Study Details | Pathways to Work

3144-The Center for Employment Opportunities

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: Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Prisoner Reentry Program

Population and employment barriers: Former incarceration

Services provided: Case management, Supportive services, Soft skills training, Transitional jobs, Employment coaching, Job development/job placement

Setting: Urban only

Study Design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Formerly incarcerated individuals in New York City who met certain eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to the CEO Transitional Jobs Program or to a comparison condition. To be eligible for the study, individuals had to be referred to CEO by their parole officer, report to the program, not work in a CEO transitional job in the year before baseline, and sign an informed consent form. Evaluators randomly assigned a total of 977 formerly incarcerated people to intervention (568 participants) and comparison (409 participants) conditions. The random assignment procedure was conducted only during weeks when the number of new enrollees exceeded the slots available (this is why the sample sizes for the CEO and comparison conditions were not identical). Of the 977 sample members who were randomly assigned from January 2004 through October 2005, evaluators selected everyone randomly assigned from January to December 2004 to participate in the survey as well as a random subset of those randomly assigned between January and October 2005.

Time period of study:

Participants were randomly assigned between January 2004 and October 2005. Data were collected on each participant for three years after they were randomly assigned.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Criminal justice, Substance abuse, Housing, Physical health, Marriage

Study funded by:

This evaluation was funded by ACF and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Additional funding for site development and implementation research was provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Lewin Group, the Urban Institute, and Group Health Cooperative.

Results

View Table Help Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below? View the "Table Help" to get more 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	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Quarterly earnings	Quarter 6	High	1,089.00	1,272.00	183.00	2005 dollars	973
Increase short-term earnings	Quarterly unsubsidized earnings	Quarter 6	High	1,089.00	1,261.00	172.00	2005 dollars	973
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 3	High	5,163.00	5,223.00	60.00	2009 dollars	973
Increase long-term earnings	Annual unsubsidized earnings	Year 3	High	5,159.00	5,167.00	8.00	2009 dollars	973
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	31.70	31.20	-0.50	percentage points	973
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly, unsubsidized job	Quarter 6	High	31.70	30.50	-1.20	percentage points	973
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual, unsubsidized job	Year 3	High	40.10	39.00	-1.10	percentage points	973
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 3	High	40.30	41.80	1.50	percentage points	973

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

Participants were all people who had been formerly incarcerated who were predominantly male (93 percent) at an average age of 33 to 34 years. Most were Black and not Hispanic (65 percent) or Hispanic (31 percent). Roughly half the sample had either a high school diploma or GED, and roughly three-quarters of people in the sample were U.S. citizens.

Age

Mean age	33 years
Young adults	20%

Sex

Female	7%
Male	93%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	64%
White, not Hispanic	2%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	31%
Another race	3%

Family status

Married	16%
Parents	57%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

14%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	4%
Had a high school diploma or GED	58%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	42%

Specific employment barriers

Were formerly incarcerated

100%

Intervention Implementation

Implementing organization:

Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO)

Program history:

CEO has implemented similar programs since 1996.

Intervention services:

CEO provided a comprehensive employment program for formerly incarcerated individuals. To reduce recidivism and improve labor market prospects, CEO provided formerly incarcerated individuals with temporary paid jobs working for New York City agencies and other services. Specifically, CEO’s services included a preemployment class, a transitional job, job coaching, job development, a parenting class, and post-placement services.

Mandatory services:

Study participation was not required, but participants were referred to the program by parole officers (who might have introduced penalties for nonparticipation).

Comparison services:

The individuals assigned to the comparison condition received a shorter version of the preemployment class. They had access to a resource room that offered basic job search equipment (for example, computers and fax machines), a staff person to assist them with a job search, and other services in the community.

Service receipt duration:

The authors reported that 76 percent of the intervention group members completed the weeklong preemployment class, and the average time participants spent working in a transitional job was nine weeks, spread over about four months of engagement with the program.

Intervention funding:

CEO; New York State Division of Parole.

Study Publications

Bloom, Dan, Cindy Redcross, Janine Zweig, and Gilda Azurdia (2007). Transitional jobs for ex-prisoners: Early impacts from a random assignment evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) prisoner reentry program, 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/transitional-jobs-for-ex-prisoners-early-impacts-from-a-random-assignment.

Redcross, Cindy, Dan Bloom, Gilda Azurdia, Janine Zweig, and Nancy Pindus (2009). Transitional jobs for ex-prisoners: Implementation, two-year impacts, and costs of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) prisoner reentry program, 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/transitional-jobs-for-ex-prisoners-implementation-two-year-impacts-and.

Redcross, Cindy, Megan Millenky, Timothy Rudd, and Valerie Levshin (2012). More than a job: Final results from the evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) transitional jobs program, OPRE Report #2011-18, 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/more-than-a-job-final-results-from-the-evaluation-of-the-center-for.

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

Study of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Prisoner Reentry Program