The employment and reentry for formerly incarcerated persons topic area examines a broad range of employment and training programs funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration and other organizations that encourage basic skills development, educational attainment, employment, employment retention, and career advancement for individuals returning from incarceration. CLEAR assessed the strength of causal evidence provided in each study and summarized each study’s design, methods, findings, and the intervention examined.
Reentry
Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 2000 – 2017.
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 21 - 30 of 59
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of prison-based adult basic education courses on post-release employment and earnings for incarcerated people who read below the 9th-grade level. The authors also…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of prison-based adult basic education courses on post-release employment, earnings, and recidivism for incarcerated people who read below the 9th-grade level. The…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of prison-based adult basic education courses on post-release employment and earnings for incarcerated people who read below the 9th-grade level. The authors also…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of participation in prison-based adult basic education on post-release employment, earnings, and recidivism for incarcerated people who read below the 9th-grade level.…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the effect of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) program on employment and earnings outcomes for justice-involved veterans with a prior felony conviction and a mental…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of self-study of the About Face (AF) manual on competitive employment. In this nonexperimental study, the authors used statistical analyses to compare the employment…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of About Face (AF) vocational classes on competitive employment. In this nonexperimental study, the authors used statistical analyses to compare the employment outcomes…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
This study examined the impact of About Face (AF) vocational classes on competitive employment. In this nonexperimental study, the authors used statistical analyses to compare the employment…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of self-studying the About Face (AF) manual on competitive employment. In this nonexperimental study, the authors used statistical analyses to compare the employment…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
This study examined the impact of About Face (AF) vocational classes on competitive employment. In this nonexperimental study, the authors used statistical analyses to compare the employment…
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.