
Study design
Design:
Study group formation:
Time period of study:
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 receiptOther outcome domains examined:
Arrests, convictions, incarceration, physical health, mental health, substance misuse, substance use disorder treatment, and housingStudy funded by:
Results
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 | Findings | 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 |
High
Moderate
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.
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
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:
Program history:
Intervention services:
Mandatory services:
Comparison services:
Service receipt duration:
Intervention funding:
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.
28394-Study of Re-Integrat