Study Details | Pathways to Work

2433-Microtrial of an Ex-

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: Inoculation Against Setbacks (IAS) Module

Population and employment barriers:

Specific employment barriers (Former incarceration)

Services provided:

Soft skills training

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Individuals who were receiving employment services at one of three agencies in the Washington, DC, area were eligible to participate in the study if they had been released from jail or prison within the last six months, had not had a job offer or been employed for more than 19 hours per week, and spoke English. After being recruited into the study, participants were interviewed for about an hour and a half and were then randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison group.

Time period of study:

The intervention was studied over a two-week period, from random assignment through a post-intervention follow-up interview two weeks later.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

Self-efficacy, Job search behavior

Study funded by:

Not available.

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	Impact	Units	Findings	Sample size
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Two weeks	High	13.76	percentage points		47

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

The study sample was mostly male (91 percent) and Black (85 percent), and the average age was 40 years old. The average education level of participants was between 12 and 13 years, and 81 percent of participants had at least a high school diploma or equivalent certification. About one-third (30 percent) of the sample indicated that their recent incarceration was because of a parole or probation violation, and a little more than half (53 percent) reported having been found guilty of a felony.

Age

Mean age

40 years

Sex

Female	9%
Male	91%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	85%
White, not Hispanic	4%
Asian	2%
American Indian or Alaska Native	2%
More than one race	4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	2%

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	81%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	19%

Specific employment barriers

Were formerly incarcerated

100%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Three employment services organizations provided services: (1) Offender Aid and Restoration of Arlington County; (2) Jubilee Jobs of Washington, DC; and (3) Christopher Place of Baltimore, MD.

Program history:

This intervention was adapted from the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills program developed at the Michigan Prevention Research Center at the University of Michigan, which has been implemented in Maryland, California, and outside the United States.

Intervention services:

Project facilitators met for one hour with individual intervention group members to deliver the Inoculation Against Setbacks (IAS) module, designed to help participants anticipate future setbacks they might face as ex-offenders in the labor market, plan strategies for overcoming these setbacks, and stay positive and motivated about future challenges they might face in obtaining employment. Facilitators delivered this IAS module through two handouts. The first focused on a vignette of a woman who recently lost her job, and the second helped participants think of strategies to overcome future setbacks. IAS participants were then asked to write out strategies that would work best for them in overcoming setbacks and were encouraged to place these somewhere they would see frequently. All individuals also received additional employment services from the organization at which the intervention took place.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Participants in the comparison group received typical job search assistance services for one hour. All individuals also received additional employment services from the organization at which the intervention took place.

Service receipt duration:

Participants received services for about one hour.

Intervention funding:

Not available.

Study publications

Hornberger, Anna P. (2014). A randomized, controlled microtrial of an ex-offender-focused job search motivation intervention, Doctoral dissertation, Washington, DC: The George Washington University.

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 Inoculation Against Setbacks (IAS) Module

2433-Microtrial of an Ex-

Study design

Design:

Study group formation:

Time period of study:

Primary outcome domains examined:

Other outcome domains examined:

Study funded by:

Results

Sample characteristics

Age

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