Skip to main content

Table 2 CEO and TJRD impacts on recidivism

From: Transitional jobs after release from prison: effects on employment and recidivism

  

CEO

TJRD

Outcome

Program Group

Control Group

Difference (Impact)

P-Value

Program Group

Control Group

Difference (Impact)

P-Value

Ever arresteda (%)

49.1

59.1

−10.0

*0.056

55.2

51.8

3.4

0.131

Ever convicted of a crimeb (%)

44.0

56.7

−12.7

**0.014

29.0

26.5

2.4

0.243

 

Convicted of a felony

15.6

14.6

1.0

0.789

--

--

--

--

 

Convicted of a misdemeanor

31.9

46.1

−14.3

***0.005

--

--

--

--

Ever incarceratedc (%)

60.2

71.3

−11.2

**0.027

--

--

--

--

 

Prison

38.9

43.4

−4.5

0.387

49.9

49.9

0.0

0.995

 

Jail

56.7

71.4

−14.7

***0.004

--

--

--

--

Ever incarcerated for a new crime (%)

26.5

35.4

−8.9

*0.061

--

--

--

--

 

Prison

11.2

12.5

−1.4

0.685

13.7

12.0

1.7

0.265

 

Jail

16.4

25.6

−9.1

**0.030

--

--

--

 

Ever incarcerated for a technical parole/probation violation (%)

38.5

39.8

−1.3

0.801

--

--

--

--

 

Prison

23.8

25.5

−1.7

0.717

31.0

31.1

−0.1

0.980

 

Jail

34.2

35.1

−0.9

0.856

--

--

--

--

Total days incarcerated

213

247

−34

0.234

--

--

--

--

 

Prison

118

138

−20

0.345

116

123

−7

0.403

 

Jail

95

109

−14

0.334

--

--

--

--

Ever arrested, convicted, or incarceratedd (%)

66.8

75.8

−9.0

*0.063

69.9

70.5

−0.6

0.768

Incarcerated at end of the follow-up periode (%)

30.1

36.1

−6.0

0.221

--

--

--

--

Sample size (CEO total = 385; TJRD total = 1,809)

225

160

  

910

899

  
  1. In the CEO evaluation, MDRC calculations were based on data from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and the New York City Department of Correction (DOC). In the TJRD evaluation, MDRC calculations were based on data from Michigan State Police, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, State of Wisconsin Department of Justice, Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, and the Department of Corrections in each state
  2. Results in this table are weighted by week of random assignment and regression-adjusted for pre-random assignment characteristics
  3. The follow-up period for CEO sample members was three years post-random assignment. The follow-up period for TJRD was two years post-random assignment
  4. Data on incarceration in jail were not collected for the TJRD evaluation
  5. In CEO, this measure includes all reasons for incarceration, such as sentences for new crimes, technical violations of parole, detainee (jail), and other admission reasons
  6. Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1%; ** = 5%; * = 10%
  7. aEach arrest date is counted only as a single event. If there are multiple crimes or charges on the same date, only the most serious charge is recorded in the analysis
  8. bSome convictions may have been associated with an arrest that occurred prior to random assignment. These convictions are counted in the analysis as occurring after random assignment
  9. cSubcategories may sum to more than the total due to multiple admissions per person during the follow-up period
  10. dThis composite measure was created by combining three measures that are not mutually exclusive: arrest, conviction, and incarceration. Participants who were arrested and/or convicted, for example, were also incarcerated. The composite measure represents people who experienced one or more of these recidivism measures
  11. eIncarceration status in the CEO evaluation based on Quarter 12 after random assignment; includes both prison and jail