Recent Studies of Programs Serving Offenders in the U.S - Andrew Wiegand
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•885 views
This seminar will focus on how countries can establish a policy framework to enable effective local action using an evidence-based approach, choosing between different measures when resources are scarce. The latest evidence from OECD countries on ‘what works’ and ‘what doesn’t’ will be considered, with participants sharing their own experiences from their perspectives as policy makers, researchers, practitioners and social entrepreneurs.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Recent Studies of Programs Serving Offenders in the U.S - Andrew Wiegand
Similar to Recent Studies of Programs Serving Offenders in the U.S - Andrew Wiegand (20)
More from OECD CFE
More from OECD CFE (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Recent Studies of Programs Serving Offenders in the U.S - Andrew Wiegand
- 1. RECENT STUDIES OF PROGRAMS SERVING OFFENDERS IN THE U.S ANDREW WIEGAND October 15, 2014
- 2. Programs Serving Offenders Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Transitional/subsidized employment Child support assistance, parenting classes, case management Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD) Transitional/subsidized employment Preemployment classes, job coaching Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) Project Employment services Mentoring Case management 2
- 3. Methodology Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Random Assignment (n=977; 568 program, 409 control) Tracked for 3 years Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD) Random Assignment (n=1,813; 912 program, 901 control) Tracked for 2 years Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) Project Random Assignment (n=4,660; 2,804 program, 1,856 control) Tracked for 3 years 3
- 4. Service Contrast Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Control group received shorter preemployment class and access to resource room; other services in community Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD) Control group received referral to job search program in their area and basic job search assistance Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) Project Control group received only referral to other services in their community 4
- 5. Overall Results Stud y Outcome Size of Impact Probability CEO Ever employed (3 years) 13.4 .000 Employed in unsubsidized job -5.3 .078 Unsubsidized earnings 486 .715 TJR D Ever employed (2 years) 29.0 .000 Employed in unsubsidized job -4.6 .040 Unsubsidized earnings 376 .230 5
- 6. Results for Those Enrolled within 90 Days of Release Stud y Outcome Size of Impact Probability CEO Ever employed (3 years) 15.1 .000 Employed in unsubsidized job -2.5 .612 Average quarterly unsubsidized employment 6.2 .074 Worked 6 or more consecutive quarters 5.9 .086 Unsubsidized earnings 1,132 .603 6
- 7. For further reference Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Redcross, C., Millenky, M, Rudd, T., and Levshin, V. (2012). More Than a Job: Final Results from the Evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Transitional Jobs Program (http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_451.pd f) Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD) Jacobs, E. (2012). Returning to Work after Prison: Final Results from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration. MDRC (http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_626.pd f) 7
Editor's Notes
- 3 characteristics shown here and 3 additional shown on the next slide for example. In reality for each grantee they’d have the whole list from Handout B –25 variables. Averages are over the last three program years. For example, on average, across grantees, 38.6% of participants served are LEP. Grantee A serves a larger percentage of LEP participants. Differences are used to adjust targets for each grantee. The percentages in the Grantee A’s Average column are made up – just an example.
- 3 characteristics shown here and 3 additional shown on the next slide for example. In reality for each grantee they’d have the whole list from Handout B –25 variables. Averages are over the last three program years. For example, on average, across grantees, 38.6% of participants served are LEP. Grantee A serves a larger percentage of LEP participants. Differences are used to adjust targets for each grantee. The percentages in the Grantee A’s Average column are made up – just an example.