants. Within each site, about 60 percent of participants were assigned to the intervention group, and 40 percent were assigned to the comparison group. Sites enrolled participants and completed random assignment from January 2010 to January 2011.

Time period of study:

Participants were enrolled and randomly assigned from January 2010 to January 2011. The study followed participants for four years.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Arrests, convictions, incarceration, physical health, mental health, substance misuse, substance use disorder treatment, and housing

Study funded by:

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration

Results

View table help Need more context or definitions for the table below? View the table help to get insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High			180.00	2011 dollars	3,725
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 4	High			-185.00	2014 dollars	3,639
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High			0.80	Percentage points	3,725
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	67.90	71.30	3.40	Percentage points	3,581
Increase long-term employment	Employed at any time in follow-up period	Years 1–4	High			-2.60	Percentage points	3,639
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 3	High			3.00	Percentage points	2,959
Increase long-term employment	Total days employed during follow-up period	Year 3	High			18.20	Days	2,959
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of UI payments, annual	Year 1	High			21.00	2011 dollars	3,725
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of UI payments, annual	Year 4	High			32.00	2014 dollars	3,639

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

All participants were incarcerated for at least 120 days before enrolling in the program. Most (81 percent) were male. Fifty-one percent of intervention group participants were Black, 33 percent were White, and 3 percent were American Indian or Alaska Native. Less than 1 percent were Asian (0.9 percent) or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (0.6 percent). Eighteen percent were Hispanic or Latino of any race. Most participants in the intervention and comparison group had a high school diploma or GED (54 percent in the intervention group and 53 percent in the comparison group). Six percent of intervention and comparison group participants were people with disabilities.

Sex

Female	19%
Male	81%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	51%
White	33%
Asian	1%
American Indian or Alaska Native	3%
Unknown, not reported, or other	13%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	18%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	54%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	47%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability	6%
Were formerly incarcerated	100%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Organizations included local and regional nonprofits, national nonprofits, faith-based and community organizations, and community health organizations

Program history:

The Prisoner Reentry Initiative, later renamed the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders project, began in 2005. Three rounds of funding, each for a two year period, were awarded before the beginning of the study.

Intervention services:

RExO provided people who were currently or recently incarcerated with a variety of services designed to help participants locate and prepare for employment. Twenty-four grantees provided RExO services, and the bundle of services provided by each grantee varied. All grantees provided case management, individual or group mentoring, supportive services (for example, housing assistance, transportation, substance use disorder treatment, and child care), job search assistance, and education. Other services included work readiness activities, education, vocational training, job application and interview assistance, pre-release and parole referrals, and other supportive services. Participants could receive financial incentives for achieving milestones, such as remaining employed for a certain period of time. After participants secured employment or left the program, RExO offered follow-up services such as case management and supportive services. The average participant received services for 12 weeks, although the period of service receipt varied widely among participants.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

The comparison group had access to any non-RExO services available in the community.

Service receipt duration:

The average participant received services for 12 weeks, although the period of service receipt varied widely among participants.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration

Study publications

Leshnick, Sengsouvanh, Christian Geckeler, Andrew Wiegand, Brandon Nicholson, and Kimberly Foley (2012). Evaluation of the Re-Integration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) program: Interim report, Oakland, CA.: Social Policy Research Associates. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Evaluation%20of%20the%20Reintegration%20of%20ex-offenders%20full%20report.pdf

Wiegand, Andrew, and Jesse Sussell (2016). Evaluation of the Re-Integration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) program: Final impact report, Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP-2015-10_The-Evaluation-of-the-Re-Integration-of-Ex-Offenders-%28RExO%29-Program-Final-Impact-Report_Acc.pdf

Wiegand, Andrew, Jesse Sussell, Erin Valentine, and Brittany Henderson (2015). Evaluation of the Re-Integration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) program: Two-year impact report, Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETAOP_2015-04.pdf

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Study of Re-Integration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) Program

28394-Study of Re-Integrat

Study design

Design:

Study group formation:

Time period of study:

Primary outcome domains examined:

Other outcome domains examined:

Study funded by:

Results

Sample characteristics

Sex

Participant race and ethnicity

Participant education

Specific employment barriers

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Program history:

Intervention services:

Mandatory services:

Comparison services:

Service receipt duration:

Intervention funding:

Study publications