Study Details | Pathways to Work

37960-Study of Cognitive B

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition, suggesting the findings can be attributed to the program.

Program: Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Justice-Involved Individuals Seeking Employment (CBI-Emp)

Characteristics of study participants:

Adults (age 25+), Parents

Services provided:

Performance- or behavior-based financial incentives, Soft skills training

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The study used random assignment across three sites. Staff at the sites recruited participants through community outreach and community partnerships, such as partnerships with probation and patrol officers. Organizations did not actively recruit from other community-based organizations that offered similar cognitive behavioral programs. Eligible fathers completed intake, informed consent, and preliminary surveys on demographics and skills. Staff randomly assigned 752 fathers to the CBI-Emp group (375) or a comparison group (377). Ten fathers who were eligible but did not consent to participate in the study received services if they were randomly assigned to the program group, but they were not included in the study sample. To be eligible, fathers had to be involved with the justice system in the prior three years, be 18 or older, have a child younger than 25, and be moderately to highly likely to experience future involvement in the justice system, as measured by an intake assessment. Justice involvement could include being convicted of a crime, being incarcerated, or being on probation or parole.

Time period of study:

The study randomly assigned people from October 2016 to December 2018, and examined information on outcomes for up to 12 months following random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase short-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

Criminal justice, relationships with co-parents, cognitive function, economic well-being, child support, and transportation

Study funded by:

ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Results

View table definitions

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Program group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	8,646.00	7,928.00	-718.00	2017 dollars	733
Increase short-term earnings	Weekly earnings	Month 6	High	235.00	249.00	14.00	2018 dollars	594
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Month 6	High	48.90	49.50	0.60	Percentage points	594
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	46.00	47.60	1.60	Percentage points	733
Increase short-term employment	Length of longest job held since random assignment in weeks	Month 6	High	11.60	12.10	0.50	Weeks	594
Increase short-term employment	Number of quarters employed	Quarter 4	High	1.90	1.90	0.00	Quarters	733
Increase short-term employment	Number of weeks employed	Month 6	High	12.30	13.10	0.80	Weeks	594

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.

Means are not displayed when not reported or not aligned with the impact estimates. For example, if the impact estimate is regression-adjusted but only unadjusted means are reported in the study, the unadjusted means are not displayed as they are not aligned with the adjusted impact estimate.

Impact estimates are not shown when the estimate units cannot be converted to natural units.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the program. 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 program, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the program 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 fathers with recent justice involvement. More than half (55 percent) were currently on parole, probation, or community supervision, and 48 percent had been released from incarceration in the previous six months. Most (71 percent) were Black or African American, not Hispanic. About one-quarter of participants (27 percent) were working at the time of random assignment, and 37 percent had participated in cognitive behavioral services before.

Age

Mean age	38 years
Young adults (age 16-24)	9%
Adults (age 25+)	91%

Sex

Male

100%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	71%
White, not Hispanic	9%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	16%
Another race	5%

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.

Family status

Married	11%
Parents	100%

Employment and public benefit status

Were employed	27%
Were unemployed	73%

Education

Had some postsecondary education	26%
Had a high school diploma or GED	74%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	26%
Postsecondary credential	11%

Specific employment barriers

Were involved with the justice system	100%
Were fomerly incarcerated	96%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

Three community-based organizations provided the program: Passages, Inc. in Cleveland, OH; the Fortune Society in New York, NY; and Kanawha Institute for Social Research and Action, Inc. in Dunbar, WV.

Program history:

CBI-Emp was first pilot tested from October 2015 to March 2016. This study aimed to determine whether the program could be integrated into current fatherhood program services and, if so, whether it would affect employment and earnings.

Program services:

CBI-Emp provided fathers who had prior justice involvement with two weeks of workshops covering five modules: motivational engagement, cognitive restructuring, emotional regulation and social skills, problem-solving, and success planning. The workshops were intended to teach cognitive behavioral skills that could help participants become job ready and maintain employment. The study offered 20 of 31 workshop sessions developed by the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute. The study intended for participants to attend a minimum of 12 of 14 skill-based sessions, and up to 6 application sessions in which participants could build individual plans for success at work. Three organizations delivered the program at separate sites in Ohio, New York, and West Virginia. Participants received financial incentives from $25 to $75 for completing a certain number of sessions; the amounts and numbers of sessions needed to receive incentives varied across the organizations. In the weeks before CBI-Emp workshops, the organizations offered the same initial services to the participants and to the comparison group. Across the organizations, the duration of these initial services varied from three to eight weeks. The service models varied, but all included optional work readiness activities, such as workshops focused on interviewing skills and resume writing, case management, job development, and parenting and healthy relationship workshops.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

The comparison group received fatherhood and traditional job readiness services as usual at one of the three participating organizations. Across the organizations, the duration of these services varied from three to eight weeks. The service models varied, but all included optional work readiness activities such as workshops focused on interviewing skills and resume writing, case management, job development, and parenting and healthy relationship workshops. The fathers were not eligible to attend CBI-Emp workshops.

Service receipt duration:

The CBI-Emp workshops lasted two weeks.

Program funding:

The programs were funded by different sources, including Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $1,228 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $0 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $1,228 per person. This represents how much more it cost to provide intervention services compared to comparison services.

These figures are based on cost information reported by study authors. The Pathways to Work converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2024 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Brennan, Emily, Bret Barden, Sam Elkin, and Annie Bickerton (2021). Preparing fathers for employment: Findings from the B3 study of a cognitive behavioral program, OPRE Report #2021-167, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/preparing-fathers-employment-findings-b3-study-cognitive-behavioral-program.

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

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

Study of Cognitive Behavioral Program for Justice-Involved Individuals Seeking Employment (CBI-Emp)