Study Details | Pathways to Work

24963.06-Study of RecycleForc

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: RecycleForce

Services provided:

Employment coaching, Job development, Peer mentoring, Soft skills training, Subsidized employment/transitional jobs, Transportation assistance

Setting: Urban only

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Criminal justice partners, including Marion County Probation, Indianapolis Parole District 3, Duvall Residential Center, and Marion County Reentry Court, referred interested and eligible formerly incarcerated people to take part in two-day orientation session. People were eligible if they were aged 18 or older, had been convicted of a crime as an adult under federal or state law, had not been convicted of a sex offense, had been released from prison in the past 120 days, scored medium to high on the Indiana Risk Assessment System, were not in violation of supervision, and did not have recent continuous employment for four or more quarters. A total of 998 people were randomly assigned to either the treatment group (501) or the control group (497).

Time period of study:

Evaluators randomly assigned people into groups for the study from January 2012 to November 2013. The study reports impacts up to 30 months after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Criminal justice, Child support, Material hardship, Economic and personal well-being

Study funded by:

Employment and Training Administration in the U.S. Department of Labor and Administration for Children and Families in the 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	2,830.00	6,034.00	3,204.00	2013 dollars	996
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Quarters 7-10	High	4,186.00	5,202.00	1,016.00	2015 dollars	997
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Month 12	High	38.50	51.40	12.90	percentage points	801
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High	8.30	21.90	13.60	percentage points	996
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 5	High	30.80	44.10	13.30	percentage points	996
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Month 30	High	42.40	51.20	8.80	percentage points	770
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Quarters 7-10	High	10.50	13.80	3.30	percentage points	997
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Quarters 7-10	High	55.70	64.70	9.00	percentage points	997
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received food stamps/SNAP, follow-up period	Quarters 1-10	High	22.00	16.30	-5.70	percentage points	770
Increase education and training	Earned OSHA or forklift certification	14 months	High	4.50	32.40	27.90	percentage points	801
Increase education and training	Earned professional license or certification (not including OSHA or forklift)	14 months	High	5.40	24.30	18.90	percentage points	801
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma or GED	14 months	High	2.20	3.80	1.60	percentage points	801

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

The study examined formerly incarcerated people. Most people were male (96 percent) and Black (82 percent) and were, on average, 34 years old. At the time the study began, 7 percent were married, 51 percent were noncustodial parents, and 24 percent did not have a high school diploma.

Age

Mean age	34 years
Young adults (age 16-24)	21%
Adults (age 25+)	79%

Sex

Male

96%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	82%
White, not Hispanic	15%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	2%
Unknown, not reported, or other	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.

Family status

Married	7%
Parents	63%
Noncustodial parents	51%

Employment and public benefit status

Public benefits recipients

22%

Education

Had some postsecondary education	6%
Had a high school diploma or GED	69%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	24%
Postsecondary credential	6%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability	1%
Had a substance abuse disorder	5%
Were involved with the justice system	100%
Were fomerly incarcerated	100%
Were experiencing homelessness	1%
Were military veterans	4%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

Social enterprises (RecycleForce, New Life Development Ministries, and The Changed Life)

Program history:

Originally called Workforce, Inc, the RecycleForce program launched in 2006. Under the Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration grant, the model expanded to include new support services and was also carried out by two additional social enterprises.

Program services:

The RecylceForce program served formerly incarcerated people. Participants were placed in a transitional job at a social enterprise (for example, an electronics recycling plant), for which they received $9 per hour for 35 hours per week (and $10.10 per hour after March 2014). In addition to the training and experience offered at their transitional job, participants had access to peer mentors who taught job-related skills and soft skills, case management, job development, financial support, and child support assistance. When participants obtained unsubsidized employment, they also had access to employment retention services.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Control group members could not participate in the RecycleForce program, but they received a list of alternative resources, including those related to employment, child support, food assistance, clothing, housing, health, and legal assistance.

Service receipt duration:

Transitional jobs could last four months.

Program funding:

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

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $12,946 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $1,696 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $11,250 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

Foley, Kimberly, Mary Farrell, Riley Webster, and Johanna Walter (2018). Reducing recidivism and increasing opportunity: Benefits and costs of the RecycleForce Enhanced Transitional Jobs program, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/reducing-recidivism-and-increasing-opportunity.

Barden, Bret, Randall Juras, Cindy Redcross, Mary Farrell, and Dan Bloom (2018). New perspectives on creating jobs: Final impacts of the next generation of subsidized employment programs, New York: MDRC. [Indianapolis.] Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/new-perspectives-creating-jobs.

Bloom, Dan (2015). Testing the next generation of subsidized employment programs: An introduction to the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration and the Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration, OPRE Report #2015-58, 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/resource/testing-next-gen-subsidized-employ-intro-enhanced-trans-jobs-demo.

Fink, Barbara (2018). Findings from in-depth interviews with participants in subsidized employment programs, OPRE Report #2018-120, 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/sites/default/files/opre/sted_topics_qualitative_508.pdf.

Redcross, Cindy, Bret Barden, and Dan Bloom (2016). The enhanced transitional jobs demonstration: Implementation and early impacts of the next generation of subsidized employment programs, New York: MDRC. [Indianapolis.] Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETJD_STED_2016_FR.pdf.

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 RecycleForce