Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

Summary

The RExO program aimed to promote employment and reduce recidivism by providing case management, mentoring, and other employment services to people recently released from prison.

Twenty-four grantees offered the RExO program, including national nonprofits, faith-based community organizations, community health organizations, and local or regional nonprofits. The exact bundle of services each grantee provided varied significantly. In all programs, case managers coordinated service delivery and supported participants. Most grantees offered group mentoring for participants, and a smaller subset offered individual mentoring. Many programs offered employment services, including pre-release and parole referrals, job search assistance, education, work-readiness activities, vocational training, and job application and interview assistance. Some grantees offered other services, including housing assistance, substance use disorder treatment, and supportive services (for example, transportation and child care). In some cases, grantees relied on external partners to provide these services, either through a formal and funded partnership or an informal referral-based partnership. The average participant received services for 12 weeks, although the period of service receipt varied widely among participants.

People could enroll in RExO within the first 180 days of release if they were age 18 or older, convicted as an adult, incarcerated for at least 120 days, and not convicted of a sex-related offense or a violent crime. Some grantees imposed additional eligibility criteria.

The intervention was delivered by grantees located in Baltimore, MD; Baton Rouge, LA; Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Cincinnati, OH; Dallas, TX; Denver, CO; Des Moines, IA; Egg Harbor, NJ; Fort Lauderdale, FL; Fresno, CA; Hartford, CT; Kansas City, MO; New Orleans, LA; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Pontiac, MI; Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; San Antonio, TX; San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA; St. Louis, MO; and Tucson, AZ.

28394-Study of Re-Integrat
Populations and employment barriers: Former incarceration

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below?
View the "Table help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

View table help

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

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $272 per year 0.013 3725
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $-146 per year -0.007 3639
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support 0% (in percentage points) 0.000 0
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 0% (in percentage points) 0.003 3639
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Little evidence to assess support $0 per year 0.000 0
Long-term Little evidence to assess support $0 per year 0.000 0
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this intervention

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1
Back to top

Implementation details

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
51%
Asian
1%
Another race
33%
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.

State(s) where implemented

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Canada

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.

Back to top