Study Details | Pathways to Work

25163-Second Chance Act Ad

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: Second Chance Act (SCA) Adult Demonstration

Population and employment barriers:

Specific employment barriers (Former incarceration, Justice system involvement)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Health services (Substance use disorder treatment and mental health services), Housing, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The study included seven sites, each of which used tailored random assignment and enrollment procedures. Across all sites, people were eligible to participate in the study if they were age 18 or older, had been convicted of a crime as an adult, were currently or had been recently imprisoned, and were classified as having a medium or high risk of recidivism (each site used a different assessment). Sites also selected a specific target population based on demographic characteristics (such as men, women, or people age 30 or younger), type of incarceration facility, expected time to release, and the community or neighborhood to which the individual was returning. Individuals were identified by referrals from probation or parole partners, word of mouth, flyers distributed in facilities to generate inmate interest, or lists of eligible participants generated by program staff using a full roster of inmates. After attending an information session, being confirmed as eligible, and agreeing to participate in the study, people were randomly assigned either to the intervention or the comparison group. Random assignment probabilities varied across sites. A total of 966 people were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (606) or the comparison group (360) from December 2011 to March 2013.

Time period of study:

Evaluators randomly assigned people into groups for the study from December 2011 to March 2013. The study reports employment and earnings impacts up to two years after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

Recidivism, Housing, Health, Substance use, Child support

Study funded by:

National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

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	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Quarterly earnings	Quarter 6	High	166.00	2013 dollars	956
Increase long-term earnings	Quarterly earnings	Quarter 8	High	1,026.00	2014 dollars	754
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Month 18	High	-1.90	percentage points	788
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	2.50	percentage points	957
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 8	High	2.90	percentage points	755

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 examined formerly incarcerated people. Within the full sample, 86 percent of study participants had been incarcerated as of random assignment, and half had been incarcerated five or more times before random assignment. Most were male (79 percent), and 51 percent were White, 32 percent were African American, 10 percent were Hispanic, and 14 percent were American Indian or Alaska Native. Half were age 30 or younger, and one quarter were older than 40. One-quarter lacked a high school diploma or equivalent certificate, and 6 percent had attended college. Most (92 percent) had been employed in the past.

Sex

Female	21%
Male	79%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	32%
White	51%
Asian	1%
American Indian or Alaska Native	14%
Pacific Islander	2%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	10%

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 some postsecondary education	6%
Had a high school diploma or GED	76%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	24%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability	13%
Were involved with the justice system	100%
Were formerly incarcerated	100%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Lead implementors varied by site and included state departments of correction, local human services agencies, local health agencies, and a sheriff's office. Some services were also provided in partnership with corrections agencies, departments of correction, nonprofit organizations, departments of public health, community colleges, and other local agencies.

Program history:

The program was newly developed, but the services expanded on existing reentry services offered by the implementing agencies.

Intervention services:

Seven sites participated in the SCA Adult Demonstration, with each providing somewhat different services to the people in the intervention group. All sites provided case management and this served as the cornerstone service for six of the seven sites. Three sites provided education and training; six sites provided employment assistance, such as job search and placement assistance, resume and interview skills development, and soft-skills training; six sites provided substance abuse treatment services; five sites provided cognitive behavioral therapy, with three also providing additional mental health services; six sites provided services to encourage pro-social behavior, such as parenting classes or stress and anger management services; and five sites provided housing assistance or other supportive services. The program focused on currently incarcerated people and those who were recently released. Six sites served people before and after release, and one site served people only after their release.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

People in the comparison group did not have full access to SCA case management or the other services provided by SCA, though they did have access to regular correctional system services and could attend workshops and other services provided by SCA to the public. In two sites, prerelease SCA services were available to many people in the comparison group, although preference was given to (1) people with a court order to participate in the services and (2) those in the intervention group. In all other sites, prerelease SCA services, except for case management, were generally available to the comparison group.

Service receipt duration:

Most participants received services for more than six months (62 percent), and about one-quarter received services for more than one year.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $9,437 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $6,481 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $2,956 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 Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

D'Amico, Ron, Christian Geckeler, and Hui Kim (2017). An evaluation of seven second chance act adult demonstration programs: Impact findings at 18 months, Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates. [25164.] Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251139.pdf.

D'Amico, Ronald, and Hui Kim (2018). Evaluation of seven second chance act adult demonstration programs: Impact findings at 30 months, Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates. [25163.] Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251702.pdf.

D'Amico, Ron, Christian Geckeler, Jennifer Henderson-Frakes, Deborah Kogan, and Tyler Moazed (2013). Evaluation of the second chance act (SCA) adult demonstration 2009 grantees, Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates. [25165.] Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.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 Second Chance Act (SCA) Adult Demonstration