Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA 

200 Constitution Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

Contract No. DOL J091A20915 

Project No. 1151

1330 Broadway, Suite 1426 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Tel: (510) 763-1499 

Fax: (510) 763-1599 

www.spra.com 

Evaluation of the ReIntegration of Ex-Offenders 

(RExO) Program: Interim 

Report 

May, 2012

Prepared by: 

Sengsouvanh (Sukey) Leshnick 

Christian Geckeler 

 Andrew Wiegand 

Brandon Nicholson 

Kimberly Foley 

S O CIA L P O L ICY R ESEA R C H

A S S O CIATE S                                                                          

Disclaimer 

This report has been funded, either wholly or in part, with Federal funds from the U.S. 

Department of Labor (USDOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Office of 

Policy Development and Research (OPDR) under Contract Number DOL J091A20915. The 

report has been edited by OPDR. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the 

views or policies of the Department of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, commercial 

products, or organizations imply endorsement of same by the U.S. Government. 

i

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... ES-1

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... I-1

Ex-Offender Re-entry into Society .................................................................................. I-2

The Need for Research on Recidivism and Employment Interventions .......................... I-3

Overview of the Evaluation ............................................................................................. I-4

Research Questions ................................................................................................... I-5

Design of the Evaluation ............................................................................................. I-8

II. REXO PROGRAM COMMUNITY CONTEXT ....................................................... II-1

The Ex-Offender Population in Grantee Communities ................................................... II-1

Impact of the Economic Downturn ................................................................................. II-3

Unemployment in Grantee Communities ................................................................... II-3

Limited Job Prospects for Ex-Offenders .................................................................... II-5

Non-Employment Effects of the Economic Downturn ................................................ II-7

Other Economic Factors ............................................................................................ II-7

Opportunities for Ex-Offenders ...................................................................................... II-8

Characteristics of Employers that Hire Ex-Offenders ................................................ II-9

Characteristics of Employers that Do Not Hire Ex-Offenders .................................. II-10

Summary ...................................................................................................................... II-12

III. GRANTEE BACKGROUND ................................................................................ III-1

Grantee Characteristics ................................................................................................ III-3

Program Administration ................................................................................................. III-6

Program Management Structure .............................................................................. III-6

Program Leadership ............................................................................................... III-10

Program Staffing ..................................................................................................... III-11

Funding and Budget .................................................................................................... III-14

The RExO Grant in the Context of Organizational Budgets ................................... III-14

Budgeting of RExO Grant Funds ............................................................................ III-16

Summary ..................................................................................................................... III-17

IV. RECRUITMENT, INTAKE, ASSESSMENT, AND ENROLLMENT ..................... IV-1
ii

Target Group and Eligibility .......................................................................................... IV-1

Recruitment .................................................................................................................. IV-2

Recruitment Strategies ............................................................................................ IV-3

Recruitment Challenges .......................................................................................... IV-6

Intake and Pre-enrollment Procedures ........................................................................ IV-7

Assessment of Enrolled Program Participants ........................................................... IV-11

Summary .................................................................................................................... IV-11

V. RESULTS FROM RANDOM ASSIGNMENT ....................................................... V-1

Implementing Random Assignment .............................................................................. V-1

Point of Random Assignment ................................................................................... V-1

Random Assignment Procedures ............................................................................. V-5

Study Participants ......................................................................................................... V-6

Characteristics of Participants ................................................................................ V-10

Summary ..................................................................................................................... V-12

VI. REXO SERVICES ............................................................................................... VI-1

Overview of RExO Services ......................................................................................... VI-1

Core RExO Services ................................................................................................ VI-1

Service Flow and Service Delivery Sequence ......................................................... VI-3

Service Usage .............................................................................................................. VI-5

Case Management Services ........................................................................................ VI-6

Case Manager Background and Caseload .............................................................. VI-6

Developing Individual Development Plans .............................................................. VI-8

Maintaining Contact with Participants ...................................................................... VI-9

Connecting Participants to Supportive Services .................................................... VI-10

Providing Incentives ............................................................................................... VI-14

Employment Services ................................................................................................ VI-15

Work Readiness Training ...................................................................................... VI-15

Transitional Jobs/Trial Employment ....................................................................... VI-18

Job Development, Job Search, and Job Placement .............................................. VI-19

Education and Vocational Training ........................................................................ VI-23

Follow-Up Services ................................................................................................ VI-24

Mentoring ................................................................................................................... VI-25

Types of Mentoring ................................................................................................ VI-26

Mentoring Service Delivery .................................................................................... VI-28
iii

Mentor Recruitment, Training, and Matching ......................................................... VI-29

Challenges ................................................................................................................. VI-31

Summary .................................................................................................................... VI-32

VII. REXO PARTNERSHIPS .................................................................................... VII-1

Partnerships with Sub-Grantees ................................................................................. VII-1

Model 1: Grantees with No Sub-Grantee Partnerships .......................................... VII-2

Model 2: Grantees with Integrated Sub-Grantee Partnerships ............................... VII-3

Model 3: Grantees with Independent Sub-Grantee Partnerships ........................... VII-4

Informal Partnerships .................................................................................................. VII-5

Internal “Partnerships” for the Delivery of Non-core RExO Services .......................... VII-8

Partnerships with Criminal Justice Organizations ....................................................... VII-9

Building and Growing Partnerships ........................................................................... VII-10

The Benefits of Having Program Partners ............................................................ VII-10

Partnership Challenges ........................................................................................ VII-11

Growing Partnerships and Overcoming Challenges ............................................. VII-14

Summary ................................................................................................................... VII-16

VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO REXO .............................................................................. VIII-1

Identifying Alternative Provider Programs .................................................................. VIII-2

The Availability of Alternative Provider Programs .................................................. VIII-3

The Accessibility of Alternative Provider Programs ............................................... VIII-5

The Quality of Alternative Provider Services ......................................................... VIII-6

The Services Provided by Criminal Justice Partners ............................................... VIII-10

Summary .................................................................................................................. VIII-11

IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................ IX-1

Key Findings ................................................................................................................ IX-1

Community Context ................................................................................................. IX-1

Grantee Administration ............................................................................................ IX-2

Intake/Recruitment/Assessment .............................................................................. IX-3

Random Assignment ............................................................................................... IX-3

RExO Services ........................................................................................................ IX-4

RExO Partnerships .................................................................................................. IX-5

Alternatives to RExO ............................................................................................... IX-6

Successes and Challenges .......................................................................................... IX-6

Successes ............................................................................................................... IX-6
iv

Challenges ............................................................................................................... IX-6

Conclusion and Next Steps .......................................................................................... IX-8

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ R-1

APPENDIX A: TENURE OF REXO COORDINATORS .............................................. A-1

APPENDIX B: ALLOCATION OF STAFFING RESOURCES BY JOB 

CATEGORY BY GRANTEES ............................................................................. B-1
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) initiative was launched in 2005 as a joint initiative 

by the Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the 

Department of Justice. RExO was set up to strengthen urban communities heavily affected by 

the challenges associated with high numbers of prisoners seeking to re-enter their communities 

following the completion of their sentences. It does so by funding employment-focused 

programs that include mentoring and capitalize on the strengths of faith-based and community 

organizations (FBCOs). In June 2009, ETA contracted with Social Policy Research Associates 

(SPR), and its subcontractors MDRC and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), to 

conduct a random assignment (RA) impact evaluation of the 24 RExO grantees that had been in 

operation for more than three years. The RA study largely took place during the fifth year of 

these grantees’ operations. A critical component of this evaluation is an implementation study, 

which includes two rounds of site visits to each of the 24 RExO grantees and alternative 

providers in their communities. This report summarizes the key findings from this 

implementation study; including findings on the community context and general structure of the 

RExO grantees; their recruitment, intake and enrollment strategies; the RA process itself; the 

services RExO grantees and their partners provide; the specific partnerships in place to provide 

services; and the services available through alternative providers (to which comparison group 

members were referred) in the 24 communities. 

Community Context and General Overview of Grantees 

Ex-offenders within the 24 RExO communities are typically released from one of a handful of 

nearby institutions, consisting of a mixture of Federal, state, and, less commonly, county 

facilities. Ex-offenders in these communities confronted an array of barriers—such as substance 

abuse and low levels of education—that significantly impeded their ability to find work and 

otherwise reintegrate into their communities. 

The recent economic downturn placed additional pressures on ex-offenders. Unemployment 

rates in grantee communities increased substantially, and even if rates started to lower in some 

communities during the latter months of the study, they were still nearly double what they were 

in these communities just a few years ago, when the RExO program began. This rise in 

unemployment stiffened the competition for those jobs, which respondents felt were previously 

available to ex-offenders more easily. At the same time, grantee staff indicated that the 
ES-2

associated budget shortfalls of state and local governments reduced the overall level of services 

in RExO communities. 

Given their education levels and skill barriers, many employers were very hesitant to hire exoffenders. When they did find employment, it tended to be in one of the following industries: 

construction, food service, hotel/hospitality, landscaping/lawn care, manufacturing, 

telemarketing, temporary employment, and warehousing. Businesses that hired ex-offenders 

often exhibited one or more of the following characteristics: their criminal background checks 

were cursory or nonexistent; their owners were able to relate to ex-offenders on a personal level 

due to their own or their family members’ past offenses; they had hired ex-offenders previously; 

and they were relatively small or local to the community. 

The 24 grantees were a diverse group of organizations with extensive experience in providing a 

variety of services to vulnerable populations. The RExO program was often only one of many 

programs offered by the lead agency, and because of this fact, it built upon the structures and 

supports that were already in place, such as the staffing and infrastructure needed to deliver 

services. The majority of grantees had fairly stable leadership and staffing to oversee the grant’s 

full implementation, though there was some turnover in several sites. 

Because many of the lead agencies have large organizational budgets, the RExO grant was 

typically only a small portion of their overall budgets. Even so, respondents unanimously noted 

that the grant was significant in many ways, especially in its emphasis on a vulnerable population 

with many obstacles to employment. Grantees as a whole allocated the vast majority of their 

funding to personnel costs. Toward the end of RA, grantees were beginning to think about 

program sustainability, and many had identified funding opportunities that they hoped would 

sustain program staff members and/or key program services. 

Recruitment, Intake and Enrollment 

Prior to implementing RA, most RExO programs had an abundance of clients eager to apply for 

services. However, the implementation of the RA study late in the fourth year of the grant 

reduced the pool of willing participants somewhat because many ex-offenders were uncertain 

about the prospect of being assigned to the control group and receiving no services after making 

an effort to satisfy enrollment requirements. Consequently, many grantees discovered early in 

Year 5 that their enrollments were proceeding far more slowly than usual. In response, grantees 

significantly curtailed client pre-screening protocols that they had implemented for the previous 

four years of the grant and took other steps to make it easier for ex-offenders to enroll. In 

addition, all but a few projects significantly intensified their recruitment efforts. 

The most notable outreach targets and referral sources in Year 5 were probation/parole offices 

and halfway houses, which had not been prominent partners in previous years. RExO grantees 
ES-3

also increased the frequency with which they attended meetings and made presentations to 

prospective partners and participants. Despite this, staff members reported that the most 

prevalent source of referrals remained the word-of-mouth recommendations of former and 

current participants. 

Grantees varied in how they implemented RA, particularly in terms of timing and format. In 

some cases, RA occurred several days after orientation, so that staff members could obtain 

appropriate eligibility information and consent forms. Grantees also adjusted their intake and 

enrollment procedures in order to implement the RA process. Some grantees moved RA forward 

in their intake and enrollment process, using fewer steps to screen candidates for suitability and 

willingness to participate. A few grantees experienced difficulties with these changes while 

others managed to work in adequate suitability screening, though it occurred in a more limited 

fashion than before. 

Results from Random Assignment 

Initially, each grantee was given a target of 200 participants to enroll into the RA study, which 

would have yielded a total of 4,800 participants nationwide. Falling just short of this mark, the 

24 grantees randomly assigned a total of 4,660 individuals into either the program group or a 

control group. In particular, 2,804 individuals were assigned to the program group (60.2 percent) 

and therefore had access to the full array of services available through RExO, while the 

remaining 1,856 (39.8 percent) were assigned to the control group and were not allowed to enroll 

in RExO, though in most cases other services were available to to those in the control group. 

Nearly all grantees implemented the RA process smoothly, though the exact point at which 

participants were assigned varied across the grantees. One grantee implemented RA prior to 

participants’ release, while the remaining grantees assigned participants only after they had made 

contact with the grantee post-release. There were two general models of post-release RA, one in 

which the assignment was made in conjunction with an orientation to the program at an initial 

meeting with the participant, and the other only after some screening and assessments were 

conducted to ensure the participant was a good fit for the program and sufficiently motivated to 

participate in it. At least five of the grantees that initially adopted this latter model subsequently 

dropped much of their screening process and gravitated toward the former model after seeing 

poor early enrollment rates. 

While enrollment began slowly, it accelerated approximately in June and continued at the 

increased pace through December, when nearly all grantees discontinued intake. Ultimately, 

fifteen of the grantees reached their target of 200 participants (and an additional three reached at 

least 190). 
ES-4

Most participants were male (81 percent), between 25 and 44 years old (63 percent), and 

African-American (51 percent). Nearly 18 percent were Hispanic. The vast majority had either 

completed some high school (43 percent) or had a high school diploma or GED (42 percent). 

The vast majority were nonviolent offenders (93 percent), reflecting the requirement of the first 

four years of the program that violent offenders were ineligible.1 About one-fourth of all 

participants were on probation (28 percent), and approximately one-half were on parole (51 

percent). An analysis of the demographic characteristics of the two groups suggests that there 

are very few differences between them. This suggests that the RA process was implemented 

smoothly and operated as intended. 

Services 

Participants received an array of services, though the sequence of these services varied 

depending on how the programs structured their programs. Two-thirds of the programs (16) 

focused on stable employment as the immediate goal for ex-offenders, which meant that 

participants received work readiness training and job leads immediately after enrollment. The 

remaining third of the grantees focused on the provision of essential supportive services first, 

before participants were referred for jobs, which meant primarily that programs made sure that 

participants were stable in their housing situation and sober.2

 

Case managers played many roles in the provision of RExO services. They acted as supports to 

participants and coordinators of the various services that ex-offenders needed to receive if they 

were going to succeed. Other key findings related to case management services include the 

following: 

 Having a sufficient number of case managers was important to ensure that 

caseloads were low. Across all grantees, approximately 90 case managers were 

in place to support RExO participants (an average of 3.75 per grantee). Having a 

steady pool of case managers allowed many programs to keep the caseloads 

manageable, though caseloads increased somewhat toward the end of RA. 

 Through the support of case managers, participants gained access to 

valuable information about how to prepare for jobs, locate housing, and 

receive substance abuse treatment and other essential services. Connecting 

participants to a network of community providers gave RExO programs greater 

 

1

 The U.S. Department of Labor allowed grantees to define nonviolent status according to the classifications used 

by the individual states in which grantees were operating. 

2

 Although the primary impact analysis for the evaluation will use data pooled across all grantees, the effect on 

impacts of key variations in grantee characteristics, such as this, will also be examined. 
ES-5

access to resources, thereby increasing their chances of addressing the many 

barriers to employment that are common among ex-offenders. 

 The use of incentives, such as bus tokens and cash payments, motivated 

participants to stay connected to the program, according to grantee staff. 

In addition to case management support, RExO programs offered an array of employment 

services, including work readiness training, transitional employment, job placement assistance, 

and education and vocational training. Key findings related to employment services include the 

following: 

 Nearly all programs offered work readiness training, though the duration of 

this training varied widely, from only a few hours to more than 24 hours. 

Work readiness training appeared to be well developed, focusing on the core soft 

skills that participants needed to prepare for employment, such as résumé 

development, interviewing skills, and independent job search. Additional training 

on life skills, such as anger management and financial literacy, complemented this 

training. 

 Some participants had access to transitional jobs or trial employment, but 

this service was not provided by most grantees. Seven grantees offered 

transitional jobs or trial employment, with positions typically in the retail, food 

service, construction, and manufacturing industries. 

 Job clubs allowed participants to network and share job leads. The six 

grantees that offered job clubs discovered that bringing participants together in a 

group to share job leads, challenges, and successes not only offered a good source 

of moral support, but also helped connect participants to employment 

opportunities. 

 Outreach to employers was limited, due to factors such as insufficient job 

development staffing and the lack of marketing skills among job developers. 

Far fewer job developers were hired to help participants with job search assistance 

and job placement compared with the number of case managers available. Many 

job developers also lacked sufficient training and experience with employer 

outreach and marketing. 

 Grantees targeted the employers, which were the most likely to provide 

participants with employment opportunities. Job developers made an effort to 

sell the RExO program to employers that have a history of hiring ex-offenders, 

and they sought to educate employers about the tax benefits and Federal bonds 

available if they hired ex-offenders. 

Lastly, nearly all grantees offered mentoring services, both individual and group. The quality 

and intensity of mentoring services were mixed, and many programs struggled to recruit a 

sufficient number of community volunteers, and, as a result, relied primarily on group 

mentoring. While some participants indicated that they appreciated these groups and group 

events, they often strongly resembled other services available in the program, such as work 

readiness training or life skills training. Consistent across almost all grantees was the finding 
ES-6

that ex-offenders were often more willing to participate in group mentoring than in individual 

mentoring. 

Partnerships 

Grantees sometimes lacked the capacity to provide the full slate of required RExO services and 

rarely had the capacity to provide all the programs and services necessary to meet the many 

needs of the ex-offender population. In order to fill these gaps, they reached out to other 

programs and services in the community to form partnerships. These partnerships also helped 

grantees increase the likelihood for future funding by increasing their effective capacity, 

strengthening their standing in the community, and further enriching their services by providing 

them with the means for better knowing their own clients. 

The partnerships formed by the RExO grantees took many different forms. In the area of formal, 

sub-grantee relationships for the delivery of core services (e.g., case management, employment 

services, and mentoring), three different models existed. Twelve grantees used no sub-grantees 

at all. Six grantees had tightly coordinated sub-grantee relationships defined by co-located staff, 

frequent opportunities for information sharing, and other systems designed to increase 

transparency and communication. The remaining six had sub-grantees that operated somewhat 

independently, in some cases offering a full range of core RExO services and in others just single 

components. 

Other partnerships were less formal and involved referrals for non-core RExO services such as 

housing, substance abuse treatment, and transportation, although some also included pieces of 

core RExO services such as work readiness courses or vocational training. These relationships 

with external organizations ranged from limited to quite strong, based on their histories and the 

level of effort grantees made to develop the relationships. Two other types of relationships 

existed among RExO grantees: internal “partnerships” with programs and services operated by 

the grantee or its contracted sub-grantees that were not part of the RExO program, and informal 

ties with criminal justice organizations. 

Grantees had many challenges in building and maintaining partnerships. The challenges 

included a lack of funding to support partnerships, complex and sometimes competing 

restrictions placed on ex-offenders by other programs, selecting partners with different 

approaches, partnerships dependent on particular staff members staying with the organization, 

poor quality services provided by some partners, low take-up rates in partner programs, and 

resistance among certain grantees to building partnerships. Grantees overcame or mitigated 

these challenges through a variety of strategies that included: identifying promising partnership 

opportunities through local provider coalitions, staff member networks, and long-standing 

relationships; attracting partners by building up their reputations in their communities; entering 
ES-7

into partnerships with full knowledge of the potential partners; knowing when to end 

partnerships that were not working; and maintaining strong partnerships through good, frequent, 

and systematic communication and coordination. 

Alternative Providers 

In nearly all the RExO communities, there were multiple other agencies providing services to exoffenders that could serve as an alternative to RExO. Several findings emerge about the various 

alternative services within grantee communities that were available to control group members 

and RExO participants alike. 

 Alternative provider services—other than those involving mentoring—were 

readily available. The research team identified 97 providers across the 24 

grantee communities that offered at least one core RExO service. Each grantee 

community had between two and eight such providers, and each of the three core 

RExO services was available through some combination of alternative providers 

in every grantee community, with many communities having more than one of 

each. However, only 20 grantees offered mentoring services, and only 15 grantee 

communities had a mentoring provider outside the RExO program. 

 Alternative provider services, with a few exceptions, were accessible. 

Respondents noted that alternative provider services generally were visible to the 

ex-offender population, were located where ex-offenders could reach them 

relatively easily, used eligibility criteria that left them sufficiently open to those 

eligible for RExO, and had sufficient capacity to serve control group members. 

 Within most communities, the quality of alternative provider services was 

roughly similar to or slightly lower than the quality of similar services 

offered by the RExO program. The assessment of service quality was based on 

measurements of the intensity of the services offered and on the views of 

respondents within grantee communities. The research team found that core 

services offered by alternative providers were slightly less intense than the same 

services offered by the grantee organizations within the same communities.3

 

In addition to these “alternative” providers, the implementation study also examined the services 

ex-offenders could receive either prior to release from prison or those they could receive postrelease, under supervision by a probation or parole officer. Pre-release services were available to 

some degree in all grantee communities, and they often included a slate of services similar to 

what ex-offenders find in post-release programs (though they generally were substantially less 

 

3

 This could have important ramifications for the impact analysis. Control-group members will be asked as part of 

the follow-up survey whether they received alternative services. If a substantial portion did, this could limit the 

size of the impacts observed. 
ES-8

intensive). Supervision by probation and parole officers tended to involve monitoring more than 

service delivery, especially in times of tighter budgets. 

Impact Evaluation 

The Impact Report for this evaluation will be submitted in late 2013. It will draw upon a survey 

conducted of all study participants approximately eighteen months after they entered the study 

and administrative data on criminal justice outcomes for study participants. Additionally, it will 

rely on data from the implementation study, which form the core of this report. As described in 

this report, the implementation study data reveal that RExO was implemented in widely varying 

ways across the 24 grantees and, given this variation, the impact analysis will not assess the 

impacts of a single program model, but rather the impacts associated with the funding stream 

known as RExO. Additionally, there were important differences in the level and variation of 

alternative services available, which control group members may have accessed. As a result, the 

service contrast across the sites may vary substantially and this could affect the impact analysis 

as much as the services provided under RExO itself. The data from the implementation study 

that are summarized in this report can be used to assess this contrast, as well as the variability 

among the RExO grantees, and thus will play a critical role in the forthcoming Impact Report. 
I-1

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) project began in 2005 as a joint initiative of the 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), the Department of 

Justice (DOJ), and several other agencies. At that time, it was known as the Prisoner Reentry 

Initiative (PRI), but was renamed RExO under the Obama administration. RExO was set up to 

strengthen urban communities heavily affected by the challenges associated with high numbers 

of prisoners seeking to re-enter their communities following the completion of their sentences. It 

does so by funding employment-focused programs that include mentoring and capitalize on the 

strengths of faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs). RExO built on several earlier 

and ongoing Federal reentry initiatives, mostly emanating from DOJ or ETA, including Weed 

and Seed, the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), the Reentry Partnership 

Initiative, and, most directly, Ready4Work. 

Three rounds, or generations, of RExO funding have been awarded.4

 Generation I RExO 

funding was awarded to 30 organizations across the country for a two-year period. Following 

this, 24 of these grantees were given subsequent funding to continue operating RExO for three 

additional years. In June 2009, ETA contracted with Social Policy Research Associates (SPR), 

and its subcontractors MDRC and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) to conduct a 

random assignment (RA) impact evaluation of these 24 RExO grantees and their partners. A 

critical component of this evaluation is an implementation study, which includes two rounds of 

site visits to each of the 24 RExO grantees and alternative providers in their communities. This 

report summarizes the key findings from this implementation study and sets the stage for the 

impact estimations and Impact Report, which are to be completed in 2012. To furnish a context 

for the discussions in the subsequent chapters, this chapter provides three important pieces of 

background: an overview of the key issues surrounding reentry, a synopsis of the research on the 

effectiveness of employment programs in helping ex-offenders avoid returning to prison, and an 

overview of the evaluation. The latter section details the key research questions to be addressed 

by the evaluation, summarizes the random assignment process that establishes the two groups 

 

4

 A fourth generation of funds was awarded to ten grantees in June 2011. 
I-2

from whose outcomes the impact estimates will be produced, describes the additional data 

collection that will be conducted as part of the evaluation, and outlines the implementation study 

that is the focus of this report. 

Ex-Offender Re-entry into Society 

More than two million people are incarcerated in Federal and state prisons and local jails, and 

well over 600,000 people are released from state prisons each year [Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(BJS), 2007]. Once released, ex-prisoners face daunting obstacles to successful reentry: 

difficulties with finding jobs, housing, and services for substance abuse or mental health 

problems; huge child support arrears; and challenges in reintegrating with their families. 

Moreover, they are concentrated in a relatively small number of urban neighborhoods that 

experience high rates of poverty and other social problems. Not surprisingly given these 

challenges, rates of recidivism are very high. The most recent national statistics show that twothirds of ex-prisoners are rearrested and half are reincarcerated within three years of release 

(Langan and Levin, 2002), most commonly for violations of parole conditions, rather than for 

new crime convictions (Petersilia, 2003). Given these statistics, efforts aimed at reducing 

recidivism are critical. 

Although the relationship between crime and work is complex, most experts believe that stable 

employment is critical to a successful transition from prison to the community. However, a large 

proportion of former prisoners are hard to employ due to low levels of education and work 

experience, health problems, stigmatization, and personal characteristics that are not viewed 

favorably by employers. While it is difficult to isolate the impact of incarceration on labor 

market outcomes, several studies have found that earnings—and possibly the chances of finding 

employment as well—are lower for individuals who have spent time in prison than for similar 

individuals who have not (Western, Kling, and Weiman, 2001). Finally, studies have shown that 

employers are quite reluctant to hire ex-offenders, particularly African Americans, those with 

violent offenses, and those who were recently released—and that employers are increasingly 

likely to conduct background checks before making hiring decisions (Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll, 

2007; Pager, 2007). In sum, many people enter the criminal justice system hard to employ and 

leave it even harder to employ. 

Of course, the fact that ex-prisoners tend to struggle in the labor market and frequently end up 

back in prison does not necessarily mean that improving their employment outcomes will reduce 

recidivism. In other words, the relationship between low employment and high recidivism is not 
I-3

necessarily causal and, in fact, most offenders are employed at the time of arrest.5 But there are 

both theoretical arguments and empirical evidence to support the notion that crime is linked to 

unemployment, low earnings, and job instability (Bernstein and Houston, 2000; Urban Institute 

Justice Policy Center, 2006; Sampson and Laub, 2005). Legitimate employment may reduce the 

economic incentive to commit crimes, and also may connect ex-prisoners to more positive social 

networks, role models, and daily routines. Moreover, many prisoners identify finding a job as 

one of the highest priorities upon release (Visher and Lattimore, 2008; Nelson, Deess, and Allen, 

1999). In short, it is reasonable to hypothesize that interventions that can boost employment and 

earnings among ex-prisoners will also lead to reductions in recidivism. The RExO program was 

created as one response to this hypothesis. The RExO design is based on a three-stage reentry 

framework that begins with pre-release services, progresses through structured reentry, and then 

moves to community reintegration; its basic strategy is to provide work readiness and 

employment-based training and services to re-entering offenders age 18 and above. 

The Need for Research on Recidivism and Employment 

Interventions 

Unfortunately, there is little reliable evidence about which types of employment services, if any, 

are effective for former prisoners. Despite a long history of research in the criminal justice field, 

including some experimental evaluations, there have been very few rigorous studies of 

employment-focused reentry models. For example, a meta-analysis of the effects of “community 

employment programs on recidivism among persons who have previously been arrested, 

convicted, or incarcerated” found only eight such studies that used random assignment designs, 

and several of those studies did not specifically target ex-prisoners. The authors note that “this 

systematic review...is hampered by inadequate contemporary research” (Visher, Winterfield, 

and Coggeshall, 2005). The 2005 meta-analysis found no overall impact on recidivism from the 

programs that were included in the analysis. Several of the most important studies of 

employment-focused programs for ex-prisoners, including the National Supported Work 

Demonstration, the Living Insurance for Ex-Prisoners project, and the Transitional Aid Research 

Project were conducted in the 1970s. After these studies produced generally discouraging 

results, there was a long hiatus—only a small handful of rigorous evaluations in this field were 

conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. 

 

5

 According to BJS, between 57 percent and 76 percent of state prison inmates (depending on educational 

attainment) had wage income in the month prior to admission. Between 48 percent and 70 percent reported that 

they were working full-time. 
I-4

The flurry of interest in the reentry issue during the past five to ten years has triggered a new 

round of studies. The multi-site Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) 

evaluation found modest improvements in outcomes for adult program recipients and no 

differences among youth participants (Lattimore and Visher, 2009). Other non-experimental 

studies have examined Texas’s Project RIO, San Diego’s Second Chance program, 

Ready4Work, and others. These studies have produced very useful findings. However, because 

most experts agree that personal motivation is a key factor in explaining why some ex-prisoners 

end up back in prison and others do not, there is some concern that ex-prisoners who volunteer 

for programs may be different from those who do not, and it is very difficult to measure or 

control for motivation in a non-experimental evaluation. 

In 2004, a random assignment evaluation of the New York City-based Center for Employment 

Opportunities (CEO), one of the nation’s largest and most highly regarded employment 

programs for ex-prisoners, was initiated as part of the Department of Health and Human 

Services’ Hard-to-Employ project. Results showed that CEO produced a large but short-lived 

increase in employment (driven primarily by subsidized jobs) and statistically significant 

decreases in several measures of recidivism, particularly for sample members who came to the 

program shortly after their release from state prison. After two years, results showed an 

unexpected pattern: positive recidivism impacts continued after employment impacts faded 

(Redcross, et al., forthcoming). In 2006, the Joyce Foundation developed the Transitional Jobs 

Reentry Demonstration (TJRD), a four-site random assignment study of transitional jobs 

programs for recently released ex-prisoners. One-year results from TJRD showed a pattern of 

employment impacts that was similar to CEO, with a short-term increase in employment, driven 

by the transitional jobs, that faded by the end of the year. However, in contrast to the CEO 

evaluation, there were few impacts on recidivism. 

Overview of the Evaluation 

The RExO evaluation is primarily an impact evaluation, designed to measure the effects of 

program participation6 on ex-offenders’ employment, earnings, recidivism, and other outcomes 

using a random assignment (RA) design. RA establishes two equivalent groups—a program and 

control group—and compares their outcomes. In addition, the evaluation also includes an 

implementation study, a survey of all study participants, and administrative data collection on 

 

6

 Technically, the impact study will assess the effects of the intent to provide program services to participants, 

rather than program participation itself. For ease of presentation, the term “program participation” is used in this 

report. In the strictest sense, however, what is being measured is the impact of the intent to provide RExO 

services. 
I-5

criminal justice outcomes.7 Each of these components will be used to address the key research 

questions. 

Research Questions 

The RExO evaluation has seven primary objectives: 

 Identify the impacts of the RExO grantees’ programs on reentering offenders’ 

labor market and recidivism outcomes. 

 Examine the program’s impacts by key subgroups (e.g., age, race and ethnicity, 

gender). 

 Document and assess each grantee’s experience in implementing RExO, including 

the provision of employment-centered services and mentoring. 

 Document the partnerships and linkages that grantees develop with the workforce 

investment and criminal justice systems, faith-based and community-based 

organizations, and housing and substance abuse treatment providers, among 

others. 

 Describe job training and placement services, transitional housing services, 

mentoring services, and other services received by control- and program-group 

members. 

 Identify best practices and challenges in the design and implementation of RExO, 

including those involving linkages with the One-Stop Career Center system. 

These objectives lead directly to two sets of research questions guiding the evaluation: those 

associated with the impact study and those associated with the implementation evaluation. 

Questions Associated with the Impact Study 

The primary objective of this evaluation is to document the impact of the services provided by 

RExO grantees on employment, earnings, recidivism, and other critical participant outcomes. 

Accordingly, key questions are the following: 

 What impacts do RExO services and grantees have upon participants’ outcomes? 

 What are the impacts on employment-related outcomes (including 

entered employment rate, retention, employment patterns and 

stability)? 

 What are the impacts on earnings? 

 

7

 These research activities are designed to take place over five years, although the evaluation is actually structured 

as a three-year evaluation, with two option years to be exercised at the discretion of ETA. In subsequent 

sections, any activities that are scheduled to occur during the two-year option period are noted as pending ETA’s 

decision to fund those option years. 
I-6

 What are the impacts on recidivism (including arrests, convictions, 

incarcerations, violations of parole, etc.)? 

 What are the impacts on various other outcomes, such as receipt of 

services, work readiness, and housing stability? 

 Do these impacts vary across grantees or by grantee characteristics? 

 How do impacts vary by grantee characteristics (e.g., partnership 

arrangements, range of services, length of participation, type of case 

management/supervision)? 

 How do they vary by contextual characteristics (e.g., community 

factors, individual factors, partner factors)? 

 What are the variations in impacts by subgroups? 

 How do the impacts vary across different demographic groups (i.e., 

gender, race, ethnicity, age)? 

 How do the impacts vary across different categories of offense (i.e., 

first-time versus repeat offenders, level of crime severity)? 

 How do the impacts vary across other types of groups (i.e., those with 

different employment histories, with different levels of educational 

attainment)? 

Questions Associated with the Implementation Evaluation 

Although the impact study questions form the heart of the analysis for this evaluation, they can 

only identify whether there is an impact of RExO services and if there are differences in impacts 

between grantees or between different groups of offenders. To understand why these differences 

exist, it is necessary to understand how the grantees differ in the services and supervision they 

provide, and how contextual factors differ between the communities in which these participants 

are living. Key research questions for this portion of the evaluation addressed in this report 

include the following: 

Context 

 What contextual factors have been important in the development of RExO across 

sites? 

 What are the typical characteristics of reentering prisoners (i.e., age, education, 

employment history)? Has the evaluation altered the nature of those served? 

Outreach and Recruitment 

 What efforts do RExO grantees make to recruit participants? 

 Have grantees needed to recruit more participants than usual during the RA 

process? If so, how did that change the composition of the program group from 

what would normally have been expected? 
I-7

 What referral system(s) are in place between RExO grantees and FBCOs, the 

workforce system, the criminal justice system, housing providers, and other 

agencies providing re-entry services? 

Program Administration 

 How have grantees organized themselves to administer the project? 

 Who makes the decisions about the services that participants receive? A case 

manager? The participant? Someone else? 

Services 

 To what extent do prisoners begin receiving services prior to release from 

incarceration? 

 What services do potential participants receive before random assignment? Has 

the point of enrollment been modified as a result of the evaluation? 

 What are the key variations across grantees in the services provided to 

participants? 

 What services are required for participants in each site? 

 What other services are available in each site? 

 How long does a typical participant receive services before securing 

employment? Before exiting the program? 

 What entity provides the services? 

 What employment-centered services (e.g., assessment, work readiness training, 

education/basic skills remediation, job training, job placement, post-placement 

follow-up) are available to program-group members? How are these services 

delivered? 

 What mentoring services are provided to program-group members? How are 

these services provided? How are mentors recruited and trained? 

 What other reentry services are provided (e.g., housing, substance abuse and 

mental health services, etc.)? 

 What is the overall quality of services of each grantee? 

 To what extent do RExO services differ from services provided to other offenders 

served by the grantee? How do grantees ensure that control group members do 

not receive other similar services from them that are similar to RExO? 

 What follow-up services are provided to participants? For how long? What 

organization is responsible for providing these services? 

 Are there any problems with crossovers (control group members receiving 

services they should not be receiving)? 

 What services are available to control group members? 
I-8

Outcomes 

 What performance outcomes for participants are emphasized by the grantee? Are 

specific targets for these outcomes set? What outcomes are of greatest interest to 

participants? 

 What are the key barriers to participants achieving their employment objectives? 

To staying out of prison? 

 What are the primary challenges in working with offenders? What strategies have 

been developed to deal with these challenges? 

Design of the Evaluation 

As described above, the evaluation used a RA design to establish program and control groups. 

Key components of the evaluation are a survey of all study participants, administrative data 

collection, and the implementation study. In the next sections, the RA design and each of these 

components are described in turn. 

Random Assignment 

Sixty percent of all eligible individuals were assigned to the program group and provided access 

to RExO services, while the remaining forty percent were assigned to a control group that is 

prohibited from receiving RExO services during the intake period and for a period of twelve 

months following that time. 

All of the grantees had well-established intake and enrollment procedures that functioned as 

frameworks within which to insert the RA process. Each grantee was assigned a site liaison, 

who was a member of the evaluation team. The site liaisons worked with grantees to tailor the 

RA procedures to each grantee’s existing operations, train grantee staff on these procedures, and 

monitor the implementation of RA. In addition, site liaisons worked directly with grantees to 

develop specific strategies for overcoming challenges related to the implementation of RA, 

including, most notably, low enrollment numbers, as described in Chapter IV. 

The first participants were enrolled into the study in late January 2010, when one grantee 

implemented RA. The remaining grantees implemented RA between February 1 and April 1, 

2010. Grantees continued enrolling individuals into the study for the remainder of the calendar 

year or, in two cases, until they had reached the target of 200 study participants.8

 A total of 

4,660 individuals were enrolled into the study, including 2,804 program-group members and 

1,856 control-group members. The Impact Report, to be submitted in 2013, will summarize the 

data obtained from these 4,660 individuals and examine the differences in outcomes between 

 

8

 Two grantees continued enrolling individuals into the study through January 2011. 
I-9

those in the program group and those in the control group to assess the impacts of the RExO 

program. 

Follow-Up Survey 

The primary means of collecting information on employment and earnings information will be a 

survey of all study participants. If ETA opts to fund the final two option years of the contract, a 

second survey will be conducted after 36 months. The survey is to be administered using 

Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing/Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing 

(CATI/CAPI) technology.9

 

The surveys will document the number of jobs individuals have held since their entry into the 

study, the duration of each job, the number of hours they worked, and their earnings per hour. 

This will enable the evaluation team to develop multiple indicators of employment, including 

whether participants were employed in a given month or quarter, their employment stability, and 

their earnings in a given period. In addition to questions concerning employment and earnings, 

the surveys will include questions on services the participants may have received, including 

employment and training services, mentoring activities, and support services such as housing or 

substance abuse assistance. The surveys will also include questions concerning recidivism and 

any subsequent criminal justice involvement participants may have had since their enrollment 

into the study. Although recidivism measures will be calculated using these data, the primary 

means by which recidivism will be examined is through the collection of administrative criminal 

justice data, described in the next section. 

Collection of Criminal Justice Data 

Criminal justice data will serve as the primary source of data on recidivism for study 

participants. Because there are many possible ways to define recidivism, data will be collected 

on a range of outcomes for each study participant: 

 Arrests

 Convictions

 Incarceration 

These data will be used to create a variety of recidivism measures, including whether an 

individual was arrested, convicted, or incarcerated following RA, as well as the number of such 

events that occurred, the time it took until the first event (arrest, conviction, incarceration), and 

 

9

 The initial survey had been scheduled to be administered 12 months following entry into the study. Because of 

substantial delays in getting approval for the survey, this period has been changed to approximately eighteen 

months after individuals entered the study, though they will still be asked about the twelve-month period 

following their entry into the study. 
I-10

the duration of time spent incarcerated since RA. Data will also be collected for each study 

participant for the period before RA (i.e., a criminal history). Those data will be used to help 

describe the sample in terms of participants’ criminal histories, to increase the precision of 

impact estimates by using these as covariates in the analysis, and to identify subgroups of 

participants with different criminal histories for analysis. 

Data will be collected from state criminal justice agencies in three extracts. An initial extract 

was requested in the Spring of 2011, enabling the evaluation team to develop variables of prior 

criminal history, which can be used to compare the program and control groups and to specify in 

advance the key subgroups (based on criminal justice history) that will be explored in the Impact 

Report. A subsequent extract will be requested in early 2012. Should ETA opt to fund the final 

two years of the evaluation, a third data request will be made in early 2014 to cover the 

approximately three-year period following RA. 

Implementation Study 

In addition to the wealth of data to be collected from participants, it is also critical to collect data 

on RExO services and practices. Collection of data on the implementation and processes of the 

24 RExO grantees will allow the evaluators to contextualize the impact data in three important 

ways. First, it allows the evaluators to identify and compare the services provided to program 

group members and the standard services that are available to ex-offenders in the control group. 

It also allows for identification of the variations in the services provided by the 24 grantees and 

their partners and documentation of the way participants are directed toward different services. 

Second, it enables the evaluators to identify variations in the overall quality of services that may 

be expected to affect overall impacts of the program. Third, it allows the evaluators to describe 

differences in the contextual factors between communities in which the sites are operating, 

including the differences in alternative services available to participants. 

The evaluation team conducted two site visits during the intake period to each of the 24 grantees. 

The first of these visits occurred between April and June 2010, involved three days on site, and 

entailed learning about the grantees, their services, partners and alternative services in grantee 

communities. During the second round of visits, which occurred between September and 

December 2010, evaluation staff members spent two days on site. The first day focused on 

documenting any changes or modifications made to the program since the initial visit. The 

second day focused on a more involved documentation of alternative services available to 

offenders in each community, such as those from One-Stop Career Centers and from other 

community-based organizations (CBOs). 

Data for the implementation study were obtained through four primary sources: (1) reviews of 

written program materials; (2) semi-structured interviews with staff members, administrators of 

grantee organizations, partner programs, representatives from alternatives to RExO within 
I-11

grantee communities, and employers; (3) on-site observations of grantee and partner program 

operations; and (4) group discussions with program participants and case file reviews. 

Anticipating that each grantee would have a different set of partners and different collaborative 

arrangements, this multi-pronged approach permitted flexibility in adapting data collection 

activities to circumstances and helped minimize the burden on grantees. Because evaluation 

team members used previously developed discussion guides and checklists for each potential 

data collection activity, they obtained comparable information across all the sites, and across 

respondents within a given site. 

Subsequent chapters of this report present the key findings from the implementation study. 

Chapter II presents an overview of the community and economic context in which the grantees 

operated. Chapter III provides an overview of the 24 grantees that participated in this evaluation, 

describing their structure, leadership, staffing, and partnerships. Chapter IV summarizes the 

recruitment, enrollment, and intake procedures used by the grantees, including how these aspects 

of the program were affected by the evaluation. Chapter V summarizes the RA process, provides 

details on the specific procedures put in place to generate the program and control groups, and 

details the characteristics of the individuals in the two groups. Chapter VI details the specific 

services grantees provided to those in the program group, including employment, mentoring, 

case management, and follow-up services. Chapter VII summarizes the partnerships grantees 

established to assist them in delivering services and working with ex-offenders. Chapter VIII 

examines the availability, accessibility and quality of alternative services available in the 24 

grantee communities which may have been accessed by control-group members. Finally, 

Chapter IX summarizes the notable accomplishments of the grantees as well as the challenges 

they encountered while attempting to provide high-quality services and implement a rigorous RA 

evaluation. 

These chapters provide a detailed description of the different program models and the range of 

services that were provided by the 24 grantees. This report thus lays an important foundation for 

subsequent reports to be produced for this evaluation. Those subsequent reports, which will 

summarize any impacts of the program, will use the analysis and findings contained in this 

Interim Report to provide the context for why there may be impacts from the program, and why 

there is variation in impacts across programs or types of participants. 
I-12

This page intentionally left blank
II-1

II. REXO PROGRAM COMMUNITY CONTEXT 

To provide a context for the discussion of enrollment, services, partnerships, and implementation 

challenges and successes that occurs in the following chapters of the report, this chapter provides 

background information on the communities in which RExO grantees operated. It starts by 

taking a close look at characteristics of the ex-offender population in grantee communities, 

including many of the barriers that members of this population face when trying to re-enter 

society. It then discusses some implications of the recent economic downturn for re-entry, 

including limited employment opportunities and scarcity of social services. Finally, the chapter 

turns to the job opportunities that exist for ex-offenders, as reported by grantees, and some of the 

characteristics of employers that do and do not tend to hire ex-offenders. 

The Ex-Offender Population in Grantee Communities 

When seeking to understand the context in which RExO programs operated, one factor to 

consider is the composition of the ex-offender population that was released into grantee 

communities. In each grantee community, approximately four to six incarceration facilities were 

responsible for releasing most ex-offenders. In most cases, these facilities were primarily 

Federal and state prisons, although in many communities one or two were county jails. Most of 

these facilities served men, but usually one or two served women. A few communities stood out 

as having a more unusual set of feeder facilities. Hartford, for instance, has no county jails since 

Connecticut has no county system of government; all sentences, even those of less than 12 

months, are served in state prison. Fresno, CA, known within the criminal justice community as 

“prison valley,” has more than six state prisons that feed ex-offenders into the area, in addition to 

several county jails and Federal prisons. 

The implementation evaluation gained only a general picture of the sentences served by exoffenders in each grantee community. Interview respondents in several communities discussed 

their impressions of how many ex-offenders had served time most recently for a range of minor 

to moderate offenses, such as those involving drugs and drug trafficking, theft, prostitution, and 

failure to pay child support. Respondents did not provide as much information about the 

numbers of ex-offenders who had served sentences for more serious crimes, such as those 

involving firearms, gang activity, and burglary. This information is largely consistent with the 
II-2

composition of the ex-offenders with which many of the interview respondents worked, given 

that RExO programs and many alternative providers tended to work with ex-offenders who 

served time for less serious offenses. Interview respondents in a few communities also noted 

how a considerable percentage of the ex-offender population was most recently incarcerated due 

to some sort of parole violation. 

The size of the ex-offender population in each RExO community is largely a function of the 

community’s overall size, although there are variations related to other factors. According to 

estimates offered by grantee, partner, and criminal justice staff members, the average number of 

individuals released from jails and prisons each year in grantee communities ranges from as few 

as 3,000 to as many as 20,000. In fact, the total size of the ex-offender population in these 

communities is much larger, because many ex-offenders, released over the course of many years, 

already reside in them. 

Members of the ex-offender population in all grantee communities face significant barriers. 

Interview respondents, which included the staff members of criminal justice organizations and 

other service organizations not affiliated with the RExO programs, spoke about some of these 

barriers. Most frequently mentioned was substance abuse. Respondents in six communities 

estimated that half to two-thirds of the ex-offender population have substance abuse issues that 

were either directly or indirectly responsible for their incarceration, while respondents in at least 

11 other communities simply noted how prevalent substance abuse issues are amongst exoffenders. Another significant barrier is the low level of educational attainment of ex-offenders, 

which hurts their ability to find and retain employment. Respondents in at least 15 RExO 

communities discussed how few ex-offenders had obtained a high school diploma. Other 

barriers mentioned by respondents include the following: 

 lack of an adequate support system—family, friends and community—to assist in 

the transition; 

 difficulty finding work—a particular problem when not working can be a 

violation of parole; 

 difficulty finding housing, often because of limited income or landlord biases 

against ex-offenders; 

 lack of transportation, which affects job search and ability to get to service 

providers; 

 a variety of mental health issues (and a lack of care providers); 

 gang-related pressures; 

 poor attitudes and low motivation to improve; 

 the stigma of being low-income; and 

 an inability to make child-support payments. 
II-3

Many of these barriers are exactly what RExO programs and other service providers seek to 

address. 

Impact of the Economic Downturn 

Employment prospects for ex-offenders are poor even in good economic times. These 

individuals face biases and obstacles based on their criminal history and other challenges that are 

associated with living in the low-income, high-minority neighborhoods to which so many of 

them return after being released. Still, no evaluation of a workforce program within the last 

couple of years can ignore the tremendous additional impact of the recent economic downturn. 

As we discuss in the following sections, the recession affected employment prospects by 

reducing the availability of jobs and extending the length of time it takes to secure employment. 

The economic downturn also put a strain on RExO communities in other ways, particularly by 

reducing funding for services and for criminal justice supervision. 

Unemployment in Grantee Communities 

As is illustrated in Exhibit II-1, the national unemployment rate in the U.S. for 2010, when the 

bulk of RA occurred, was 9.6 percent. That rate is nearly double what it was a few years earlier, 

when the 24 RExO grantees first established their programs; as a result it was much harder for 

ex-offenders to find work in 2010 than it was a few years earlier.10 

 

10 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/laus_01252011.htm/ 
II-4

Exhibit II-1: 

Non-Seasonally Adjusted Rates of Unemployment in Grantee Communities for 2010 
II-5

Also illustrated in Exhibit II-1 is the 2010 unemployment rate for the 24 communities in which 

the RExO grantees were located. These individual unemployment rates vary widely. The 

highest was in Pontiac, MI, but at nearly 30 percent—slightly less than double the rate in the 

next highest community, Hartford, CT—it appeared to be something of an outlier. Still, the 

unemployment rate in most of the very worst-off communities is more than double what it is in 

the best-off communities. Overall, the unemployment rate in 14 communities was worse than 

the national average for 2010, but of the remaining 10, only five had rates of unemployment that 

were more than one percentage point below the national average. Interview respondents in 

grantee communities were also quick to point out that unemployment rates tend to be even 

higher within the low-income, high-minority neighborhoods to which ex-offenders often return 

when released from jail or prison. 

Over the course of two rounds of site visits to each grantee community, respondents in some 

communities suggested that the economic situation was improving. That trend fits official 

unemployment data, which showed a slight decline in the rate of unemployment for some, but 

not all, of these communities over the course of 2010.11 However, the unemployment rate grew 

worse for some communities in 2010, and the overall economic situation for those in which it got 

better was still poor. Staff members of RExO programs, criminal justice agencies, and other 

programs all noted how “loose” the job market was: employers were less likely to attend job 

fairs, few employers were hiring ex-offenders, and it was more difficult than usual to find work 

for ex-offenders. It seems that RExO as well as other ex-offender re-entry programs were clearly 

struggling with just how to adapt their services to address the effects of such a significant 

increase in unemployment. At the same time, the economy was so bad that ex-offenders may 

have benefited even more from the services RExO and any alternative programs provided. 

Limited Job Prospects for Ex-Offenders 

The economic downturn hurt ex-offender job prospects in a number of ways. Interview 

respondents in two-thirds of grantee communities commented on how the recession increased 

competition for the jobs that ex-offenders typically sought. A probation officer in Baton Rouge, 

LA, mentioned, for instance, how employers that once considered ex-offenders no longer did so. 

A respondent in Chicago, IL, noted that the current state of unemployment was such that many 

overqualified people without criminal records were competing for the same jobs as the exoffender population. The result, as described by a respondent in Des Moines, IA, was that 

employers were able to be more selective about whom they hired. As one person in San Diego, 

CA, put it, the only way an ex-offender got noticed was “to be a real go-getter.” 

 

11 Ibid. 
II-6

Interview respondents in many cities also noted that employers known for being ex-offender 

friendly were simply no longer hiring at all. In some cases, employers drastically reduced the 

numbers of jobs available. One respondent in Philadelphia, for instance, discussed how the city 

had drastically cut back on the number of laborer positions it hired for the parks and sanitation 

department, while another respondent in Sacramento discussed reduced hiring in the hospitality 

industry. In other cases, respondents mentioned employers that simply stopped hiring altogether. 

A couple of these employers had been operating large construction projects, which had either 

been put on hold or cancelled. Finally, respondents in a couple of communities noted that some 

employers who used to hire ex-offenders simply closed their doors permanently due to economic 

struggles. 

Because of the reduced availability of jobs, ex-offenders were taking longer to find work and 

earning less once they did. RExO staff members at MAAP, Inc. in Sacramento, CA, observed 

that the average time it took a customer to find a job increased from one month to five to six 

months. Similarly, staff members at Urban League of Greater Dallas and North Central Texas 

commented that finding participants jobs was now taking about three times as long. Also, RExO 

program participants and staff in five communities specifically noted that, once placed in jobs, 

participants were earning less. One staff member at SE Works in Portland, OR, for instance, 

explained how participants were settling for “survival” jobs that merely made ends meet rather 

than securing more desirable “transition” or “engagement” jobs, which met participants’ career 

goals or provided them with bridges to those that did. 

In such an environment where jobs are scarce, ex-offenders appear to have two options, neither 

of which is necessarily compelling. One option, as interview respondents from both Denver and 

Chicago reported, is for ex-offenders to seek out even less desirable jobs than they may have 

sought out prior to the economic downturn. What makes these jobs undesirable is that they pay 

extremely low wages, are seasonal, or involve types of work ex-offenders have no interest in 

pursuing for the long term.12 The other option is for ex-offenders to pursue additional training 

and/or education. While additional education would clearly be beneficial to this population, 

which exhibits such low educational achievement, convincing ex-offenders to pursue additional 

training or education can be particularly challenging when that training or education is needed 

simply to obtain basic employment and not to get ahead. 

 

12 Interestingly, a respondent in one community commented that female ex-offenders might fare better in the 

economic downturn because they tended to be less selective than their male counterparts were in finding a job. 
II-7

Non-Employment Effects of the Economic Downturn 

Interview respondents also mentioned several non-employment-related effects of the economic 

downturn. Not all of these effects were negative—one respondent in Phoenix noted that rents 

lowered, which made ex-offenders’ lives a little easier even if they could not find work—but the 

vast majority of the effects compounded the challenges presented by reduced employment 

opportunities and further limited ex-offenders’ successful re-entry into their communities. The 

most frequently mentioned effect of the economic downturn was funding cuts to social services, 

including adult public assistance programs and social service providers. 

Funding cuts to criminal justice services—also mentioned by many respondents—were likely to 

land particularly hard on the ex-offender community. As interview respondents in Boston and 

Pontiac pointed out, when governments make cuts to prison facilities, these facilities may release 

individuals earlier than they would have previously, especially when many prisons are already 

experiencing severe overcrowding issues. This increase in the number of ex-offenders in the 

community, in turn, increases the demand on probation and parole departments, which, as 

respondents in several communities explained, were themselves facing cuts in funding. 

Funding cuts may also translate into less supervision of ex-offenders by probation and/or parole 

officers. In some communities, such as those in California (Fresno, Sacramento, and San Diego) 

and Seattle, such cuts translated into policy changes that increased the number of individuals 

released with little or no supervision whatsoever. To some extent, these policy changes may 

reflect an appropriate adjustment to current inmate populations, which often have been slanted 

towards minor drug offenses for which intensive supervision may not be necessary. At the same 

time, respondents in some communities indicated that many changes over the past few years 

might have been driven more by a desire to save money than the desire to make good policy. 

The end result has been that the burden has been shifted onto already-strapped service providers, 

with many ex-offenders simply passing into communities unnoticed and unsupported. Although 

completely unsupervised ex-offenders were probably less likely to enroll in the study in the first 

place, for those who did enroll in the study reduced supervision was likely to mean that control 

group members in the evaluation were less likely to be referred to other service providers once 

they did not make it into the RExO program. Similarly, RExO participants under low or no 

supervision may have been less likely to succeed in RExO given that they had one fewer support 

to fall back upon. 

Other Economic Factors 

A few RExO communities faced additional complicating factors that only compounded the 

economic difficulties facing ex-offenders. One interview respondent in Baltimore, MD, for 

instance, discussed that city’s issues of massive blight: there are more than 30,000 vacant homes 
II-8

(of which the city owns about 10,000) and 16,000 unoccupied buildings throughout the city. 

Vacancy rates have also likely increased in the current economic downturn. These buildings are 

often concentrated in the neighborhoods where ex-offenders go to live and often are havens for 

drug activity and other crime, making it difficult for an ex-offender to steer clear of trouble. 

In Louisiana, even five years after Hurricane Katrina, Baton Rouge and New Orleans are still 

recovering from the impact of the hurricane’s devastation. As if that and the economic downturn 

were not enough, April 2010 brought the BP oil spill, further depressing that area’s tourism 

industry and temporarily halting the area’s petroleum and fishing industries. Respondents in 

those communities noted that tourism, petroleum, and fishing are among the industries most 

likely to provide opportunities for ex-offenders. 

Finally, some communities were enmeshed in economies heavily dependent on a single industry 

and the economic downturn hit them particularly hard, leading to extremely high rates of 

unemployment. This was true of both Fresno and Pontiac. Fresno’s economy relied heavily on 

construction, which ground to a halt during the economic downturn. Pontiac’s economy 

depended heavily on the automobile industry, which has been declining for years but took further 

hits in this economic downturn. The particular challenge in these areas, and in others like them, 

appeared to be that many low-skilled jobs lost during the recession were being replaced by jobs 

that require a higher degree of skill.13 Since ex-offenders have lower skill levels than those of the 

population at large, they have likely been particularly affected by this shift. 

Opportunities for Ex-Offenders 

Interview data indicate that ex-offenders tended to find employment in certain industries and not 

others. Exhibit II-2 illustrates the industries found to be “friendly” towards ex-offenders, 

according to interview respondents. The size of the text indicates the relative frequency with 

which respondents mentioned a type of employer or industry. The most frequently mentioned 

employers were those in construction, food service, hotel/hospitality, landscaping/lawn care, 

manufacturing, telemarketing, temporary employment, and warehousing. 

One, perhaps obvious, reason ex-offenders were able to find work in these frequently-mentioned 

industries is that the positions in these industries often require few specialized job skills and 

relatively low levels of education. As respondents in a few grantee communities pointed out, 

higher-skilled occupations, such as many in healthcare, banking, and other professions, require 

 

13 Fletcher, Michael, “Why Does Fresno Have Thousands of Job Openings – and High Unemployment.” 

Washington Post, Wednesday, February 2, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/02/01/AR2011020106092.html
II-9

skills that most ex-offenders do not have. Another, perhaps obvious, reason why these 

frequently-mentioned industries hired ex-offenders is that relatively few other people are willing 

to pursue work in these industries because the jobs offered are low-paying, seasonal, and suffer 

from high turnover. In other words, these jobs are often the last to be sought out by more skilled 

and experienced job seekers. Interview respondents in grantee communities, however, offered 

up some further insight as to why certain types of employers tend to hire ex-offenders and why 

certain others tend to not. 

Exhibit II-2: 

 Industries in RExO Grantee Communities that Commonly Hire Ex-Offenders 

Source: Site visit interviews. Unless otherwise noted, all remaining exhibits also are drawn from site visit 

interviews. 

auto repair casinos clerical construction

food service general labor green jobs grocery store 

hazardous materials health care hospitality/hotel 

janitorial landscaping/lawncare laundry 

manufacturing petrochemical retail shipping yard 

slaughterhouse telemarketing temp agencies 

transportation warehouse

waste/recycling welding

Characteristics of Employers that Hire Ex-Offenders 

Respondents noted four employer characteristics that tend to indicate that a particular employer 

is more likely to hire ex-offenders. Frequently a business will exhibit more than one of these 

characteristics at the same time. Identifying a certain employer as having one or more of these 

features and passing this information on to ex-offenders is clearly one benefit that a reentry 

program such as RExO was able to provide to its participants. 

1. The employer is less serious about performing criminal background checks 

or does not care if employees are ex-offenders. Respondents in both New 

Orleans and Pontiac mentioned how this behavior is sometimes typical of 

employers in the food service and hospitality industries. Staff at Community 

Partners in Action in Hartford, CT also commented that sometimes the type of 

offense can matter for employment prospects insofar as ex-offenders convicted of 
II-10

Federal crimes showed up less frequently when employers did background 

checks, and were thus more likely to get employed. 

2. The owner or manager of the business can relate to ex-offenders on a 

personal level. As mentioned by respondents in Egg Harbor and San Diego, 

employers were likely to see ex-offenders as individuals who deserved a second 

chance if they themselves were ex-offenders or had family or friends who were. 

Plus, these employers recognized that many ex-offenders work hard to earn the 

recognition that they in fact deserve a second chance. 

3. The employer has hired ex-offenders in the past and knows that many can be 

very good workers. Respondents in several grantee communities mentioned that 

such employers were particularly likely to hire ex-offenders. In many cases, these 

were employers in the industries mentioned above who had learned that many exoffenders seek out their businesses. In other cases, these were employers who had 

taken advantage of tax incentives and other benefits of hiring ex-offenders. These 

employers had learned what types of ex-offenders work well in their industries as 

well as where to go to find them. Respondents commented that these employers 

would rather find ex-offender employees through a probation/parole officer or a 

program like RExO than hire them from a general pool of applicants, because the 

program could serve as a screening mechanism. 

4. The employer is a relatively small and/or locally owned business. 

Respondents in several areas noted that smaller, local businesses were simply 

more flexible than larger and/or national ones when it came to hiring practices 

and thus able to act on the sentiments described above. Bigger employers, 

including many national chains and companies that do manufacturing under 

Defense Department contracts, typically have corporate policies or other formal 

practices that restrict hiring. The challenge, of course, is that small and local 

businesses hire fewer people and less frequently, so it takes significantly more 

time and energy to work with or seek out jobs from these businesses. As one staff 

person put it, “there are opportunities...but you’ve got to beat the bushes.” 

Characteristics of Employers that Do Not Hire Ex-Offenders 

A little more difficult to pin down, since employers often are hesitant to highlight the issue, is 

why many employers do not hire ex-offenders. Before exploring this topic, it is necessary to 

point out that some employers, in fact, do hire ex-offenders but may be placed in the no-hire 

category by an employment program such as RExO because they do not make the fact that they 

hire ex-offenders easily known. Interview respondents in Boston, Dallas, and Egg Harbor 

explained that “there is no list” of employers willing to hire ex-offenders and noted how it is not 

necessarily in the interest of those companies that do hire ex-offenders to make this fact widely 

known. Such companies, especially those with a broader, national clientele, could lose business 

if their positive hiring practices with regard to ex-offenders were more widely known. 

Some employers do not hire ex-offenders as a matter of explicit policy. Respondents from 

Phoenix, Portland, Tucson, and San Diego all discussed how healthcare providers, defense 
II-11

contractors, and big national chains fit this description. Respondents in several communities 

noted how these policies are sometimes focused on specific types of offenses. For instance, 

shipping companies do not hire individuals with trafficking offenses and companies that require 

equipment operation steer clear of individuals whose criminal backgrounds indicate that they 

may have substance abuse issues. Some employers do not hire ex-offenders as their way of 

expressing participation in a community-wide “tough-on-crime” campaign or philosophy in 

which offering sympathy to ex-offenders, even those who genuinely want to turn their lives 

around, is seen as encouraging criminal behavior. Respondents in Dallas, Phoenix, and San 

Diego expressed the opinion that such an attitude was common in their communities. 

Many employers who do not hire ex-offenders (or rarely do so) do not have an explicit policy 

that bans hiring such employees—some may even profess a willingness to hire ex-offenders—

but simply failed to hire members of this population as a matter of actual practice. Their 

motivations were less clear. Respondents suggested a number of possible reasons for the pattern 

of non-hiring among these employers: hidden biases against ex-offenders, a perennial lack of 

good job matches, inability to give ex-offenders the scheduling flexibility they may need for 

their various supervision or other appointments, and previous bad experiences with some exoffender hires. One interview respondent from San Diego discussed how frontline staff members 

at some employers were willing to hire ex-offenders but had their decisions blocked by 

supervisors. The best many employment programs felt they could hope for was to flag reluctant 

employers as they encountered them and try to steer ex-offenders clear. 

Bias against ex-offenders was seen by interview respondents in many grantee communities as a 

major or underlying reason that many employers do not hire ex-offenders. Respondents 

explained that biases against hiring were often due to a lack of understanding about the issues 

that ex-offenders face. Respondents in Hartford and Philadelphia both noted how this type of 

bias increased any time a major news event brought crime to people’s attention. A respondent in 

Boston also pointed out how such bias was exacerbated by the particularly clinical and harshsounding language used in the criminal background reports accessed by employers when hiring. 

Respondents in several other communities noted how this type of bias was exacerbated by 

policies such as the box on job applications that identifies ex-offenders as such. 

Policies and practices may be changing, however. “Ban the box” laws, which seek to remove the 

box on job applications that identify individuals’ as ex-offenders, have emerged in some states 

and temporary agencies, and organizations like some RExO grantees have reached out to help 

explain the issues to employers. One job developer in Baltimore spoke about how she felt it was 

her responsibility to help educate employers so that they might become more sympathetic and 

forgiving. Clearly, access to a person who can build these relationships and bridge these gaps 

can be a huge benefit to ex-offenders searching for work. 
II-12

Summary 

Overall, ex-offenders within the 24 grantee communities appeared to face many of the same 

challenges and opportunities, whether they were in the program group or control group or not in 

the evaluation at all. Ex-offenders in grantee communities were typically released from one of a 

handful of nearby surrounding institutions, consisting of a mixture of Federal, state, and, less 

commonly, county facilities. Ex-offenders in these communities also confronted significant 

barriers—such as substance abuse and low levels of education, amongst many other factors—

that impeded their ability to find work and otherwise reintegrate into their communities. 

The economic downturn clearly placed additional pressures on ex-offenders. Unemployment 

rates in grantee communities were high throughout 2010, and even if rates started to lower in 

some communities, they were still nearly double what they were in these communities just a few 

years earlier, when the RExO program began. This overall lack of jobs created significantly 

more competition amongst ex-offenders—even for those jobs previously available to exoffenders because they were less sought out by others. In addition, the associated budget 

shortfalls of state and local governments reduced the overall level of services in RExO 

communities. 

Given their low education levels and skill barriers and the unwillingness of many employers to 

hire them, interview respondents from grantee communities noted that ex-offenders tended to 

find employment in one of the following industries: construction, food service, hotel/hospitality, 

landscaping/lawn care, manufacturing, telemarketing, temporary employment, and warehousing. 

Businesses that hired ex-offenders exhibited one or more of the following characteristics: their 

criminal background checks were cursory or nonexistent; their owners were able to relate to exoffenders on a personal level due to their own past offenses or those of family members; they 

had hired ex-offenders previously; and/or they were relatively small or local to the community. 

Some employers that hired ex-offenders did not advertise this fact. Of the employers that tended 

not to hire ex-offenders, some did so as a matter of explicit policy, but most did not hire exoffenders for a number of other reasons. 
III-1

III. GRANTEE BACKGROUND 

As mentioned in Chapter I, 24 RExO grantees received funding to continue operating programs 

after their initial two years. Exhibit III-1 shows the specific rounds of funding for Generation I 

grantees and their amounts. 

Exhibit III-1: 

Summary of Grants 

Year 

Year 1 

(April 2006-March 2007) 

Amount per Grantee 

$660,000 

Year 2 

(April 2007-March 2008) $660,000 

Year 3 

(April 2008-March 2009) $550,000 

Year 4 

(April 2009-March 2010) $550,000 

Year 5 

(April 2010-March 2011) $500,000 

Total $2,920,000 

Source: ETA SGAs 

As shown in

years of the 

 Exhibit III-2, grantees served a total of 17,409 participants during the first four 

grant. In Years 1 and 2, grantees exceeded their target enrollment of 4,800 per year, 

or 200 participants per grantee. In Year 3, grantees targeted fewer participants (167 participants 

per grantee) due to decreased funding. In Year 4, enrollment dropped, in part because grantees 

had already exceeded their enrollment during prior years and thus did not need large numbers of 

enrollees to meet their total recruitment targets. Additionally however, grantees knew that a RA 

study was to begin soon. Because the timing of this evaluation was unclear and grantees were 

uncertain how the evaluation would affect their programs, many of them slowed or even ceased 

their enrollments prior to RA. Hence, enrollment totals for Year 4 were much lower overall. 
III-2

Grantees targeted enrolling an additional 2,880 participants (4,800 total including control-group 

members) in Year 5. 

Exhibit III-2: 

Enrollment by Program Year (All Grantees) 

Source: DOL RExO MIS data 

The 30 grantees from Generation I participated in a three-year process study evaluation, 

commissioned by ETA and conducted by Coffey Consulting, Inc. This evaluation focused on the 

first two years of program operation, including project implementation, outcomes, and costs.14 It 

established a number of findings with potential relevance for the current study: 

 Grantees targeted motivated participants who in their judgment could most benefit 

from the program; they gauged participants’ interest and commitment through a 

thorough screening process. 

 Grantees achieved some success in placing participants in unsubsidized 

employment. As of May 2008, about two-thirds of participants were placed in 

unsubsidized employment with an average hourly wage at placement of $9.29. 

 Recidivism rates were low, as grantees reported that between 70 and 82 percent of 

participants had no involvement with the criminal justice system during the first 

year after release. 

 

14 The evaluation was conducted by Coffey Consulting, LLC and its subcontractors Mathematica Policy Research, 

Inc., David Altschuler of Johns Hopkins University, and Douglas Young of the University of Maryland. 
III-3

 Certain types of participants—women, older participants, non-Blacks, those with 

more education, and those who served longer terms in prisons or jails—performed 

better than others.15

Grantee Characteristics 

The 24 RExO grantees that are the subject of this evaluation vary greatly in their organizational 

structures, history in the community, available resources, and experience with serving exoffenders. These differences must be taken into account when considering each grantee’s 

services, partnerships, and outcomes. Exhibit III-3 summarizes several features of each grantee. 

The RExO grants are operated by lead agencies that represent a diverse group of organizations. 

Of the 24 grantees, three are national non-profits, four are faith-based community organizations 

(FBCOs), four are community health organizations, and 13 are local/regional non-profits. 

 National non-profits. The Urban League in Dallas, TX, Goodwill Industries in 

San Antonio, TX, and Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC) in Fort 

Lauderdale, FL are independent organizations that are part of nationally 

recognized non-profits. These organizations have experience providing 

employment and training services and offer the full spectrum of services that 

participants need to prepare for work (work readiness, case management, job 

placement, and job search assistance). 

 Faith-based community organizations. The four grantees in this category are 

non-profit groups that provide social services. They vary greatly in size and 

resources and identify themselves with various community initiatives and/or 

religious traditions or philosophies. These organizations’ identities as FBCOs had 

implications only for the organizations’ initial planning and mission, and not the 

day-to-day operations of RExO programs. 

 Community health organizations. The four organizations in this category focus 

primarily on issues related to community health, such as substance abuse 

treatment and counseling and HIV/AIDS education, and most target special 

populations such as ex-offenders and ethnic minorities. RExO services represent 

sizable portions of some of these grantees’ service packages. 

 Local or regional non-profits. The majority of the lead agencies are classified 

as local or regional non-profits that also function as large multi-service agencies 

providing an array of social services to the community. Some of these 

organizations also have a strong trackrecord for serving special populations such 

as homeless individuals and ex-offenders and are well known in the local 

community for providing a variety of services, such as employment and training, 

substance abuse treatment, and housing support. 

 

15 The Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative Evaluation Final Report. Coffey Consulting, LLC, and Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. January 2009. 
III-4

Exhibit III-3: 

Overview of Grantees 

Grantee Name Location 

Type of Years in 

Organization Operation 

Number of 

Programs 

including 

RExO 

Total 

Organization 

Budget (FY 2010) 

Episcopal Community 

Services of Maryland Baltimore, MD L/R NP 83 3 $1.8M

Church United for Community 

Development Baton Rouge, LA FBCO 17 10 $1.5M 

Span, Inc. Boston, MA CHO 34 4 $3.0M 

Safer Foundation Chicago, IL L/R NP 38 12 $36.0M 

Talbert House Cincinnati, OH L/R NP 45 30+ $50.0M 

Urban League of Greater 

Dallas & North Central Texas Dallas, TX NNP 43 7 $6.9M 

The Empowerment Program Denver, CO L/R NP 24 4 $3.1M 

The Directors' Council Des Moines, IA L/R NP 16 4 $0.75M 

Career Opportunity 

Development Egg Harbor, NJ L/R NP 40 12 $7.9M 

Opportunities Industrialization 

Center (OIC) of Broward 

County 

Fort Lauderdale, 

FL NNP 9 6 1.4 M$ 

Fresno Career Development 

Institute Fresno, CA L/R NP 18 4 $2.2M 

Community Partners in Action Hartford, CT L/R NP 135 12 $11.7M 

Connections to Success Kansas City, MO FBCO 12 3 $1.5M 

Odyssey House Louisiana New Orleans, LA CHO 37 3 $9.2 M 

Connection Training Services Philadelphia, PA L/R NP 18 8 $1.8M* 

Arizona Women’s Education 

and Employment, Inc. (AWEE) Phoenix, AZ L/R NP 29 8 $2.8 M 

Oakland Livingston Human 

Services Agency (OLSHA) Pontiac, MI L/R NP 46 90 $40.6M 

SE Works Portland, OR L/R NP 13 26 $1.8M* 

Mexican American Alcoholism 

Program (MAAP), Inc. Sacramento, CA CHO 35 5 $4-5 M 

Goodwill Industries San Antonio, TX NNP 65 6 $45 M 

Metro United Methodist Urban 

Ministries San Diego, CA FBCO 44 5 $2.0M 

People of Color Against AIDS 

Network (POCAAN) Seattle, WA CHO 23 7 $1.2-1.3M 

St. Patrick Center St. Louis, MO FBCO 28 28 $14M 

Primavera Foundation Tucson, AZ L/R NP 26 5 $4.9M 

* Data for these grantees are from 2005. 

Type of Organization Legend: L/R NP=Local/regional non-profit; NNP=National non-profit; FBCO=Faith-based and community organization; CHO=Community Health 

Organization. 
III-5

To the extent that these organizations are large and resource-rich, they bring a number of assets 

to the RExO program. One of the more obvious benefits is that the RExO program is able to 

draw on a wide range of resources to enhance services for participants, for example by providing 

additional staff support and services. Having a large lead agency can also provide some 

insulation from funding uncertainties, as RExO programs can leverage internal resources to fill 

gaps in funding and services. For example, several grantees are able to leverage resources from 

other funders to provide housing support and/or substance abuse treatment for RExO 

participants. 

Most of the grantees were well established as organizations prior to receiving the RExO grant. 

As noted in Exhibit III-3, the youngest grantee organization has been in operation for nine years, 

and most organizations have existed for well over 20 years. Exhibit III-4 aggregates grantees 

into groups based on the number of decades in operation. 

Exhibit III-4: 

Number of Years Operating Programs 

It is notable that six grantees have been in operation for more than 40 years. Community 

Partners in Action in Hartford, CT, established with the mission to serve individuals affected by 

the criminal justice system, has been in operation for 135 years. 

The long duration of most grantees’ presence in their communities appears to have affected 

several aspects of their programs, in particular, by enhancing their abilities to leverage 

partnerships and recruit. With 40 years of operation, for example, Career Opportunity 
III-6

Development, Inc., in Egg Harbor, NJ, was more easily able to network with the county jails to 

solicit referrals for the program. 

The grantees’ long histories in their communities also meant that they had established track 

records for reaching large numbers of eligible applicants. Without their well-established 

reputations and extensive networks, some of the grantees might have very well experienced even 

greater reductions in applicant numbers when they implemented RA (The dip in enrollment 

numbers during the RA study is discussed in Chapter IV.) 

In addition to their longevity, the RExO grantees had many years of experience providing 

employment and training services to ex-offenders. Connection Training Services in 

Philadelphia, for example, had provided employment services for a decade through contracts 

with the Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation. In addition, the Fresno Career 

Development Institute provided workforce services for many years prior to receiving the RExO 

grant. One grantee, however, had never provided employment and training services prior to 

receiving the RExO grant and had to build the program from the ground up. 

Program Administration 

The grantees differed in how they administered the RExO program. These differences were 

apparent in the areas of program management structure, leadership, and staffing arrangements. 

In this section, we discuss each of these aspects of grant administration in detail. 

Program Management Structure 

Each grantee was the lead agency for purposes of RExO program administration. It oversaw all 

aspects of the program, including staffing and program planning, design, and implementation. In 

some cases, the lead agency also contracted with partners or community-based organizations to 

deliver some portions of the RExO program, such as work readiness training or mentoring. 

Exhibit III-5 illustrates a typical management structure for the RExO program. 
III-7

Exhibit III-5: 

Typical RExO Management Structure 

The model shows two major aspects of RExO program structure: (1) the lead agency typically 

operated a number of programs in addition to RExO, and (2) the lead agency typically contracted 

with community partners or providers to deliver some portion of RExO services. 

Other Programs Available Through the Lead Agency 

In addition to the RExO program, the lead agencies offered a wide range of other services. At 

the time of the second site visit (fall 2010), program staff members estimated that the lead 

agencies offered anywhere from three to more than 25 programs including the RExO program, 

although typically only a few of these alternative programs specifically targeted offenders. As 

shown in Exhibit III-6, almost half of the grantees had between three and five programs inhouse. On the other end of the spectrum, six grantees operated more than 25 programs, and one 

of these operated about 90 programs. These programs varied in size and scope and provided 

context for the variety of services available in the lead agency. 
III-8

Exhibit III-6: 

Number of Separate Programs Operated by the RExO Grantees 

In general, the types of other programs available at the grantee agencies fell into the following 

categories: 

 Pre-release programs. Services provided to individuals still in prison included 

counseling, job readiness training, case management, and referrals to community 

services. 

 Other reentry programs. This category embraces a variety of services,

including those that are similar to RExO services (such as employment services, 

subsidized work experience, case management, and supportive services) and 

others that were markedly different from those provided under RExO (such as 

family support and fatherhood programs in prison). About one-third of the 

grantees had other funding sources to provide these other reentry services, 

including funds from the Department of Justice and local funders. Although these 

other funding sources were available, the programs were fundamentally distinct 

from one another with different eligibility criteria, service delivery approaches, 

and programmatic structures. 

 Educational programs. GED preparation and testing, and similar services were 

available in-house or through referrals for those seeking to complete or further 

their educational goals. 
III-9

 Health education and substance abuse treatment and prevention programs. 

These services were prominent among several grantees. They included HIV 

prevention and education, pregnancy prevention for teenagers, and substance 

abuse treatment, prevention, and education. 

 Housing programs. These programs, funded by local or private funders with the 

aim of supporting ex-offenders’ successful transitions, were available at several 

grantee sites. Housing support included the provision of housing stipends to help 

pay for rent and transitional housing. 

Because of these other programs, most RExO programs were launched in organizational contexts 

rich with synergistic opportunities. Specifically, reentry initiatives that pre-dated the RExO 

grant helped to inform grantee plans and provided lessons on which grantees could base their 

work. At times, concurrent reentry initiatives also provided services complementary to RExO 

services, adding value to both. Overall, where strong, pre-existing reentry programs existed, 

grantees did not have to “reinvent the wheel,” but rather were able to leverage and expand upon 

promising work and fill in any gaps. 

Community Partners in Action in Hartford offers a good example of the value of operating a 

variety of other programs focused on or helpful to ex-offenders. This grantee offered programs 

for those in prison and programs that began pre-release and continued post-release. RExO 

participants could access some of these services, including housing supports available through 

the lead agency. Similarly, RExO services were strengthened by the breadth of services and 

resources available through the lead agency at The Directors’ Council in Des Moines, IA, which 

had an in-house temporary staffing agency and an apprenticeship program for RExO participants 

who qualified. 

It may also be the case that some RExO participants were not eligible for some of the other 

services offered by grantees. The Michigan Prisoner Reentry Program at OLHSA, for instance, 

was only available to individuals released from state and Federal prison. As discussed in 

Chapter V, this program posed a special challenge to OLHSA’s participation in the study. In 

another example, RExO participants were not eligible for housing services at Career Opportunity 

Development, Inc., in Egg Harbor, NJ, because these services were designed for mentally ill 

clients who are not ex-offenders. Similarly, housing services at the Empowerment Program in 

Denver were only available to women with multiple barriers to employment and in need of 

intensive case management, who made up only a small portion of RExO participants. 

Subcontracts with Other Providers 

Another aspect of the RExO program structure is that grantees subcontracted for selected 

services. Under this arrangement, grantees paid another provider to deliver core RExO services 

such as employment services, case management, and mentoring services, or a specific 

component of these services, such as workshops in readiness training, anger management, or 
III-10

transitional jobs with employers. By working with these providers, grantees were able to 

leverage these organizations’ expertise in areas such as mentoring, workforce development, and 

other services to ex-offenders. Chapter VI discusses the range of services available through 

subcontractors in general. Chapter VII provides an in-depth discussion of the range of 

partnerships that grantees developed with these other providers. 

Program Leadership 

Leadership for the RExO program was usually multi-tiered, with the executive director of the 

lead agency and the RExO coordinator playing different roles. In general, the executive director 

of the lead agency did not have day-to-day oversight of the RExO program and its 

implementation, though some programs devoted a small percentage of the grant to this position 

for RExO administrative duties. The RExO coordinator was usually responsible for much of the 

day-to-day operations of the program and for managing staffing and community partnerships. 

Some of the coordinators worked collaboratively with the line staff, conducted employer 

outreach, and met with participants. In a few sites, however, the RExO coordinator devoted only 

a small percentage of time to RExO program operations and was responsible only for the 

administrative functions of the program. 

Exhibit III-7 shows that the vast majority of the RExO coordinators had been with the program 

for most of the duration of the grant (three to five years). This stability allowed for consistent 

leadership and vision, both for the program and for the grant. 

Exhibit III-7: 

Tenure of RExO Coordinators 

8

13

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 to 2 years 3 to 5 years 5+ years

Number of Grantee Coordinators

Number of Years at RExO

Note: Three grantees reported that the RExO coordinators had worked in the organization for more than

five years. This suggests that the coordinators had similar roles prior to the RExO grant, since the grant has

been in existence for only five years.
III-11

Approximately one-third of the grantees, however, had some turnover among the RExO 

coordinators. Much of this turnover occurred during the last two years of the grant, as staff 

members were seeking employment elsewhere in anticipation of the sunset of the grant. Other 

grantees suffered from a history of unstable leadership in general, resulting in turnover among 

the RExO leaders. In the most extreme manifestation of this problem, one grantee had three 

individuals lead the program over a three-year period. Detailed information about the tenure of 

RExO coordinators for each grantee is included in Appendix A. 

Leadership turnover for the RExO program had both positive and negative repercussions. On 

one hand, new RExO coordinators often came in with fresh ideas and energy for managing the 

programs. At the same time, however, new coordinators required considerable ramp-up time to 

become acquainted with the participants, staff members, and existing partnerships. Turnover 

may also have caused a sense of instability for some staff members. 

Regardless of their tenure with the grantee agency however, RExO coordinators typically had 

extensive experience working with ex-offenders and managing programs similar to RExO. 

Many also had pre-existing relationships with program partners or experience working in the 

local workforce development system and/or the criminal justice system. Often, RExO 

coordinators were able to leverage these aspects of their experience in managing the various 

program components. For example, the Program Coordinator at AWEE in Phoenix, AZ, worked 

for many years as a correctional officer for the Department of Corrections (DOC). This 

experience facilitated referrals and communication with DOC and furthered the program goals. 

Program Staffing 

Grantees differed in the number of staff members they assigned to work on the RExO program. 

As shown in Exhibit III-8, the grantees had hired an aggregate total of about 140 full-time 

equivalents (FTEs) at the time of the first site visit (summer 2010) and employed about 135 

FTEs at the time of the second visit (fall 2010 to winter 2011). The jobs held by these program 

staff members can be divided into six major categories: 

 Administrative staff members were responsible for the core administrative 

functions of the program, and included such individuals as the RExO coordinator, 

the executive director of the lead agency, and administrative assistants. 

 Case management staff members were responsible for developing individual 

service plans, counseling participants, and brokering community services to 

address barriers to employment. 

 Employment services staff members included job developers, retention 

specialists, and instructors for the work readiness workshops. 

 Mentoring staff members included mentoring coordinators and individual 

mentors who were hired to mentor participants. 
III-12

 Intake/outreach staff members were responsible for conducting intake 

functions, such as the paperwork required for eligibility determination and for the 

RA process and outreach and recruitment. 

 “Other” staff members were those who do not fit in the above categories; they 

included van drivers, computer instructors or other instructors, and substance 

abuse counselors. 

A detailed breakdown of staffing by category is included in Appendix B. Exhibit III-8 shows the 

number of FTEs employed in each category across all the grantees and shows these figures as 

percentages of the total. 

Exhibit III-8: 

Allocation of Staffing Resources by Job Category Across Grantees (FTE) 

Based on the data shown in Exhibit III-8, it is possible to make several general observations 

about how the grantees allocated staffing resources: 

 The number of FTEs decreased between the two rounds of site visits. As the 

RExO grant wound down, grantees reduced their staffing arrangements to reflect 

the anticipated reduced budgets. 

 Case manager was the most heavily staffed position. Case managers were 

often described as the glue that holds the programs and participants together. 
III-13

Naturally, programs invested heavily in these positions to provide the 

fundamental supports that ex-offenders needed to adjust to life in the community. 

At some sites, case managers had multiple roles, such as job development, 

recruitment, and intake. 

 Individuals with administrative functions made up sizable portions of RExO 

program staff. Approximately 19 percent of FTEs were devoted to 

administrative functions. 

 The number of employment services staff members increased between the 

Round 1 and Round 2 site visits. This included an increase in the number of job 

developers—from 25 to 27 FTEs—due to grantees’ increased emphasis on job 

placement. 

 Intake and outreach accounted for a relatively small percentage of the 

staffing. This is because few programs hired staff members to perform these 

functions exclusively. Instead, programs relied on other staff members, such as 

case managers or job developers, to support this function. 

 Mentoring services utilized the fewest staff members. As will be discussed in 

Chapter VI, many grantees relied on subcontractors to deliver mentoring services 

because of their specialized expertise in this area. Very few grantees designated a 

separate mentoring coordinator since this role was usually performed by other 

staff members. 

In addition to the staff members who were hired directly by the grantees, additional staff 

members were available through subcontractors to perform some of the functions listed above. 

At the St. Patrick Center in St. Louis, for example, case managers were subcontracted through a 

local provider. Other sites hired guest speakers or consultants to deliver portions of their work 

readiness workshops, such as those focused on life skills, financial literacy, and anger 

management. 

Given the multiple and demanding responsibilities of nearly all RExO staff positions, programs 

hired individuals with diverse backgrounds and characteristics. Some grantees had staff 

members with long, rich histories in working with ex-offenders and other disadvantaged 

populations, while others had staff members with specialized experiences that were related to the 

work of the RExO program, such as former teachers or chemical dependency counselors. A 

number of sites had staff members who were ex-offenders themselves, including a number of 

that participated in earlier years of RExO. In general, staff members with criminal histories were 

seen as particularly successful in working with ex-offenders. One program director illustrated 

this point with the following quote: 

Our programs are successful because we have people that have been in 

the streets, done drugs, been in prison, but they cleaned up. And they 

serve as good role models, and they can build trust...trust is a big thing 

with this population. 
III-14

Although programs appeared to have the staffing they needed to perform many of the functions 

required for the RExO programs, many of them faced important challenges related to staffing. 

 RExO staff members “wore many hats.” Staffing arrangements among the 

RExO programs were usually fluid, with staff members playing many roles. The 

case managers at Career Opportunity Development Inc., in Egg Harbor, NJ, for 

example, were responsible for intake, job development, and follow-up. This 

sometimes led staff to feel stretched too thinly, and for some services to go 

unprovided. 

 There was considerable turnover among job developers. Generally speaking, 

few programs faced serious or persistent staff turnover challenges. The exception 

was the job developer position, which required concrete benchmarks of success 

that many job developers were unable to fulfill due in part to the current economic 

climate. One grantee, for example, was unable to retain job developers, having 

hired four in four years. 

 Some grantees had difficulty finding job developers with the right mix of 

skills. Respondents noted that while job developers usually had experience 

working with ex-offenders, they often lacked the right skill sets to be successful in 

their positions. The skills program staff identified that were most lacking among 

job developers were those related to marketing ex-offenders to employers and 

making strategic use of labor market information to identify opportunities for exoffenders. 

Funding and Budget 

As noted above, each grantee received a total of $2,920,000 over five years. In Year 5 (April 

2010–March 2011), each grantee received $500,000. (Grantees in Year 5 are the subject of this 

evaluation). This section discusses what proportion the RExO grant was of the larger lead 

agencies and budgets, and the ways in which programs budgeted their grant funds in Year 5. 

The RExO Grant in the Context of Organizational Budgets 

To understand the size of the RExO grant for the various grantees, we compare the grant amount 

in Year 5 to each grantee’s total organizational budget in the same year. Because the sizes of the 

grantees’ overall annual budgets varied significantly, from a low of $.75 million to a high of $50 

million (see Exhibit III-1), a $500,000 grant had different meaning to different grantees. Exhibit 

III-9 shows the Year-5 grant amount as a percentage of grantees’ overall budgets in FY 2009–

2010, both individually and in the aggregate, to give a sense of its relative proportion of the 

overall budgets. 
III-15

Exhibit III-9: 

RExO Grant as Percent of Organizational Budget 

10

5

3

2 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0‐10% 11%‐20% 21%‐30% 31%‐40% 41%‐50%

Number of Grantees

Note:  Organizational budgets were not available for two grantees, so only 22 grantees are included in this chart.

Data for Year 5 (FY 2009‐2010)

1%

1%

1%

1%

4%

5%

5%

6%

6%

9%

11%

16%

17%

18%

18%

23%

25%

28%

33%

40%

42%

46%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Talbert House [Cincinnati, OH]

Goodwill Industries [San Antonio, TX]

Oakland Livingston Human ServicesAgency [Pontiac, MI]

Safer Foundation [Chicago, IL]

St. Patrick Center [St. Louis, MO]

Urban League of Greater Dallas & North Central Texas [Dallas, TX]

Community Partners in Action [Hartford, CT]

Odyssey House Louisiana [New Orleans, LA]

Career Opportunity Development [Egg Harbor, NJ]

Primavera Foundation [Tucson, AZ]

MAAP, Inc [Sacramento, CA]

The Empowerment Program [Denver, CO]

Span, Inc. [Boston, MA]

AWEE [Phoenix,AZ]

SE Works[Portland, OR]

Fresno Career Development Institute [Fresno, CA]

Metro United Methodist Urban Ministries [San Diego, CA]

Episcopal Community Services of Maryland [Baltimore, MD]

Church United for Community Development [Baton Rouge, LA]

Connectionsto Success[Kansas City, MO]

POCAAN[Seattle, WA]

OpportunitiesIndustrialization Center of Broward County [Fort Lauderdale, FL]

Percentage of Total Organizational Budget

Note:  Organizational budgets were not available for two grantees, so only 22 grantees are included in this chart.  Data for Year 5 (FY 2009‐2010)
III-16

Examining Exhibit III-9, two basic generalizations emerge: 

 For about half the grantees, the RExO grant represented a small portion of 

the overall organizational budget. This finding is not surprising, given that 

many grantees were large, well-established organizations with annual budgets as 

high as $50 million. 

 For a smaller number, the RExO grant made up a third or more of the 

organizational budget. At these four organizations, the RExO program assumed 

enormous importance, in some cases influencing the way in which the grantee 

structured its services. Staff members at one of these grantees, for example, 

decided to incorporate work readiness training in all of the organization’s 

programs, not just those for ex-offenders, based on its RExO experience. 

The relatively small size of the RExO grant for the larger grantee organizations did not 

necessarily mean that the grant was less important to them than it was to smaller grantee 

organizations. For example, even though the RExO program budget was only about one percent 

of the budget of the Oakland Livingston Human Services Agency, respondents at this 

organization noted that the RExO grant contributed tremendous value to the organizational 

mission because of RExO’s emphasis on a vulnerable population that the lead agency is 

committed to serving. 

Budgeting of RExO Grant Funds 

Exhibit III-10 provides an overview of how the grantees as a whole chose to distribute their grant 

funds in Year 5 by key categories. The figures in the exhibit represent planned budgeting only, 

not actual expenditures. Based on data collected during the site visits, it is clear that actual 

spending sometimes varied from the planned budget. 

Exhibit III-10: 

Planned Distribution of Grant Funds, Averaged Across Grantees (FY 2009–2010) 

The following generalizations can be made about how the grantees planned to spend their grant 

funds in Year 5 of the grant. 
III-17

 The majority of grant funds (63 percent on average) were budgeted for 

personnel and fringe costs. These expenses included the salaries for all program 

staff, such as case managers, employment service staff, and administrative staff. 

Sites differed in the specific amount of grant resources they devoted to personnel 

costs. The Talbert House in Cincinnati devoted the least amount of grant funds to 

personnel, since they subcontracted out for employment services and mentoring. 

At the other end of the spectrum, Church United for Community Development in 

Baton Rouge and Career Opportunity Development, Inc., in Egg Harbor, NJ, 

devoted the bulk of their budgets to personnel because they hired staff directly to 

deliver most of the RExO services. 

 Contracts made up the next largest category of spending (13 percent of 

budgets on average). Some grantees chose to contract with CBOs for work 

readiness training, mentoring services, life skills training, and other workshops to 

augment their service mix. 

 Expenses in the “other” category (13 percent on average) included a wide 

range of services and costs. Grantees categorized the following services under 

the “other” budget category: supportive services (transportation, employmentrelated clothing and supplies), incentives, stipends, and in some cases, trial 

employment/subsidized work experience and vocational training.

 Smaller amounts were budgeted to be spent on administrative costs (seven 

percent) and facility rental (four percent). 

Overall, the level of funding that grantees dedicated to personnel and fringe costs was 

significant. Grantees hired staff to serve as case managers, counselors, job developers, and even 

mentors to connect participants to resources and provide wraparound supportive services. The 

commitment of the members of the RExO staff was a core asset of programs and something that 

participants consistently pointed to as a strength. 

Summary 

The 24 RExO grantees that took part in this evaluation represent a diverse group of organizations 

with extensive experience providing a variety of services to vulnerable populations. The RExO 

program was one of many programs available at the lead agency, and because of this fact, it built 

upon the structures and supports that were already in place, such as the staffing and infrastructure 

needed to deliver services. The majority of grantees had fairly stable leadership to oversee the 

grant’s full implementation, though some turnover did occur in several sites. Other program 

staff members were also fairly stable throughout the life of the grant, and many had been with 

the programs since the beginning. As of the summer of 2010, grantees had a total of about 140 

FTEs working in the RExO program, a number that decreased slightly (to 135 FTEs) in late 2010 

as the grant was wound down. 
III-18

Because many of the lead agencies have large organizational budgets, the RExO grant 

represented a small portion of their overall budgets. Despite this fact, respondents unanimously 

noted that the grant was significant in many ways, especially in its emphasis on a vulnerable 

population with many obstacles to employment. Finally, grantees as a whole allocated a 

significant amount of grant funding to personnel costs to ensure that participants received 

intensive support from staff members who could connect them to critical services to help them 

succeed. During the second site visit, grantees were beginning to think about program 

sustainability, and many had already identified funding opportunities that they hoped would 

sustain program staff members and/or key program services. 
IV-1

IV. RECRUITMENT, INTAKE, ASSESSMENT, AND 

ENROLLMENT 

The RExO grantees aimed to enroll at least 4,800 total participants (at least 200 per grantee) in 

the impact study and approximately 2,880 of these participants to the program group. This 

chapter describes the processes by which the grantees sought to recruit and enroll these 

participants. More specifically, the chapter details program practices associated with eligibility 

determination, recruitment, intake, assessment, and enrollment. The chapter ends with a 

discussion of the various enrollment-related successes that grantees enjoyed and the challenges 

that they faced. 

Target Group and Eligibility 

Through RExO, ETA sought to reduce recidivism in urban communities with significant 

numbers of returning ex-offenders by helping these individuals find and prepare for 

employment.16 To realize this goal, the grant targeted adults at risk of re-arrest but with 

reasonable potential to enter the workforce. Accordingly, ETA stipulated that an ex-offender 

must have met a number of requirements in order to receive RExO services: 

 The ex-offender must have been 18 years of age or older. 

 The ex-offender must have been convicted as an adult and imprisoned pursuant to 

an Act of Congress or a state law. 

 The ex-offender must have been incarcerated for a minimum of 120 days. 

 The ex-offender must have enrolled in the program within 180 days of release 

from a prison, jail, or halfway institution (but sites were allowed to enroll up to 10 

percent of participants whose time after release exceeded 180 days). 

 The ex-offender must never have been convicted of a sex-related offense. 

 The ex-offender’s most recent offense must not have been violent. 

 

16 Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (2005). “Workforce Investment Act—

Demonstration Grants; Solicitation for Grant Applications—Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative.” Federal Register. 

Vol, 70, No, 62. 
IV-2

In announcing the Year 5 award, ETA allowed grantees to begin serving individuals who had 

been convicted of a violent offense in the past, provided that their most recent offense was not 

violent. The intent was to support programs in meeting their target enrollments by expanding the 

pool of eligible study participants. Still, it was up to the grantees to use their discretion to decide 

whether they would serve those previously convicted of violent offenses, and four programs 

opted not to serve such individuals. These four programs cited no single reason for continuing to 

exclude ex-offenders with a violent offense. Nevertheless, some combination of two factors may 

have contributed to their decisions: (1) program staff members did not feel comfortable serving 

individuals with histories of violent offenses (or they worried the employers they worked with 

may not feel comfortable); and (2) programs were on pace to meet their enrollment targets and 

hence, did not need to expand the pool of eligible participants. 

In addition to ETA’s criteria, a few programs instituted their own eligibility requirements. 

OLHSA in Pontiac, MI, required that individuals come from county correctional facilities. 

OLHSA served state prisoners for several years prior to the study, but because the state operated 

a prisoner re-entry initiative at the same location that was very similar to the RExO program and 

was available to all returning state prisoners, (the two programs were actually co-located at the 

same facility), there was concern that control-group designees could enroll in the state program 

and receive comparable services. Consequently, OLHSA began to serve only county jail 

participants, who were ineligible for the state program. Another grantee, the Episcopal 

Community Services in Baltimore, required all interested participants to pass a mandatory drug 

test in order to enroll. 

Programs reviewed participants’ criminal histories in order to verify eligibility for RExO. 

Hence, they typically relied on DOC databases to access such information. Some grantees 

encountered difficulties in obtaining the necessary information, which delayed their eligibility 

verification. In some of these cases, it simply took a long time for DOC to respond with the 

appropriate information, while in others RExO staff members were not able to request the 

information on their own and had to work through probation or parole. In the most challenging 

case, participants had to obtain their own records (for a $36 fee) and bring them to their intake 

appointments. Naturally, this slowed the site’s intake process and placed more hardship on exoffenders seeking services. 

Recruitment 

Most grantees intensified their efforts to conduct outreach and identify participants during Year 

5. These RExO grantees had historically attracted large numbers of ex-offenders to participate in 

their programs and, after several years of program operation, generally did not need to recruit 

applicants prior to the implementation of RA. According to numerous RExO staff members, the 

RA study deterred some potential participants and reduced the number of referrals from 
IV-3

community partners, making it necessary to step up recruitment efforts. Staff members reported 

that the uncertainty of the RA process—the chance that an individual would be assigned to the 

control group—discouraged some ex-offenders; additionally, some individuals assigned to the 

control group returned to their communities and informed peers that they may be “turned away.” 

As a result, fewer eligible individuals inquired about the program. Still, two programs with 

strong reputations and extensive community networks—Goodwill Industries of San Antonio, 

TX, and The Empowerment Program of Denver, CO—managed to attract so many participants 

that they did not need to recruit at all. 

To reach the target groups that grantees have established, they recruited applicants through 

various means, including: (1) community outreach, (2) partner referrals, and (3) word of mouth. 

Community Outreach 

Grantees intensified their ongoing outreach to community partners, such as conducting weekly 

and even twice-weekly presentations at the offices of various community partners to recruit 

participants and establish relationships from which more referrals would result. 

As grantees looked to increase enrollments by engaging in more frequent outreach, they also 

expanded the number of venues at which they actively recruited. Halfway houses were a prime 

example of this expansion strategy. Leading up to the first round of data collection, few projects 

had pursued halfway houses as a significant source of participants. Nearly all of the numerous 

programs that improved their rate of enrollment over time strengthened their relationships with 

local halfway houses. In some cases, managers met to establish referral partnerships with these 

organizations, but it was more common for RExO staff members to travel to the facilities to 

make presentations to residents. Probation and parole offices also became prime targets for 

outreach, as they were common sites for ex-offenders to visit. In a few cases, grantees were able 

to locate staff members at parole offices. 

Some grantees began to make pre-release presentations to inmates at correctional facilities and 

participated in information events, which were designed for those expected to be released soon. 

However, it was difficult for programs to gain pre-release access to facilities without stable 

liaisons on site.17 

Another key development in outreach strategy was the emergence of community information 

sessions, known in some areas as Parole and Community Team meetings. As ex-offenders were 

often required to attend these meetings as a condition of their supervision, various community 

 

17 In the first several years of the grant, the U.S. Department of Justice provided grants to local correctional 

facilities. These grants funded an individual working within the state prison system who was tasked with 

coordinating referrals to the RExO grantee. When these grants ended, the staff positions were gone, and as a 

result, referrals to the RExO programs slowed down noticeably. 
IV-4

stakeholders attended and set up information tables to attract participants, just as employers do at 

a career fair. Additionally, staff members from a few RExO programs went out into the 

community to distribute and post fliers at various high-traffic venues, including bus stops and 

pizza parlors. 

Exhibit IV-1 lists the various venues at which grantees reported conducting outreach and reports 

the number of programs that targeted each type of venue. This exhibit shows that prisons/jails, 

halfway houses, and other community organizations made up a large proportion of venues where 

grantees conducted outreach. 

Exhibit IV-1: 

Number of Grantees Conducting Outreach at Each of Several Venues 

Partner Referrals 

Over the years of the RExO program, grantees most commonly relied on referrals from various 

community partners to fill their program slots. Referral partners included criminal justice 

entities, supervision facilities, One-Stop Career Centers, and other community organizations. 

Many grantees also received referrals from substance abuse treatment centers, faith-based 

organizations, and alternative service providers. In many cases, the increased visibility that 

RExO gained in these organizations due to grantees’ intensified recruitment efforts helped boost 

the willingness of these organizations’ staff members to refer study participants on a regular 

basis. 

Grantees established strong relationships with local corrections agencies, and as a result, relied 

on their referrals. However, the nature of these linkages shifted somewhat throughout the life of 

the grant, as the local contexts changed. First, the grant from DOJ to state corrections agencies 
IV-5

to support pre-release services ended. As a result, RExO staff members indicated that they lost 

their means of entry into correctional facilities. In some cases, instances of staff turnover at the 

facilities compounded the difficulty in establishing pre-release access to ex-offenders. The result 

is that, at the time of the site visits for this evaluation, just 10 of 24 grantees reported receiving 

referrals directly from their state’s DOC or specific correctional facilities. 

Probation and parole agencies were another significant source of referrals. Roughly two-thirds 

of grantees received some form of referral from any combination of probation and/or parole staff 

members. However, fewer such referrals occurred in Year 5 of the grant than in previous years. 

As part of the drive to increase enrollment, many grantees renewed their efforts to inform county 

supervision staff members more thoroughly of RExO’s structure and potential benefits. Results 

were mixed across grantees: some developed formal partnerships with probation and parole 

offices, others connected with particular officers, and a handful did not draw any referrals. A 

well-resourced few coordinated with both local and Federal probation and parole officials. 

Exhibit IV-2 lists the various partners that referred participants to RExO and reports the number 

of RExO grantees receiving referrals from each source at the time of the site visit. 

Exhibit IV-2: 

Number of Grantees Receiving Referrals from Each of Several Sources

16

10

10

5

5

5

4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Parole/Probation/Community Corrections

Department

Department of Corrections

Halfway House

Church/Community Organization

Alternative Provider

One‐Stop Career Center

SubstanceAbuse Program

Number of Grantees

Source of Referral

Note:  In some states,Departmentof Corrections comprises probation and parole offices.  For the purpose of the table above,the DOC

datarefersspecifically to referralsfrom correctional facilities.

Word of Mouth 

Word of mouth was the most frequently reported referral source. The words of current and 

former participants carried a great deal of weight, as they encouraged peers in correctional 
IV-6

facilities, halfway houses, treatment programs, and other community spaces to seek out RExO 

services. Accordingly, two sites, POCAAN of Seattle, WA, and the Primavera Foundation of 

Tucson, AZ, introduced incentive systems to encourage current program participants to refer 

their peers. Under these systems, a participant could receive a $10 gift card from a major retailer 

(POCAAN) or $10 in cash (Primavera Foundation) every time he or she referred a new 

participant who enrolled in the program. 

Recruitment Challenges 

Year 5 marked the first year that many grantees did not meet their enrollment targets, and even 

those that reached their goals took longer to do so. Regardless of whether they met their 

enrollment targets, the majority of grantees identified anxiety about the RA study as a major 

reason for their recruitment challenges.18 Staff members cited conversations with community 

members, current participants, and criminal justice partners in asserting that the RA format made 

potential participants and partners uneasy, despite the fact that participants were more likely to 

be assigned to the program group than to the control group. According to respondents, the 

prospect of receiving a control-group assignment and not receiving services, after making an 

effort to learn about and sign up for the program, dissuaded many potential participants. 

Furthermore, those assigned to the control group often returned to their communities and 

discouraged their peers from enrolling in the program. For similar reasons, some community 

partners also dissuaded their clients from participating in RExO. It was common for grantees to 

express the view that the negative publicity somewhat tarnished their community reputations. In 

the most challenging cases, several programs no longer had the cooperation of key correctional 

facilities and ex-offender supervision departments. The prospect of encouraging their clients to 

venture to obtain employment services, only to be turned away, initially disheartened supervision 

staff members, who generally aimed to build up their clients’ confidence and stability. 

Many RExO programs did not initially foresee that the RA study presented a recruitment 

challenge and did not have well-developed response plans in place from the outset. However, 

many projects responded appropriately, working more closely with their site liaisons as 

discussed in Chapter I, to refine and expand their recruitment strategies by reaching out to new 

sources of referrals or increasing their visits or presentations to existing referral sources. 

 

18 It is worth noting that not all grantees experienced difficulty recruiting. However, all did note that RA posed an 

unprecedented challenge during the process. 
IV-7

Intake and Pre-enrollment Procedures 

Intake processes varied across the 24 grantees. Nevertheless, they all included these five basic 

steps: 

1. The program staff held an orientation to introduce potential participants to the 

program and the study. 

2. Those who agreed to participate submitted some basic information and gave their 

consent to undergo RA. 

3. A program staff member confirmed the prospective participants’ eligibility (and 

in some cases, suitability) for the program. 

4. A staff member utilized a the standard RExO Web-based management 

information system (MIS) to assign each eligible applicant to the program group 

or the control group. 

5. The staff member then notified the participants of the results of their RA and 

offered those assigned to the control group some minimal information about 

alternative services available to them. 

Grantees conducted orientation sessions for prospective participants to introduce the RExO 

program and explain the RA study process. Most commonly, these sessions occurred in a group 

setting, so that staff members could apprise multiple individuals of the details of the program at 

the same time. The sessions typically lasted between one and three hours, and nearly all featured 

the video produced by the evaluation team that described the study and what it meant to be a 

participant in it.19 Four sites offered orientations lasting a full day, or even multiple days. These 

longer meetings typically entailed life skills training and preparation for employment, providing 

skills and knowledge potentially useful to any ex-offender. As several grantees expressed 

disappointment with their inability to serve everyone, the extended orientations may have served 

as opportunities to provide basic services to all interested patrons prior to RA. 

Less frequently, grantees conducted one-on-one orientations, in which a RExO staff member 

presented all of the aforementioned information, interviewed the incoming participant, collected 

baseline information, informed her or him about the study (including showing the RExO 

orientation video), and answered questions. While this format was more likely to generate a 

scheduling backlog than the group approach, it allowed staff members to cover more ground in 

one sitting. 

Several programs implemented changes between the first and second rounds of site visits 

(conducted in the Spring and Fall of 2010, respectively) to create a more convenient orientation 

 

19 Two programs opted not to show the video, as they believed potential study participants did not respond well to 

it; they also found it easier to explain all the details themselves. 
IV-8

process that would attract more study participants. Most commonly, programs increased the 

frequency of their meetings; several went from offering one session per week to offering two. 

Roughly a quarter of grantees also created opportunities for walk-in meetings so that exoffenders did not need to wait or arrange additional transportation to return (transportation was 

often a prohibitive cost for program participants). This strategy reduced the time that elapsed 

between initial contact and enrollment. Further, in an effort to reduce the attrition that occurred 

during the early stages of the process, several sites reduced the duration of their orientation 

sessions. Although this change helped increase enrollments, some staff members were 

disappointed that it effectively curtailed what had been a natural pre-screening process. 

Following the orientation, those who agreed to participate in the program typically provided 

background information that helped determine their eligibility for the program. Several factors 

determined how long after orientation RA took place. In cases in which sites held their 

orientations prior to confirming eligibility, it sometimes took several days before staff members 

could obtain the necessary information (usually from the DOCs, probation, or parole), thereby 

delaying RA. Participants also submitted a contact sheet and a form indicating consent to RA. 

Prior to the implementation of RA, the time following the orientation marked the point at which 

programs would also conduct their suitability screening (this change is discussed further below). 

The heavy workload of staff responsible for intake—usually case managers—often limited the 

frequency and timing of RA.20 Case managers often had to balance recruitment, intake, 

assessment, and case management of current participants, and many of them reported that they 

could only conduct RA one day each week. Hence, a participant might have gone through 

orientation on a Tuesday, but not been randomly assigned until the following Monday. About 

half of the programs with group orientation sessions often elected to wait until all attendees had 

left the office before they conducted the RA, which sometimes delayed the process. 

The study prolonged the duration of the process. RExO staff members often noted that longer 

gaps in time between orientation and RA tended to yield greater attrition prior to enrollment 

among those in the program group. The period between assignment and notification also 

contributed to that gap. There were challenges in determining eligibility discussed earlier in the 

chapter or choices grantees made in how they structured their intake processes around RA. Staff 

members generally notified participants of their status in person, on the same day of their RA. 

Some, however, wanted to avoid informing program group and control group participants in the 

same spaces and thus waited to contact individuals via phone, postal service, or email. In a 

 

20 Some programs employed intake coordinators to conduct RA, but this was not very common. As discussed in 

Chapter II, intake coordinators accounted for just a small percentage of grantee staff members. 
IV-9

couple cases, case managers scheduled follow-up appointments and waited until this time to 

notify individuals of their status. 

Those individuals assigned to the program group were officially enrolled in the program when 

they received their program group designation. The point at which case managers entered new 

enrollees into the MIS varied, but usually occurred on the same day as their RA or at the first 

case management and assessment meeting. 

The programs varied in their offerings to control group members following RA. Most provided 

them with a list of alternative providers from which they could pursue services. Only one 

program did not provide such a list and instead sent individuals back to their original referral 

sources to seek alternatives. The evaluation team offered grantees $2,000 each, and most of the 

grantees opted to provide participants—regardless of whether they were assigned to the program 

or control group—with gift cards, which were most commonly valued at $10 and could be used 

with a local retail store. In a few cases, grantees supplemented the cards with bus tokens. 

RExO staff members reported some logistical and philosophical challenges with the RA process. 

On the logistical side, about a quarter of programs reported having had some difficulty with 

attrition following RA and prior to the first service meeting, as individuals who agreed to 

participate in the study and were assigned to the program group subsequently did not follow 

through and participate in the program. However, staff members were more passionate about 

how the RA study ran counter to their philosophies of serving all those they deemed deserving. 

Many of these organizations prided themselves on multiple-decade histories of serving high-need 

ex-offenders (among others) within their communities. Hence, staff members often were 

uncomfortable with turning individuals away, as they felt it ran counter to the missions of their 

organizations. Still, there was some capacity to serve potential participants that demonstrated 

great need. Each site had up to 10 “wildcard” slots at its disposal, which allowed them to 

designate such individuals to bypass RA and immediately enroll in program-group services. 

Some believed the recruitment challenges associated with the RA study and the resulting need to 

increase their enrollment into the study effectively curtailed the pre-screening practices that 

usually occurred during intake. In previous years of the grant, many of the grantees had 

implemented suitability screening protocols as a means of identifying those participants who 

would be fully committed to the program. Through these processes, program staff members used 

their own indicators as well as ETA’s criteria to establish whether someone would be likely to 

complete the program and secure employment. More specifically, the grantees generally 

constructed various questions or procedures to gauge potential participants’ motivations to obtain 

work and reform their lives and to identify glaring “red flags” that suggested a particularly low 

likelihood of obtaining employment. Another mode of screening involved grantees inserting 

additional steps into their processes prior to RA, which effectively tested individuals’ 
IV-10

commitment levels. Despite these challenges, two grantees in particular managed to enact 

strategies to ensure some level of commitment among study participants and still enrolled 200 or 

more participants. Talbert House of Cincinnati required prospective study participants to attend 

the orientation, sit for an intake interview with multiple staff members, and return for a followup appointment. Talbert House case managers estimated that 30 percent of those who attended 

the intake interview did not return for the follow-up appointment, which they believed helped 

strengthen their pool of candidates. Urban League of Greater Dallas and North Central Texas 

utilized a similar approach in that it offered an extended (weeklong) orientation and subjected all 

interested participants to an interview panel in which they were asked to explain their goals and 

motivations for participation in the program. 

Despite the two aforementioned grantees’ successes in reaching their enrollment goals, most 

sites that screened for suitability prior to Year 5 significantly scaled back or suspended the 

process for that year. 

Assessment of Enrolled Program Participants 

Once participants enrolled in RExO, their skills and abilities were assessed. This process was 

very informal in the majority of the sites. It usually involved completing a questionnaire about 

their goals, background, work history, educational history, skills, and criminal background. 

Additionally, some programs designed special-purpose forms such as a “values checklist,” a 

“stability checklist,” and internal substance abuse assessments. Staff members frequently relied 

on participants to self-report all of the information and did not usually provide any objective 

measures of skills capacity or compatibility with certain sectors. A few sites, however, utilized 

technical tools during the initial assessment. These included the Test for Adult Basic Education 

(TABE), the Barriers to Employment Success Inventory, the Level of Service Inventory, and the 

Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System. Of these, TABE was the only assessment 

reportedly utilized by more than one grantee, but only three used it on a regular basis (a few 

more sites use it on an as-needed basis, when a participant reported a particularly low education 

level). Using the information provided during the assessment session, case managers helped 

program participants set goals and determine which services they would utilize over the course 

of their enrollment. This also marked the point at which case managers made referrals for 

supplemental services such as substance abuse treatment, food bank assistance, and personal care 

supplies. It was also common for them to provide aid such as bus tokens, clothes, or gift cards. 

Summary 

This chapter has described the processes through which RExO projects managed and facilitated 

participant entry into their programs. 
IV-11

Anticipating contraction of the pool of available and willing participants as a result of the 

implementation of RA, ETA expanded the eligibility requirements so that RExO programs could 

serve individuals with histories of violent crime. While a significant majority of grantees 

adopted ETA’s expanded eligibility parameters, a few limited (either by choice or compulsion) 

participant access based on other factors, namely the type of institution from which individuals 

were released. 

In previous years of the RExO award, most grantee staff noted that they had a steady stream of 

program applicants. However, the implementation of the RA study reduced the pool of willing 

participants, because many ex-offenders were uncertain about the prospect of being assigned to 

the control group and receiving no services after making an effort to satisfy enrollment 

requirements. Consequently, many grantees discovered early in Year 5 that their enrollments 

were proceeding far more slowly than usual. In response, programs curtailed participant prescreening protocols that they had implemented for the previous four years of the grant and took 

other steps to make it easier for ex-offenders to enroll. In addition, all but a few projects 

significantly intensified their recruitment efforts. 

To address the recruitment challenges that surfaced, staff members cast wider nets in their 

outreach. The most notable outreach targets and referral sources in Year 5 were probation and 

parole offices and halfway houses. RExO programs also increased the frequency with which 

they attended meetings and made presentations to prospective partners and participants. Despite 

these efforts, staff members reported that the most prevalent referral source remained the wordof-mouth recommendations of former and current participants. 

The RExO programs typically offered group orientation sessions to provide an overview of the 

program and explain the RA study. Those grantees that held sessions that spanned an entire day 

or multiple days generally consolidated them during this most recent phase of the grant. Given 

the aforementioned recruitment challenges, they could ill afford the attrition associated with 

longer meetings. Additionally, projects that held individual orientation meetings were able to 

expedite their intake processes. Grantees also adjusted their intake and enrollment procedures in 

order to implement the RA process. Some grantees moved RA forward in their intake and 

enrollment process, using fewer steps to screen candidates for suitability and willingness to 

participate. A few grantees experienced difficulties with these changes while others managed to 

work in adequate suitability screening that occurred in a more limited fashion than it had 

previously. 

Prior to receiving their first core services, program group participants filled out assessment forms 

detailing their interests, goals, educational backgrounds, work experience, and skills. These 

forms also helped their case managers develop appropriate service plans. Whereas several 

grantees had previously required program participants to complete pre-enrollment activities, such 
IV-12

as job readiness training, prior to official enrollment, most did away with this practice for Year 5 

as a means of preserving their enrollment numbers. Accordingly, attendance at the first job 

readiness session or the first case management meeting usually constituted the point of first 

service. Almost all control group participants received a list of referrals to alternative providers, 

and most sites offered them gift cards to local retailers and/or bus tickets (as was done for 

members of the program group). The following chapter describes in greater detail the 

implementation and outcomes of RA. 
V-1

V. RESULTS FROM RANDOM ASSIGNMENT 

This evaluation uses RA to establish two groups, including a program group that is intended to 

receive RExO services and a control group that is not enrolled in the RExO program. Because 

assignment to these two groups is random, the two groups should not differ systematically from 

one another at the outset of the impact study. Thus, any differences between them on the 

outcomes of interest are attributable to the RExO program, rather than to preexisting differences 

between the groups. This chapter describes the RA procedures put in place by the RExO 

grantees, summarizes the number of study participants randomly assigned to each of the two 

groups, and describes the resulting characteristics of these two groups. 

Implementing Random Assignment 

Successful implementation of RA required two overarching decisions. The first was identifying 

the appropriate point at which to place RA within the intake and enrollment process of RExO 

programs. The second was developing the specific procedures that would be used to make the 

assignments. These two areas are discussed in turn below. 

Point of Random Assignment 

A critical decision, both from a design standpoint and from the perspective of the grantees, was 

where the actual point of RA would be placed. All of the grantees had well-established intake 

and enrollment procedures and were justifiably concerned about how a RA process would affect 

these procedures or add burden to their workload. In nearly all sites, grantees had established 

some assessment and screening procedures to ensure that potential participants: (1) were 

eligible, (2) were deemed suitable for the program, and, in some sites, (3) demonstrated a level of 

engagement or commitment to participating fully in the program. The level of intensity of these 

procedures varied substantially across sites, so that in some sites a potential participant needed 

only to meet the basic eligibility criteria and express interest in participating before being 

enrolled, while in other sites potential participants underwent multiple assessments and were 

required to participate in multi-day workshops before they were enrolled. 

This raised a fundamental tension for grantees who: (a) wanted to implement RA early in the 

screening process so that they did not have to turn potential clients away after already having 
V-2

significant face-to-face contact, but also (b) wanted to implement RA later after their typical 

processes to screen for suitability so that they were not enrolling RExO clients that they believed 

were not appropriate for their programs. These conflicting concerns gave rise to the tension of 

whether the point of RA should be earlier or later, and grantees and their partners ultimately 

expressed comfort at different points along this continuum. This choice had important 

ramifications for the evaluation, both because it involved developing procedures to fit each 

grantee, and because it can affect the analysis. The earlier the point of RA, the more individuals 

would be assigned to the program group who did not end up receiving substantial services from 

the grantee (because they did not fully engage in the program). Despite not receiving the full 

“treatment,” these individuals must remain in the program group for the analysis, thereby likely 

decreasing the average impacts observed. Thus, to the extent that certain grantees had a higher 

percentage of program-group participants who did not receive the “full” treatment, or even any 

of it, this reduces the service contrast (i.e., the difference in the level of services received 

between program- and control-group members) within that site. 

Though the exact point of RA varied across the grantees, generally speaking, grantees and their 

partners identified a point between the initial orientation provided to potential participants and 

the last screening process or assessment at which RA would be feasible. Given the variation 

among grantees in their intake and enrollment procedures, described in Chapter IV, it is likely 

unsurprising that there was similar variation in the point at which the grantees were comfortable 

in implementing RA. In some cases, grantees felt that once a potential participant had made a 

single contact (or undergone a single assessment), he or she should then be randomly assigned. 

Other grantees felt that allowing an individual they had only seen once to be assigned to 

participate in their program would change the characteristics of their clients. These grantees thus 

preferred to delay the point of RA until the grantee concluded its normal screening for suitability, 

which typically entailed requiring potential participants to complete paperwork, attend an event 

or two, or otherwise demonstrate their commitment to participating fully in the program. 

Unlike the majority of grantees whose program activities occurred only post-release, in a few 

cases, such as St. Patrick Center in St. Louis, Connections to Success in Kansas City, and The 

Director’s Council in Des Moines, grantee staff commonly held orientations in the prisons while 

individuals were still incarcerated. In these sites, grantee staff and their partners initially 

expressed a desire for the RA process to occur while potential participants were still 

incarcerated, and thus before the grantee had contact with the individual post-release. They 

viewed this as appropriate because RExO staff typically began meeting with potential 

participants prior to release; hence knowing individuals’ assignment group at that point would 

have enabled RExO staff to continue to meet only with those in the treatment group. Further, 

parole officers felt this would enable them to refer those in the control group to alternative 

providers upon release. Ultimately, however, due to the logistical difficulties of implementing 
V-3

RA within the prisons, and due to concerns about participants assigned to the program group not 

staying in contact with the grantee post-release, only St. Patrick Center conducted RA prior to 

participants’ release from prison.21

A distinct advantage to allowing variation in the point of RA was that it enhanced the feasibility 

of implementing the evaluation because the procedures were tailored to meet grantees’ (and their 

partners’) comfort level, and were thus implemented in a manner that was least burdensome to 

the existing intake and enrollment procedures. By tailoring the point of RA in this way, the 

characteristics of the clients served by grantees did not need to be changed, which theoretically 

meant that the evaluation would be of the program as it had been operating, rather than asking 

grantees to change anything in their procedures to accommodate a modified enrollment process.22

Ultimately, grantees established three distinct types of RA procedures (the number of grantees 

adopting each model is shown in Exhibit V-1): 

 Pre-Release RA (Model 1). As described above, only St. Patrick Center in St. 

Louis opted to implement RA while potential participants were still incarcerated. 

 Post-Release RA. In most sites, RExO staff members did not meet one-on-one 

with potential participants until after release (though they may have provided 

orientation sessions to groups of individuals who were still incarcerated). Thus, 

the remaining 23 grantees ultimately concluded that the appropriate timing of RA 

(and enrollment into RExO, for those assigned to the program group) would be 

after a potential participant had made contact with the grantee after her/his 

release. Grantees developed two different versions of this general approach: 

 RA concurrent with intake (Model 2). Fifteen grantees enrolled 

potential participants after an initial orientation to the program (which 

occured pre- or post-release, depending on the grantee) and after 

determining their eligibility. For this group of grantees, study intake 

procedures—informing potential participants about the study, 

securing their consent and randomly assigning them—were designed 

 

21 In addition, St. Patrick Center supplemented this approach with “walk-ins” who were randomly assigned after 

their release from prison. As the project neared its end, this supplemental recruitment became more important, 

since many of those assigned to the program group while incarcerated still had several months prior to their 

release, and thus the grantee could not be certain there would be adequate time to serve such individuals. The 

fact that one site implemented RA prior to release affected the procedures necessary to secure Institutional 

Review Board (IRB) approval for the study. Thus, the IRB review for the project included these additional 

requirements, including having a prisoner representative be on the IRB and separately addressing several 

questions specific to research with prisoners. 

22 As will be detailed in the “challenges” section below, this potential advantage was subsequently reduced because 

grantees needed to limit their screening to ensure that they would enroll sufficient numbers of participants into 

the study. 
V-4

to take place either at the intake and orientation meeting or shortly 

thereafter. 

 RA after screening (Model 3). Eight sites had enacted various 

screening procedures (such as assessments or required attendance at 

specific workshops) that potential participants had to undergo prior to 

being enrolled in the program. These grantees devised these activities 

and workshops as a way to assess participant commitment to and 

suitability for the program. These sites felt that the appropriate timing 

of RA was after some or all of these screening steps had occurred. 

Though these grantees informed participants prior to screening 

activities that there was a possibility that they may not be enrolled in 

the program, study intake procedures did not begin until after 

screening occurred and they had determined which candidates were 

suitable.23 

Exhibit V-1: 

Models of Random Assignment

Model for Random Assignment Number of Grantees 

Implementing 

Model 1 (pre-release) 1 

Model 2 (RA concurrent with intake) 15 

Model 3 (RA after screening) 8 

Nearly all grantees therefore adopted RA procedures that required potential participants to come 

to the grantees’ offices at least one time, to learn about the program and the study, and to 

complete all relevant paperwork (described below). An important advantage of enabling 

grantees to have some contact with potential participants prior to the point of RA was that it 

increased the likelihood that a high percentage of the treatment group, in fact, received the 

treatment. At the same time, the procedure ensured that all potential participants received some 

service from the grantee. Especially for grantees that implemented Model 3, members of the 

 

23 Several of these grantees experienced difficulties early in the intake period with low numbers of enrollees, in 

part because they were screening out a substantial number of clients. Thus, over time many of them relaxed their 

screening procedures in order to ensure they could enroll a sufficient number of participants into the study (and 

their programs). 
V-5

control group received at least an assessment and, in a few cases, several days of a workshop or 

counseling. In these sites, then, members of the control group received at least a portion of the 

“treatment” itself.24 

Another disadvantage of implementing RA at varying points along the continuum of grantees’ 

intake processes was that it will make the analysis of impacts across the sites more complicated, 

because there was not a single point at which participants in the study were randomly assigned. 

Because the services offered by grantees and their partners varied substantially, as is described in 

the subsequent chapters of this report, and the point at which RA took place varied, there is no 

single program model that defines RExO. Rather, when considering the impact of the program 

overall, what constitutes the program varies across sites. As a result, the analysis of impacts will 

therefore be of the RExO funding stream rather than of a single program model, because what 

constitutes the program varied, as did the point at which a program “began” (i.e., the point of 

RA). 

Random Assignment Procedures 

Although the point at which RA was conducted varied substantially across the grantees, the 

specific steps necessary to conduct it were the same. To enroll an interested and eligible 

individual into the study, grantee staff members followed seven specific steps to provide the 

participant with a full orientation to the study and the RA process, including:25 

1. showing the potential participant a video that described the study, outlined its 

purposes and procedures, summarized the informed consent form, and described 

the roles and requirements of both RExO staff members and the potential 

participant; 

2. discussing the informed consent form with the potential participant; 

3. providing the potential participant with an opportunity to ask questions about the 

study; 

4. if s/he was amenable, having the participant sign the informed consent form; 

 

24 In each case, care was taken to ensure that the program group would receive substantially more services. Many 

grantees viewed this tradeoff positively, because it meant that they were not fully denying service to anyone. 

25 The exception to this process was that grantees were each given a small number of “wild cards” who could be 

enrolled directly into the program, prior to random assignment, and who were not included as members of the 

study. The percentage of wild cards was capped at no more than five percent of a grantee’s total number of 

participants, or no more than ten, assuming the grantee reached its target of 200 participants. 
V-6

5. collecting baseline data;26

6. using a Web-based system to randomly assign the study participant to the 

program group or control group; and27

7. informing the study participant of the results of RA and explaining the 

implications of the assignment and the participant’s next steps. 

There were no differences in the study enrollment process between program and control group 

members, although as described above there was some variation in this process across grantees. 

Individuals randomly assigned to the program group were expected to begin participating in the 

RExO program immediately. Those randomly assigned to the control group were embargoed 

from enrolling in RExO for at least 12 months. Furthermore, grantees were informed that they 

could not provide other RExO-like services (i.e., employment or mentoring) to control group 

members, even if those services were not funded by ETA. Control group members were 

informed that they could seek employment and reentry services available from other providers in 

the community. In nearly all sites, RExO grantees provided control group members with a list of 

alternative services in their community.28 In two sites, grantees provided direct referrals. 

Grantees were also offered funds from the evaluation budget to provide small stipends to both 

program and control group participants to reimburse them for the time it took to complete the 

baseline data and provide contact information to the evaluation team. Twenty of the grantees 

used these funds and provided participants in both groups $10 gift cards once they had 

completed the RA process. 

Study Participants 

In assessing the targeted sample size, one must balance the competing demands of the number of 

individuals a grantee could reasonably recruit and serve, given the level of funding it received, 

against the fact that, as the number of individuals in the study increases, so too does its statistical 

 

26 Baseline data on RExO program participants were already collected through the MIS that was created by DOL. 

Data items collected and entered included: Name, social security number, Date of Birth, Address, Gender, Race, 

Ethnicity, Non-violent offender status, Employment Status at Incarceration, Employment Status at Enrollment, 

Highest School Grade Completed, Criminal Justice System Identifier, Type of Criminal Justice Identifier, Date 

of Release, Type of Institution (e.g., Federal prison, state prison, county jail), Post-Release Status (e.g., parole, 

probation, other criminal justice/court supervision, none), several contact fields, Eligible Veteran Status, and 

Disability Status. 

27 This system required staff members to enter in the participant’s social security number, date of birth, criminal 

justice identifiers, and to confirm the individual had provided his or her signed consent to participate in the 

study. Once this information was submitted, the assignment was provided within seconds to the staff member. 

28 In most cases, these lists were either already in existence and regularly provided to those who were not eligible 

or appropriate for the program. In a few cases, existing lists were modified slightly for use as part of this study. 
V-7

power. Additionally, to the extent possible, an evaluation should not arbitrarily limit the number 

of individuals that are assigned to the program group to such an extent that program slots that 

otherwise could be given to interested participants remain unfilled. Thus, ideally, each site 

would have recruited an appropriate number of individuals into the study both to provide a 

sufficient control group while at the same time ensuring that all available program slots were 

filled by those assigned to the program group. 

As described in Chapter III, each of the 24 grantees had been able to meet its enrollment targets 

during the first three years of the program. In discussions with the grantees during the initial 

visits to each one that took place in 2009 in preparation for the evaluation, grantees almost 

uniformly indicated that they would be able to continue their past rates of recruitment and 

enrollment during the period in which RA would be in place. Despite this confidence, prior 

studies have observed that when RA is introduced there can be a noticeable decline in the 

number of enrollees. This situation can be due to individuals refusing to participate in the study, 

or shying away from seeking services because they have heard that enrollment is no longer 

assured. As described in Chapter IV, partially in response to this concern, at the request of the 

evaluation team, ETA agreed to relax the eligibility criteria to allow those with a previous violent 

offense (provided it was not their current offense) to be served by the program, which was 

anticipated to expand the potential pool of participants substantially. Given these considerations, 

ETA established recruitment targets of 200 participants for each grantee. 

Further, during the initial discussions, grantees indicated that if they could serve more offenders 

than they were required to turn away, this would be far preferable to them and would make 

recruitment more successful. Thus, though equally dividing the study pool into program- and 

control-group members would have yielded the greatest statistical precision, the evaluation 

deviated slightly from this statistical ideal and assigned a greater percentage of participants to the 

program group. The final balance between the groups was set at 60 percent to the program group 

(or 120 participants per grantee) and 40 percent to the control group (80 participants per grantee). 

The first individuals were enrolled into the study in late January 2010, when one grantee 

implemented RA. The remaining grantees implemented RA between February 1 and April 1, 

2010. Eight sites implemented RA in February. An additional fourteen implemented in March. 

The final grantee implemented in April 2010. Grantees continued enrolling individuals into the 

study for the remainder of the calendar year or, in two cases, into early 2011 in any effort to 

reach the target of 200 study participants.29 

 

29 Two grantees continued enrolling individuals into the study through January 2011. 
V-8

tal 

1 

5

3 

3

9 

4

7 

0

0 

1

0 

9

9 

2

0 

0

4 

4

9 

4

5 

7

9 

0

60 

Exhibit V-2: 

Number Randomly Assigned by Each Grantee 

Program Control 

Grantee Site Location 

Episcopal Community Services of Maryland Baltimore, MD 

Group 

121 

Group 

80 

To

20

Baton Rouge, Church United for Community Development LA 110 75 18

Span, Inc. Boston, MA 111 72 18

Safer Foundation Chicago, IL 68 45 11

Talbert House Cincinnati, OH 124 83 20

Urban League of Greater Dallas & North Central Dallas, TX Texas 123 81 20

The Empowerment Program Denver, CO 131 86 21

The Directors' Council Des Moines, IA 120 80 20

Egg Harbor, Career Opportunity Development NJ 121 79 20

Fort OIC of Broward County Lauderdale, FL 117 74 19

Fresno Career Development Institute Fresno, CA 120 80 20

Community Partners in Action Hartford, CT 109 70 17

Kansas City, Connections to Success MO 89 60 14

New Orleans, Odyssey House Louisiana LA 120 82 20

Philadelphia, Connection Training Services PA 155 105 26

AWEE Phoenix, AZ 120 80 20

OLSHA Pontiac, MI 86 55 14

SE Works Portland, OR 123 81 20

Sacramento, (MAAP. CA 127 82 20

San Antonio, Goodwill Industries TX 123 81 20

Metro United Methodist Urban Ministries San Diego, CA 123 82 20

(POCAAN Seattle, WA 119 78 19

St. Patrick Center St. Louis, MO 119 80 19

Primavera Foundation Tucson, AZ 125 85 21

Total 2,804 1,856 4,6

Note: In addition, 71 individuals were designated as wild cards. 

Source: Random assignment system data 
V-9

A total of 4,660 individuals was enrolled into the study, including 2,804 program-group 

members (60.2 percent) and 1,856 control-group members (59.8 percent).30 Exhibit V-2 displays 

the number of participants for each of the grantee sites. As can be seen in this exhibit, the 

average number of participants across grantees was 194.2. Fifteen of the grantees achieved their 

target of 200 participants, including three that exceeded this target by at least ten participants. 

An additional three enrolled at least 190 participants. Only three grantees enrolled fewer than 

150 participants. Enrollment into the study was initially slow, especially since grantees 

implemented RA at varying times, and thus there were fewer grantees enrolling participants 

during the initial few months. Exhibit V-3 displays the number of enrollments for each month. 

Exhibit V-3: 

Number Randomly Assigned by Week 

Month Participants Enrolled 

January 2010 8 

February 96

March 391

April 389

May 359

June 512

July 410

August 620

September 531

October 489

November 514

December 317

January 2011 24 

Total 4,660

Source: Random assignment system data 

 

As can be seen in this table, enrollment accelerated substantially beginning June 2010. In part, 

this was due to RA being fully implemented by all grantees. Additionally, however, in response 

to the slow rate of enrollment in the first few months, the evaluation team conducted a webinar in 

 

30 One additional person was randomly assigned to the program group, but was subsequently determined to be 

ineligible for the program. This individual was removed from the total numbers shown here. Additionally, three 

individuals, all members of the control group, asked to be removed from the study. These are included in the 

totals shown here, but no further data will be collected for them. 
V-10

% 

Exhibit V-4: 

Characteristics of Program and Control Group

Characteristic Program Group Control Group 

Age 

18-19 1.6% %1.1

20-24 12.8% %11.8

25-34 32.2% %*35.5

35-44 29.0% %29.4

45-54 21.1% %**18.3

55+ 3.4% 3.8

Gender 

Male 80.6% %81.7

Female 19.4% %18.3

Race and Ethnicity 

White 33.1% %32.1

Black 50.9% %52.1

Asian 0.9% %0.8

Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0.6% % 0.3

Native American 2.8% % 2.3

No Race Recorded 13.1% % 13.7

late May, which reiterated the importance of meeting enrollment targets, and featured “best 

practice” lessons learned by grantees that had been successful in recruitment to that date. This 

webinar, which was attended by at least one representative from each of the grantees, as well as 

ETA and the evaluation team, seems to have contributed to increasing the pace of enrollments 

into the study. Additionally, site liaisons worked extensively with those grantees experiencing 

slow enrollment. This work included weekly or bi-weekly phone calls, as well as visits to 

grantees to discuss the recruitment challenges, brainstorm possible strategies for overcoming 

them, and monitoring implementation of these strategies. These efforts also likely contributed to 

the increased rate of enrollment over time. 

Characteristics of Participants 

It is critical that the RA process work properly. If it does, the characteristics of those in the 

program and control groups should be approximately identical. While it is expected that some 

minor variations in study participant characteristics may be apparent between the two groups, 

generally these characteristics should be approximately equivalent. Exhibit V-4 displays the key 

characteristics for both the program and control groups. 
V-11

Characteristic 

Hispanic 

Program Group 

17.9% 

Control Group 

17.2%

Education 

8th Grade or Less 3.4% 3.6%

Some high school 42.6% 43.7%

HS Diploma/GED 42.2% 41.5%

Some College 9.9% 9.0%

College Graduate + 1.6% 2.0%

Post-Release Status 

Probation 28.2% 27.5%

Parole 49.7% *52.6%

Other Supervision 8.4% ** 6.4%

None 13.7% 13.6%

Type of Institution 

Federal Prison 11.2% 11.1%

State Prison 67.5% 68.1%

County or City Jail 21.3% 20.9% 

Other Characteristics 

Disability 6.2% 5.7%

Non-violent Offender 93.5% 93.1%

Employment Status at Entry 3.4% 3.7% 

Average Number of Months 0.95 1.03

Since Release 

Note: * = p < .05; ** = p < .01 

Source: Random assignment system data 

As can be seen in this exhibit, there are a few minor differences in characteristics between the 

program and control groups. Specifically, the control group was more likely to be between 25 

and 34 years old at the time of RA, while the program group was more likely to be between 45 

and 54 years old. Further, the program group was somewhat less likely to be on parole than the 

control group, and somewhat more likely to be on some other form of supervision. Generally, 

however, the characteristics are similar between the two groups, which is the expected outcome 

when assignment to the groups is done at random. Even with such a large number of participants 

in each of the two groups, which increases the likelihood that one will observe statistically 

significant differences, there are few such differences between these two groups. 
V-12

Results from RA indicate that the process worked as intended, and there are minimal differences 

in characteristics between the two groups. Further, grantees generally were able to conduct RA 

with few reported problems or concerns. This, too, indicates the process functioned as intended, 

which implies that comparisons of outcomes for the two groups, to be completed as part of the 

Impact Report, will produce an unbiased estimate of the impact of RExO. 

Summary 

This chapter summarized the development and implementation of RA across the 24 grantees, and 

summarized the number of participants randomly assigned and their characteristics. The RA 

process was implemented smoothly by nearly all grantees, though the exact point at which 

participants were assigned varied across the grantees. One grantee implemented RA prior to 

participants being released from incarceration, while the remaining grantees assigned 

participants only after they had made contact with the grantee post-release. There were two 

general models of post-release RA, one in which the assignment was made in conjunction with 

an orientation to the program at an initial meeting with the participant, and the other only after 

some screening and assessments were conducted to ensure the participant was a good fit for the 

program and was sufficiently motivated to participate in it. Many of the grantees that adopted 

this latter model dropped much of their screening process and gravitated toward the former 

model after seeing poor early enrollment rates. 

Because there was substantial variation both in the services provided under RExO and the point 

at which individuals were assigned, the impact analysis will be affected to some degree. 

Specifically, there was not a single program model that was employed, nor a uniform point at 

which individuals were assigned; hence, the impact analysis will technically be of the RExO 

funding stream, rather than of a specific program model or approach. While this is quite 

common in evaluations of existing programs that have developed somewhat independently, it is 

important to note in advance of the Impact Report. 

A total of 4,660 individuals was assigned to either the program group (2,804, or 60.2 percent) or 

the control group (1,856, or 39.8 percent). While enrollment began slowly, it accelerated in June 

and continued at the increased pace through December, when nearly all grantees discontinued 

intake. Fifteen of the grantees reached their target of 200 participants (and an additional three 

reached at least 190), while only three grantees enrolled fewer than 150 participants. 

Most participants were male (81 percent), between 25 and 44 years old (63 percent), and 

African-American (51 percent). Nearly 18 percent were Hispanic. Most had either completed 

some high school (43 percent) or had a high school diploma or GED (42 percent). Nearly all 

participants were nonviolent offenders (93 percent), reflecting the ban during the first four years 

of the program on serving violent offenders. About one-fourth of all participants were on 
V-13

probation (28 percent), and one-half were on parole (51 percent). Overall, there are very few 

differences between the two groups, suggesting the random assignment process operated as 

intended. 
VI-1

VI. REXO SERVICES 

To achieve its goal of helping ex-offenders find stable employment and thereby avoid 

recidivating, the RExO program provided ex-offenders with three core services: case 

management, employment services, and mentoring. Grantees implemented these three service 

elements with considerable complexity and richness; as a result, the overall slate of services and 

the path by which program participants experienced them varied considerably from grantee to 

grantee. In addition, grantees and other providers in their communities offered a variety of other 

services of which program participants might have taken advantage. 

This chapter identifies and categorizes the various services grantees offered to participants 

through their RExO programs. The chapter starts with an overview of these services, breaking 

them down into their component parts and identifying the ways in which these services are 

sequenced and delivered. It then examines in some detail each of the core RExO services—case 

management, employment services and mentoring—weaving in examples of participant 

experiences drawn from the 116 case files that the study team reviewed and data drawn from the 

MIS. The chapter then concludes with a discussion of the challenges that grantees encountered 

in implementing these services. 

Overview of RExO Services 

The solicitation for grant applications for the RExO program suggests that grantees make a 

number of services available to ex-offenders, including the core services noted above and other 

services such as referrals to housing, substance abuse treatment, and other supportive services. 

However, each grantee was given significant leeway in designing and delivering each of these 

services. The sections below discuss the various approaches grantees took in designing and 

delivering these services for ex-offenders. 

Core RExO Services 

Grantees provided a comprehensive service package that was available directly through the 

RExO grantee or coordinated with a network of community providers. Although each grantee 

provided all the core services, there was variation in the specific types of services made available 
VI-2

in each core-service category. Exhibit VI-1 provides an overview of the services, showing how 

many grantees offered each specific service. 

Exhibit VI-1: 

Overview of Services Provided by RExO Grantees 

Service Number of Grantees 

Case Management Services 

Case management All 

Supportive services All 

Follow-up services All

Employment Services 

Work readiness training 22 

Job search assistance and job placement All 

Education and vocational training All1

Transitional employment/trial employment 7 

Mentoring2

Individual mentoring 18 

Group mentoring 23 

1 All grantees make these services available either directly or through referrals. 

2

 All grantees offer at least one type of mentoring. Mentoring numbers are duplicative 

because approximately 17 grantees offer both individual and group mentoring.

The exhibit shows that all RExO grantees offered a combination of services that included, at 

minimum, intensive case management, supportive services, follow-up services, job search and 

job placement assistance, and at least one type of mentoring. Nearly all grantees offered work 

readiness training, and about one-third offered transitional jobs or trial employment. All grantees 

made additional education and vocational training available through referrals to other providers. 

RExO programs offered all of these services prior to the study and continued to offer them 

during the study enrollment period. However, some grantees adjusted the sequence of some of 

their services; most prominently, some changed the timing for delivering work readiness 

training. Prior to the study, a number of grantees offered work readiness training before 

enrollment, to test applicants’ interest and commitment to the RExO program. Applicants who 

did not complete the work readiness training were not enrolled in the program. When the study 

was implemented, some grantees made work readiness training available only after enrollment, 
VI-3

both because they were concerned about enrolling a sufficient number of participants and to 

ensure that the control group would not receive these services from the RExO program. 

Service Flow and Service Delivery Sequence 

As discussed in Chapter IV, the intake and random assignment process occurred once applicants 

completed the required paperwork, which included signing consent forms and proving eligibility. 

Control and program group members typically were given a small stipend for their time, such as 

a $10 gift card and/or bus tokens. 

At three grantees, service flow worked a little differently.31 These grantees offered a class on 

work readiness skills prior to random assignment that was open to all applicants. Unlike the 

class for program participants discussed below, this class lasted about half a day and covered 

topics such as résumé building, interviewing techniques, and time management. Once program 

participants were assigned at these three sites, they continued with a more in-depth curriculum, 

described below. 

Program group participants at all the sites received a full array of services, which started when 

they were assessed and continued when they met with case managers to develop their service 

plans. As shown in Exhibit VI-2, there were two general approaches to structuring service 

delivery after the assessment process—one worked toward the goal of securing immediate 

employment, and the other emphasized preparing the participant for employment by delivering 

supportive services before job search assistance. Regardless of which path participants took, 

they were offered the full array of RExO program services. 

The first approach, which the study team refers to as Pathway 1: Secure Immediate Employment, 

was used by 16 grantees. Under this approach, grantees prioritized employment as the first key 

step in an ex-offender’s transition out of prison. When participants followed this path, they were 

usually enrolled in work readiness training immediately after enrollment and at the same time 

began to work with a job developer to identify job leads. This way, participants increased their 

chances of earning income immediately so that they could make headway in other aspects of 

their lives, such as securing permanent housing. This was important, as many participants who 

lived in transitional housing were required to pay rent, and some were required to find a job 

within a short timeframe. For example, a large proportion of participants at the Empowerment 

Program in Denver, CO lived in transitional housing facilities that charged $17 a day for a bed. 

As a result, program staff members tried to place RExO participants into transitional or 

temporary jobs immediately to help pay for these costs. 

 

31 The Empowerment Program, Denver, CO; the Urban League of Greater Dallas and North Central Texas; and 

Primavera Foundation, Tucson, AZ. 
VI-4

Exhibit VI-2: 

Service Flow and Service Delivery Sequence 

The second approach, which the study team refers to as Pathway 2: Provide Stabilizing Supports,

was used by eight grantees. Under this approach, grantees prioritized case management, 

supportive services, and work readiness training before participants were referred for jobs. This 

approach ensured that participants received critical supportive services, such as housing and 

substance abuse treatment services, before they received job leads, based on the premise that 

without stable housing and proper substance abuse treatment, ex-offenders would not be able to 

obtain or retain employment. Consistent with this approach, grantees may have required that 

participants be “job ready” before they could get job search assistance. For example, participants 

at the OIC of Broward County, Inc. in Fort Lauderdale, FL, were required to complete the work 

readiness training before they could enter the job search phase. This training generally lasted 

anywhere between one to four weeks before participants began receiving job leads. 

Service Use 

To explore service usage by RExO participants, we analyzed data from DOL’s MIS for 2,147 

participants entered between February 2010 and June 2011, the period for which data is available 
VI-5

on the program group. The data do not include the 650 program group members who did not 

have any service records.32

Grantees entered information about the service for which participants were referred. The initial 

entry indicated the date of contact, the type of service needed, a detailed description of the 

service, the designated referral provider, and the expected date of completion. Grantees later 

used a service update screen to indicate whether the participant actually received the service, the 

date the participant started the service, and the date the participant last received it.33 Because 

grantees entered information about each referral for a service into the MIS, each participant has 

multiple records for different types of services and can have more than one record for the same 

type of service. For example, if a participant saw a case manager in February to request a bus 

pass and then came back again in June for the same reason, there are two records. If that same 

participant came back in August and was referred to a GED class, a third record was created. 

The MIS data, which were developed for program management and reporting rather than as part 

of the evaluation, and the resulting analysis have several limitations. First, the MIS only shows 

the referrals actually provided to participants, so it is not possible to estimate unmet need. 

Additionally, and of particular import to this chapter, the MIS does not describe case 

management services in enough detail to report on. While the MIS shows that a participant came 

in and received a referral for a service, it does not report, for example, the number of hours of 

case management per week and does not necessarily capture case management that occurred 

independent of providing a referral.34 Given the prevalence of case management services among 

grantees and its centrality to program operations as reported during site visits, this lack of 

information in the MIS data is a major limitation of the present analysis. Finally, grantees had 

significant freedom to categorize services, so even case managers within the same site might not 

have classified a given service the same way in the MIS; for example, one case manager might 

have entered a transportation stipend to get to work as a supportive service, while another case 

manager might have considered this a workforce preparation activity. Despite these limitations, 

 

32 These records likely represent participants who enrolled in the study but never returned to receive services, 

potentially due to re-incarceration or relocation, because they found employment, or simply because they lost 

interest in the program. 

33 This analysis does not make use of date variables because they only provide a sense of the time period in which a 

participant received services rather than the intensity of those services. For example, MIS data do not allow us 

to see the number of hours of GED instruction a participant received, only the start date and end date. 

34 The MIS does show, for some participants, a follow-up call or visit after exit or a conversation without an 

apparent linked referral, but this type of contact does not appear consistently and is not categorized uniformly as 

any particular type of service, making systematic analysis difficult. 
VI-6

the MIS offers valuable insight into participants’ service usage, as well as providing support for 

the qualitative findings from the site visits. 

Case Management Services 

Case managers had a central role in the RExO program because they ensured that participants 

gained access to the services they needed to successfully transition into the community, and 

provided RExO participants with emotional support, advice, encouragement, and guidance on 

making the right decisions. Case managers also connected participants to workforce preparation 

services and coordinated various supportive services dealing with housing, mental health, and 

substance abuse treatment, among others. In addition, case managers were responsible for 

developing and implementing individual service plans. At some grantee sites, they also 

conducted intake and assessment, coordinated mentoring services, and conducted job 

development activities. 

Simultaneously, case managers were often tasked with building relationships with community 

partners in order to enhance their ability to address participants’ needs. This responsibility 

involved identifying training programs and education providers, educating One-Stop Career 

Center staff members about the RExO program, and communicating with probation and parole 

about participants’ progress. These multiple roles were reflected in the different titles that were 

assigned to case managers: life coach, reentry specialist, resource manager, case navigator, and 

wraparound specialist, to name a just a few. 

Case Manager Background and Caseload 

At the time of the first round of site visits (spring and summer 2010), there were 91 full-time and 

part-time case managers supporting RExO participants across all the grantees. This number had 

decreased to approximately 60 FTEs as of the second site visit. The number of case managers 

available at each site ranged from one to nine individuals. As displayed in Exhibit VI-3, half of 

the grantees had three or four designated case managers on staff; six had two or fewer; and 

another six had five or more. 

Case managers brought a diverse range of experiences to the RExO program. Some had a 

background in social work and/or experience working with ex-offenders in various settings, such 

as homeless shelters, substance abuse treatment programs, and criminal justice organizations. 

For example, some of the case managers at the Church for Community Development in Baton 

Rouge, LA, and Spectrum Resources in Des Moines, IA, worked in the DOC providing prerelease services prior to joining the RExO program. Others, such as those at the Safer 

Foundation in Chicago, IL and at Metro United Methodist Church in San Diego, CA, had a long 

history of working in faith-based organizations in different capacities as volunteers, outreach 
VI-7

coordinators, counselors, etc. In addition to hiring case managers with broad and relevant 

experience, grantees made a special effort to hire case managers with backgrounds similar to 

those of the RExO participants. Some case managers were ex-offenders and even former RExO 

participants themselves; participants said that working with such a case manager was very 

motivating to them because he or she served as a real example of someone who had succeeded in 

turning his or her life around. 

Exhibit VI-3: 

Level of Case Management Staffing 

At least half of the RExO grantees faced the challenge of keeping case managers’ caseloads low 

enough to make intensive case management support possible. As of the first site visit, caseloads 

varied significantly in size, from a low of fewer than 10 active35 participants per case manager to 

a high of about 50 or more active participants. 

Respondents noted that keeping caseloads under 30 participants per case manager was ideal, as it 

allowed case managers to monitor participants’ progress and retention frequently, continually 

 

35 An active participant is one who has not exited or entered follow-up services. 
VI-8

assess their needs, and address their barriers to employment such as getting identification (ID) 

cards and connecting them to Food Stamps and other forms of public assistance. 

Exhibit VI-4: 

Average Caseload 

Exhibit VI-4 shows the distribution of caseloads across grantees as of the first site visit. Twelve 

grantees had 30 or fewer participants per case manager, while another 12 had 31 or more. By the 

second site visit (late 2010), case managers in at least five sites reported an increase in the 

number of participants on their caseloads because enrollment in their programs had increased, 

and because the number of case managers had declined somewhat. Such shifts could have had 

implications for program performance, and most case managers lamented that they could no 

longer provide the kind of intensive services they felt were most appropriate for this population. 

This trend was not universal, however, as some case managers at a few sites saw a decline in 

their caseloads as enrollments slowed towards the end of the grant period. 

Developing Individual Development Plans 

Once a participant was randomly assigned to the program group, a case manager assessed that 

individual to identify customer service needs, goals, and barriers to success. As discussed in 

Chapter IV, assessments typically involved case managers’ meeting one-on-one with exoffenders and either interviewing them or having them complete forms that detailed their living 

situation, family ties, educational background, current and previous work experiences, and 

offense history. 
VI-9

A case manager used the information from the assessment to develop an Individual Development 

Plan (IDP) jointly with the participant. These plans served as blueprints for participants’ service 

design, outlining short-term and long-term goals and the steps participants would take to achieve 

them. Case managers often shared IDPs with job developers so that they were aware of the 

specific goals, needs, and other circumstances that may affect a participant’s job search process. 

The majority of the sites had IDPs in participants’ case files, some of which were rich in detail 

with copious case management notes. 

Maintaining Contact with Participants 

Case managers spent a significant amount of time 

working with RExO participants. As discussed 

above, data on the specific number of hours that 

case managers spent with participants is not 

available in the MIS. However, the qualitative 

data suggests that case management support was 

an intensive activity especially when participants 

were “active” in the program. Within the first 

couple of months of enrollment, for example, case 

managers in all the RExO programs met with 

clients about once to twice per week, and then at 

least monthly thereafter, either by phone or inperson. In some situations, however, case 

managers went beyond this general schedule, 

meeting with clients several times per week. This 

more frequent meeting schedule tended to occur 

when clients were actively seeking employment or when they had particular challenges. One 

participant, for instance, met several times a week with his case manager because he was worried 

about making his child support payments. He also faced a transportation challenge because his 

driver’s license had been recently revoked. The case manager helped him to reduce the interest 

on his child support payment to lessen the financial burden, and worked with him in an effort to 

get his license back; she also offered bus tokens to help the participant get to meetings and job 

interviews. Another example of frequent contacts with case managers is shown in Case File #1. 

Case managers said that maintaining frequent contact was a key strategy for building trust with 

the participants because many ex-offenders had lost trust in the community and the institutions 

on which they now needed to rely. As a result, case managers made a special effort to stay 

connected with program participants, calling them when they did not show up for appointments 

and even visiting their homes to check up on them. At Metro United Methodist Urban Ministries 

Case File #1 

Matthew is in his early thirties and was 

released in early 2010 after his second 

conviction for operating a vehicle while 

intoxicated. Since enrolling in the RExO 

program, Matthew was in frequent 

contact with his case manager and 

attended many mentoring sessions. 

Because of his consistent participation, 

he received 12 gift card incentives. He 

worked with the job developer to develop 

his résumé and job search skills. 

Although Matthew had not yet obtained 

employment at the time of the visit, he 

registered at the local community college, 

where the grantee covered his first 

semester’s tuition, books, and supplies. 

He continued to attend school and look 

for jobs and was leading a stable life. 
VI-10

in San Diego, CA, for instance, case managers spoke about calling participants to track them 

down if they did not show up for scheduled appointments. Participants at this site said that even 

if they did not meet with their case managers in person, the case managers were looking for ways 

to help them, by calling service providers on their behalf and making appointments for them. In 

some cases, a number of case managers gave out their cell phone numbers so that participants 

could call them any time, even at night. 

Maintaining regular contact with participants was challenging, despite the case managers’ best 

efforts to build trust. Case managers said that clients sometimes “disappeared” from the program 

without notice and did not return calls or e-mails. When this happened, case managers predicted 

that in the best-case scenario, participants found employment or, in the worst-case scenario, they 

recidivated. One participant, for example, was classified as “on the run” by his case manager 

because she was unable to locate him after multiple attempts. According to the case manager, 

the participant was required to attend a substance abuse treatment program as part of his service 

plan, but was overwhelmed by this responsibility and decided to cease contact with the program. 

Sometimes, however, case managers were unable to maintain frequent contact with clients for 

reasons that had to do with the way their RExO program operated. In at least seven sites, case 

managers had difficulty maintaining contact because they had too many responsibilities beyond 

their case management functions. At one site, for instance, the case managers were also 

responsible for job development and job placement. In other sites, case managers had high 

caseloads, with more than 50 active participants at one time, making it difficult to maintain 

frequent contact with individual participants and provide individualized support. Finally, many 

of the grantees seemed to have fairly informal processes for checking up on customers with 

whom they had little contact, meaning that some participants could “fall through the cracks.” 

Connecting Participants to Supportive Services 

RExO participants required a host of supportive services to address their substantial barriers to 

employment, such as their needs for housing; transportation; substance abuse treatment; mental 

health services; medical and dental care; childcare; fees for things like obtaining an identification 

card or a driver’s license; legal assistance around tasks such as expunging a record; food, 

clothing and other basic staples; and materials and supplies for training and education courses. 

Housing, transportation, and substance abuse services were the most common supportive 

services provided and were made available in-house or through referrals to other organizations. 

Data from the MIS—as shown in Exhibit VI-5—show that more than half of the participants 

used supportive services between February 2010 and June 2011 (58.5%). Transportation was the 

most common supportive service received, followed by other supportive services and health 

services. 
VI-11

Exhibit VI-5: 

Supportive Service Usage 

(February 2010 to June 2011) 

#of Program % of Program 

Participants Participants 

Using Service Using Service 

1257 58.5% 

 Transportation 866 40.3% 

 Other Supportive Services1 754 35.1% 

 Health Services2 226 10.5% 

 Needs-Related Payments3 92 4.3% 

Childcare Services 1 0.0% 

1 Examples include: housing assistance, assistance paying for work clothing, renewing driver’s license, and 

referrals to food banks, or parenting classes. 

2 Health services include substance abuse counseling and treatment and referrals for medical service needs. 

3 Needs-related Payments include incentive payments and financial assistance to participants for the purpose 

of enabling individuals to participate in training. 

Source: DOL RExO MIS data 

Securing stable housing was considered one of the most critical needs for ex-offenders, 

according to RExO staff members. Staff members noted that, without stable housing, exoffenders were likely to become homeless and fall back into their former lifestyles. One 

program staff member illustrated this point by stating, “If you don’t provide housing, don’t 

bother, because how in the world will you get your life back on track with no housing?” 

Because housing resources were in short supply, case managers referred participants to local 

shelters or transitional housing facilities, though the long waiting lists and/or prohibitive expense 

sometimes made it difficult for participants to secure housing at these facilities. On the other 

hand, a few grantees were able to pay for some type of housing or to provide rental assistance by 

leveraging other resources within their parent organizations. Some examples include the 

following: 

 Episcopal Community Services in Baltimore paid for 10 weeks of transitional 

housing assistance, made possible through a $40,000 annual housing grant from 

the Able Foundation. 

 Community Partners in Action in Hartford assisted clients with a rental deposit 

and provided gift cards for other necessities, made possible through a grant. 

 POCAAN in Seattle offered $450 of rental assistance, plus a $25 voucher for food 

every month for up to 12 months, through its Get Off the Streets (GOTS) 

program, which is funded by the City of Seattle. RExO participants can co-enroll 

in the GOTS program to access rental assistance. 

 Spectrum Resources in Des Moines received a $15,000 grant from the Greater 

Des Moines Foundation and used it partly to pay for ex-offenders’ temporary 

housing immediately after their release from prison. 
VI-12

Other housing options for RExO participants included community-based correctional housing 

facilities and transitional housing, which offered temporary housing while ex-offenders were 

under supervision. Respondents noted that these options were severely limited, and when they 

were available many of them required rental payments that typically averaged about $13 per day. 

One exception was a transitional housing facility in Phoenix called TLC, which housed 

individuals free of charge with the stipulation that clients get a job within a set timeframe. If exoffenders were unable to find employment, they were required to participate in the program’s 

day laborer program, which paid for the bulk of their housing. 

Transportation assistance was another common type of supportive service that RExO programs 

provided. Case managers gave bus tokens to participants to help them travel to service locations, 

job interviews, and worksites. Some case managers, such as those at the Oakland Livingston 

Human Service Agency in Pontiac, MI, used bus tokens as incentives for program participation, 

such as attending a work readiness class or showing up at meetings with case managers or 

mentors. At least three sites, such as the Connections to Success program in Kansas City and the 

Step Out Program at the Church United for Community Development in Baton Rouge had a van 

service that transported participants to various 

locations, including job interviews and other 

appointments. 

Another common support service need was for 

substance abuse treatment, including inpatient and 

outpatient treatment. Since grantees had limited 

capacity to provide these services on their own, 

they relied on a network of providers to which 

participants could be referred. Referrals usually 

involved connecting participants to providers in 

the community with whom the grantee had little 

or no formal relationship, or to providers with 

whom the grantee had a formal agreement 

through an MOU or subcontract. In most cases, 

case managers referred participants to the former, 

giving participants information about the specific 

services available in the community, such as the location of the facility and the type of services 

available. Case managers often made appointments for participants and called the facility to see 

if clients showed up and received services. In one site, where coordination with partners was 

particularly strong, case managers stayed in touch with the providers on a regular basis to 

Case File #2 

Elizabeth is in her mid-fifties and was 

released in 2010 after serving nine 

months in a state prison for burglary and 

check fraud. She had a history of 

employment in construction and sewing 

and alterations. When she entered the 

RExO program, she needed substance 

abuse treatment and medical care, in 

addition to help finding permanent 

employment. She was very proactive 

about staying in touch with her RExO 

case manager and job developer. After 

enrolling in a drug relapse prevention 

program and attending work readiness 

training, Elizabeth obtained full-time 

employment doing magazine sales, 

earning approximately $8 per hour. She 

continues to work and attend her 

substance abuse classes. 
VI-13

monitor their clients’ progress. Case File #2 shows an example of a participant who successfully 

completed a treatment program. 

On the other hand, in sites where partnerships with providers were not well developed, clients 

often did not receive treatment in a timely manner unless case managers advocated on their 

behalf. One grantee, for example, had a long list of substance abuse providers to which 

participants were referred, but all of the providers were full to capacity, so it was very difficult 

for RExO participants to receive these services. 

When grantees had strong ties to specific providers, participants’ chances of receiving services 

were greater. One participant with a long history of drug abuse relapsed due to a death in the 

family. The case manager arranged substance abuse treatment at an in-patient facility that has a 

long history of collaboration with the RExO program, and the client successfully completed the 

program. Goodwill in San Antonio, TX, has a strong partnership with a substance abuse 

provider, the Center for Health Care Services (CHCS). Under this partnership, Goodwill 

referred RExO participants for treatment and, in return, CHCS referred its clients to Goodwill for 

employment services. 

Approximately eight RExO programs had the capacity to offer treatment services in-house, 

through the parent organization. The types of services naturally varied among these 

organizations, ranging from support groups that were facilitated by licensed therapists to 

outpatient treatment programs. Span, Inc. in Boston, MA, for instance, provided outpatient 

substance abuse treatment for ex-offenders especially targeting those living with HIV/AIDS. 

OIC of Broward County, FL, had a substance abuse unit with a full team of licensed 

professionals to provide in-house treatment, thanks to a recent grant from the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration. The Jericho Program at the Episcopal Community 

Services of Maryland in Baltimore partnered with a licensed clinical therapist who visited the 

program once a week to conduct group therapy and met with individual clients to counsel them 

on day-to-day challenges such as their difficulties staying off drugs. A psychiatrist also visited 

the program once a month to prescribe needed medication. 

The areas on which the supportive services discussed above were focused—housing, 

transportation, substance abuse—were identified as the most immediate challenges facing RExO 

participants. Respondents noted that providing the services that addressed these needs was a key 

strategy to removing barriers to employment and promoting success in the RExO program. 

While case managers had systems in place to provide these services in-house or through 

referrals, these services—such as housing and substance abuse treatment—were limited in scope 

due to a scarcity of community resources. The few grantees that were able to leverage resources 

from other funders reported being better able to successfully connect participants to essential 
VI-14

services such as housing and substance abuse treatment, two services for which RExO grantees 

could not spend their own funds. 

Providing Incentives 

In most programs, participants received a host of incentives to promote program participation 

and job retention. These incentives included cash payments, gift cards, bus tokens, food, and 

prizes such as t-shirts. In order to receive incentives, participants were required to meet key 

milestones, such as completing work readiness training, showing up at meetings with case 

managers, getting a job, and retaining a job for a certain period of time. According to the MIS 

data in Exhibit VI-5, a small percentage of participants received needs-related payments or 

incentive payments (4.3 percent). The small percentage may in part be due to the fact that 

programs were near the end of the DOL contract and needed to reduce their costs. 

Incentives differed for “active” participants and for those in “follow-up” status. Active 

participants received incentives for attending job clubs, mentoring meetings, workshops on work 

readiness, life skills trainings, and other activities. For example, participants at New Choice 

Program within MAAP in Sacramento earned cash bonuses ranging from $50 to $100 for 

attending meetings with case managers and mentors, registering for jobs online, and turning in a 

job search worksheet. Participants in follow-up status received incentives for remaining 

employed in their current jobs if they brought in their most recent pay stubs as proof of 

employment. At the Safer Foundation in Chicago participants who remained employed for 180 

days received a $100 cash bonus. Other grantees offered bus tokens if participants remained 

employed. 

Respondents noted that the incentive payments were critical for helping participants pay for their 

basic needs such as housing, food, and personal items. Participants also reported that the 

incentives helped to motivate them to continue to pursue their goals while in the RExO program. 

However, many grantees had reduced their incentives by the second site visits due to the 

decrease in program funding for the fifth year of operations. This meant that the amounts of cash 

incentives were smaller than previously and the policies for receiving incentives were noticeably 

more stringent. For example, incentives decreased at Community Partners in Action in Hartford, 

CT, from the first to second round of site visits. During the first round of visits, the program 

offered gift cards that ranged in value from $25 to $75 for participation in program activities 

such as anger management workshops, substance abuse education classes, etc. These incentives 

were not available during the second site visit because, according to staff members, there was no 

money left in the budget for them. Anecdotally, staff felt this had an effect of the efficacy of the 

program; the impact analysis will examine whether incentives were associated with improved 

outcomes for participants. 
VI-15

Employment Services 

Another set of core services available to RExO participants was employment services, which are 

defined as services that help participants obtain and retain employment. These services fall into 

four distinct categories: (1) work readiness training and soft skills development; (2) placement in 

transitional jobs or trial employment; (3) job search assistance, job placement, and job 

development; and (4) education and vocational training. 

Work Readiness Training 

Work readiness training sought to build soft skills and prepare participants for job search and 

employment. The training typically covered résumé-building, interviewing skills, appropriate 

dress, punctuality, and job search strategies. Additional topics included career exploration, 

financial literacy, basic computer skills, family and relationships, substance abuse prevention, 

life skills (e.g., anger management and conflict resolution), and health education (e.g., 

HIV/AIDS prevention). In addition, 

participants learned how best to deal with 

employers’ questions about criminal history on 

job applications and during interviews. The 

New Choice program in Sacramento, for 

instance, required that participants prepare a 

“letter of explanation” as part of their work 

readiness training, so that they had written notes 

to guide them on how to explain their criminal 

background to employers. Case file #3 

describes one participant’s experience in work 

readiness training. 

In addition to the mechanics of learning how to 

search for work and prepare themselves for job 

interviews, participants were coached on how to 

shift their mindsets so that they were ready to 

make positive changes in their lives. This involved a deep level of coaching, through one-on-one 

meetings and group discussions, in which case managers and job developers talked to 

participants about how to succeed without relying on criminal activity. For instance, staff 

members worked with participants to examine how their decisions and perspectives affected their 

actions, how their actions had consequences, and how those consequences affected their lives. In 

doing so, staff members helped them think about how to change their behavior so that they could 

stay out of prison and lead healthy lives. 

Case File #3 

Jonathan is in his mid-twenties and was 

incarcerated for driving under the influence 

and evading arrest. Upon entering RExO 

services in mid-2010, he attended all of the 

offered workshops on résumé writing, 

computer skills, and other work readiness 

topics. He also enrolled at the local 

community college to take the classes 

needed to obtain his high school diploma. 

In addition, the RExO program funded 

Jonathan to get his forklift-operating 

certificate. Jonathan regularly stopped by 

the RExO office to check in with his case 

manager and discuss job leads with the job 

developer. He soon found full-time 

employment with a plate glass company 

and continued to attend school after work 

in order to receive his high school diploma. 
VI-16

RExO programs made an effort to mix up the training format so that participants stayed engaged 

and remained interested in the program. They did this by offering a combination of traditional 

classroom training, role-playing, small- and large-group activities, and computer-based learning. 

For instance, the work readiness training at Community Partners in Action in Hartford comprised 

both computer-based and in-person exercises. The program used training software that consisted 

of five modules on employability skills and six self-paced modules on financial literacy that 

participants could work on at their own pace. Once the participants completed these modules, 

they participated in a mock interview with a program staff member, who provided feedback on 

their performance. 

Twenty grantees—the vast majority—required participants to complete at least some aspect of 

work readiness training, such as résumé development or interviewing skills. Requiring 

participation in this training ensured that participants got the basic support they needed to be “job 

ready.” Some grantees were flexible, however, as they allowed participants to bypass this 

requirement if they had already attended a similar training in prison. 

Two grantees of those offering work readiness training did not explicitly require participants to 

attend but strongly recommended that they did. Participants at these two sites received selfpaced training modules that were flexibly designed to be tailored to individuals’ skills and needs. 

Grantee staff members at these two sites noted that while the training was not required, most 

participants attended it anyway. 

Exhibit VI-6: 

Participation in Work Readiness Training 

(February 2010 to June 2011) 

#of Program 

Participants 

Using Service 

% of Program 

Participants 

Using Service 

1767 82.3% 

 Workforce Information Services1 1,215 56.6% 

 Work Readiness Training 938 43.7% 

Other Workforce Preparation Activities2 810 37.7% 

 Career/Life Skills Training 563 26.2% 

1 Workforce information services include information about the local and state labor 

market conditions, industry and occupational projections, high growth and high demand 

industries, etc. 

2 Other workforce preparation activities include: referrals to staffing agencies, résumé updating, mock 

interviews, job clubs, job search assistance, etc. 

Source: DOL RExO MIS data 

Consistent with the qualitative data, the MIS data show that the majority of participants (82.3%) 

enrolled in work readiness training, and more than half of them received “workforce information 

services” or labor market information. The MIS data show that a small percentage of 
VI-17

participants received career/life skills training (26.2%) in relation to other services in this 

category. 

In the 20 sites in which it was offered, work readiness training usually occurred immediately 

after enrollment into the program. As discussed above, in about 16 sites, this training occurred at 

the same time that participants were given job search assistance, while the other grantees 

required that participants complete work readiness training before they entered the job search 

phase (that is, before they were referred for jobs). 

The duration of work readiness training varied widely, as shown in Exhibit VI-7. 

Exhibit VI-7: 

Duration of Work Readiness Training 

Grantees Offering 

Duration Training of this Length 

More than 24 hours 4 

12–23 hours 11 

Fewer than 12 hours 8 

Does not offer 2 

Note: At one site, the duration of work readiness training varied by 

individual sub-grantees, as each offered its own training. Thus, the 

total number in this table adds up to more than 24 grantees. 

As shown in the exhibit, the duration of work readiness training ranged from fewer than 12 hours 

to more than 24 hours. Eleven grantees developed work readiness curricula that took between 

12-23 hours to complete. Grantees offered these programs most often in the course of a week, 

with classes lasting between two and six hours per day. Four grantees offered very intensive 

work readiness training programs, lasting more than 24 hours total and occurring over a period of 

two weeks to one month. Eight grantees offered work readiness training that lasted less than 12 

hours and took one or a few days to complete. 

Grantees also differed in how they delivered work readiness training. The majority of the 

grantees (19) provided this training in-house, using their own staff members to develop the 

curriculum and deliver the training. Respondents noted that offering the training in-house was 

beneficial because staff members facilitating the training were familiar with the other RExO 

services available and could coordinate the training closely with the participants’ case managers. 

Three grantees subcontracted with local providers to deliver work readiness training because 

they did not have the staff capacity to offer it themselves. These grantees also subcontracted out 

this training because they sought providers with deeper knowledge and experience in delivering 

work readiness training. This was why Span, Inc. in Boston subcontracted with The Work Place, 
VI-18

the local One-Stop Career Center, to provide a weeklong work readiness training program. 

Similarly, Talbert House in Cincinnati and Community Partners in Action in Hartford contracted 

with the Urban League in their communities to provide work readiness training to RExO 

participants. 

Transitional Jobs/Trial Employment 

Seven grantees offered transitional jobs or trial employment that provided opportunities for 

earning immediate income, gaining hands-on work experience, and building work-related soft 

skills.36 A total of 128 participants (six percent) received this service between February 2010 and 

June 2011. In general, the work itself is intended to give participants a chance to build relevant 

work history and to practice good work behavior in preparation for permanent positions. In fact, 

five grantees explicitly stated that they placed RExO participants with employers without the 

expectation that they would be hired at the completion of the work assignment. Transitional jobs 

usually began after participants completed their work readiness training. Participants usually 

worked for short periods of time (one to three months) and earned the minimum wage.37 

Of the grantees providing transitional jobs, four placed participants in positions within the RExO 

agency, three placed them with local employers or other organizations, and one offered both 

options. 

As shown in Exhibit VI-8, there were many different types of positions available through 

transitional jobs, such as those in retail, food service, construction, and manufacturing. 

Although most transitional jobs did not provide structured training, a few RExO programs’ 

partners offered some form of hands-on training. For example, the supervisor at the auto parts 

plant that partnered with OLHSA in Pontiac, MI helped participants develop their soft skills. He 

taught them how to ask for time off for personal appointments, rather than simply not show up 

for work. Similarly, Episcopal Community Services of Maryland partnered with an organization 

that provided a pre-apprenticeship in the construction trades, during which participants received 

occupational skills, soft skills, and basic skills training. 

 

36 The term transitional jobs or trial employment refers to subsidized employment. Grantees use many different 

terms to describe this activity, such as on-the-job training (OJT), pre-apprenticeship or apprenticeship programs, 

or simply subsidized employment. 

37 One impact study on transitional jobs for ex-offenders in Indianapolis suggests that the opportunity for exoffenders to secure immediate employment upon release from incarceration can positively impact relationships 

with family, management of child support obligations, and recidivism. See “Impact on Transitional Jobs: A 

Study of Ex-Offenders in Indianapolis.” http://www.sagamoreinstitute.org/mediafiles/impact-of-transitionaljobs.pdf. Downloaded on April 25, 2011. 
VI-19

The interactions between program participants and program staff members were very frequent 

while participants were working in transitional jobs. Case managers and job developers often 

visited worksites to monitor participants’ progress and checked in with worksite supervisors to 

get feedback on the participants’ work quality. 

Exhibit VI-8: 

Summary of Transitional Jobs/Trial Employment 

Fresno Career Employers hired a RExO participant for a trial period of one–to-two weeks, while CDI 

Development funded the participant’s salary. If successful, the participant stayed in the position for 

Institute, approximately 30 more days. During this time, CDI continued to fund the salary but 

Fresno, CA the participant filed a timesheet with the employer. At the end of the 30 days, the 

employer decided whether or not to hire the participant permanently. 

Goodwill Industries, Goodwill placed all RExO participants in its thrift stores for 90 days, working 32 hours 

San Antonio, TX a week at $7.25 an hour. After 90 days, participants were no longer allowed to work 

in transitional jobs. They were required look for other work. 

OLHSA, The grantee had a contract with an auto parts manufacturer to place participants in 

Pontiac, MI transitional jobs/trial employment. The employer offered hands-on, vocational training 

in manufacturing and work readiness training. The employer could then hire 

participants if they did well on the job. 

St. Patrick Center, The grantee owned a restaurant that employed participants for 12 weeks and trained 

St. Louis, MO them in all aspects of the restaurant business and food service industry. 

Episcopal This grantee had an agreement with JumpStart, a program that was part of the 

Community Services Baltimore Job Opportunities Task Force. RExO participants could participate in a 13-

of Maryland, week pre-apprenticeship program available through JumpStart, which provided onBaltimore, MD the-job training in construction trades such as plumbing, electric, and carpentry. 

Participants received stipends for the duration of the program and were placed in 

construction jobs upon graduation. If they excelled in their placements, they entered 

a formal apprenticeship program. 

MAAP, The grantee developed contracts with employers stating that it would fund half of the 

Sacramento, CA participants’ salary for the first two weeks of employment. If participants were 

successful during these first two weeks, the grantee would possibly pay for an 

additional 90 days. At the end of 90 days, the employer often hired the participant 

full-time. 

POCAAN, The grantee offered a number of trial employment opportunities that paid $10 per 

Seattle, WA hour. These positions were available in-house at the grantee office for several 

months. The positions included landscaping, janitorial, and general office work. The 

grantee also created trial employment positions at selected local businesses for two 

weeks so that participants had an opportunity to work with an employer that may have 

had open positions. 

Job Development, Job Search, and Job Placement 

Once case managers and job developers deemed participants as “job ready,” they began the job 

search process with a job developer or employment services staff member. The majority of 
VI-20

grantees hired specific staff members to be responsible for job search assistance and job 

placement. In some cases, case managers were also involved with job development. 

Developing Jobs for Ex-Offenders 

Many employers are reluctant to hire ex-offenders in general (Pager, 2003; Holzer, et al., 2003). 

As is discussed in greater detail in Chapter II, grantee staff members noted that the national 

recession made it more difficult than ever to partner with employers. Respondents indicated that 

many businesses scaled back their hiring efforts or laid off staff and as a result were unable to 

hire anyone. If they hired at all, those hires tended not to be ex-offenders. Given this challenge, 

grantees used a variety of strategies to engage employers in hiring ex-offenders from their RExO 

programs: 

 Grantees educated employers about the benefits of tax credits and Federal 

bonds to encourage them to hire ex-offenders. Grantees noted that many 

employers were unaware that these incentives were available and grantee staff 

discovered that some employers were more willing to hire ex-offenders after 

learning about them. 

 Grantee staff members informed employers about the services available to 

them if they hired ex-offenders. These services included applicant screening 

and referrals. Staff members also emphasized that they frequently checked in on 

participants at the worksite to see how participants were doing, and mediated any 

conflicts at the worksite. Grantees also assured employers that they would help 

them find another employee if their initial placement was unsuccessful. 

 Grantee staff members built on existing employer relationships. Many RExO 

programs had a long history of working with local employers and tried to nurture 

these relationships by continuing to “sell” the RExO program. One way program 

staff members sold the program was “to pull at employers’ heartstrings,” 

especially in communities where employers may have friends or family that had 

been incarcerated, and this was described as a particularly effective approach. 

Another tactic was to frame employing ex-offenders as a public safety issue; staff 

members emphasized that if an ex-offender had stable employment, he or she was 

less likely to recidivate or commit a crime. 

 Grantee staff members targeted the employers most likely to hire exoffenders. Several grantees reported that they specifically targeted employers 

that hired ex-offenders, using a database that they created, listing employers who 

had previously hired their participants. Several others targeted businesses in 

specific sectors that were known to be friendly to ex-offenders, such as 

construction, food distribution, and sanitation, among others. One job developer 

did extensive employer outreach, having recently convened a business focus 

group made up of eight employers from eight different sectors to learn about 

opportunities for ex-offenders. 

Job developers also identified leads by cold-calling employers, searching Web sites and 

newspapers, contacting business associations or groups, and conducting ongoing marketing 
VI-21

throughout the community. Grantees also relied on temporary staffing agencies to identify job 

leads. Below is one example. 

Sector Managers at the Safer Foundation (Chicago) 

At the Safer Foundation in Chicago, “sector managers” were responsible for job development and 

traveled all over the city to visit employers. Each sector manager was responsible for job 

development in a certain area of the city. A key element of a sector manager’s role was to connect 

participants with “job orders” from employers. When issuing a job order, employers informed their 

designated sector manager of the number of positions available, the pay, the skills required, the 

offenses that were eligible, and the proximity to public transport so that the sector manager could 

identify appropriate potential candidates. Before sending candidates to interviews, sector 

managers held “pre-screens” in which they interviewed and assessed which participants to send. 

At this stage, the sector managers may have referred participants whom they deemed not jobready back to their case managers for further preparation. Sector managers then prepared 

potential candidates for interviews with employers. By using this intensive screening process, 

sector managers ensured that participants were not set up for failure and that employers felt 

confident about the candidates they received from the Safer Foundation. 

The strategies described above suggest that grantees were considering new ways of engaging 

employers. Many grantees faced a number of challenges, however, as they sought to develop 

relationships with employers. First, grantees did not make strong use of labor market 

information to guide their job development efforts. Often, that information was not particularly 

relevant because participants’ options for employment were so constrained by their criminal 

records. For example, healthcare is a growth industry in a number of cities but the number of 

healthcare occupations open to ex-offenders is very small. 

Another common challenge was limited employer outreach. This is not surprising, as some job 

developers lack strong marketing skills to identify opportunities for ex-offenders and the 

employers that were willing to hire them.38 This challenge was exacerbated somewhat by the 

fact that, in a number of sites, the job development function was often not sufficiently staffed. In 

at least eight sites, the job development was assumed by case managers who did not have 

sufficient time and expertise to conduct job development. 

Lastly, some job developers who sought to engage with employers through affiliate 

organizations or associations—chambers of commerce, industry associations, sector 

organizations, and regional or neighborhood business alliances—were not successful because of 

the concerns that employers had about hiring ex-offenders. These concerns, such as fear for 

 

38 Often, those who served as job developers for RExO grantees had relatively little training or background as a job 

developer or in labor markets, specifically. Typically, the job developer was a former offender who had 

successfully found employment and sought to assist others in a similar position. 
VI-22

public safety while on the job and limited work histories among the ex-offenders, posed 

challenges for job developers seeking to place participants in jobs. One job developer explained 

this fact: “They [employers] don’t seem to understand that if we keep locking people up, and 

then give them no employment options when they come out, the first thing that will go up is 

crime.” 

Assisting with Job Search and Job Placement 

In addition to working directly with employers, job developers also interacted with participants. 

One of the first steps in the job search and job placement process was a meeting between the 

participant and the job developer. During these meetings, the job developer assessed the 

participant’s skills, career interests, and work experience. Based on this assessment, the job 

developer provided the participant with career guidance and job leads that matched his or her 

background. Job developers also helped clients identify transferable skills or interests that could 

broaden their job search and give them new employment possibilities. Job developers continued 

working with participants to identify new job leads and coached them along the way until the 

participants secured employment. Case file #3 shows the kinds of support one participant 

needed to find employment. 

Staff members also expected RExO participants to search independently for jobs, using the skills 

and knowledge that they learned during the work readiness training. They encouraged 

participants to use on-site computers to look for jobs online, and referred them to the local OneStop Career Centers for additional job leads. Some programs also set goals and benchmarks for 

participants to encourage continual progress. For example, at Episcopal Community Services of 

Maryland, staff members expected participants to contact three employers each day, every day, 

in addition to working with job developers to look for employment. 

If a participant was offered an interview with an employer, program staff members helped that 

person prepare by reviewing tips on how to dress appropriately, shake hands, sell oneself, talk 

about one’s skills, and discuss one’s criminal background. Program staff members also provided 

interview-appropriate clothing or assisted with transportation to the interview site. 

In addition to ongoing job search assistance, at least six grantees offered job clubs. These were 

regular, often weekly meetings facilitated by program staff members in which participants shared 

job leads and offered support to each other as they went through the job search process. These 

groups gave participants the opportunity to network with one another, share lessons learned, and 

receive extra support from program staff. At some other sites, job clubs took on a form similar 

to work readiness training, in which program staff members helped clients to continue to build 

skills by helping them with their résumés and online applications and conducting mock 

interviews. Job clubs provided safe spaces for participants, as programs often provided food and 

drinks and a warm and welcoming space to encourage peer sharing. In a few sites, participants 
VI-23

were expected to bring their job search notebooks and to write down what they were learning 

from their peers. 

Grantees also had different expectations for how frequently and intensively staff members 

contacted clients during the job search phase. At Goodwill Industries in San Antonio, 

employment specialists had weekly meetings with clients, whereas at the St. Patrick Center in St. 

Louis, staff members met with clients only as needed. At OLHSA in Pontiac, MI, employment 

specialists followed up with clients after three weeks of independent job search. Grantees also 

required that participants check in with program staff members while they were looking for work 

as a way of keeping them on track. At Connection Training Services in Philadelphia, 

participants checked in at the office in the morning and then went out into the city for several 

hours looking for job openings. They returned to the office in the afternoon and reported on their 

progress. 

Education and Vocational Training 

Education and vocational training services were not central to the RExO program’s service 

package, as most grantees focused on placing participants in employment in a relatively short 

time frame. Participants themselves often did not want to take the time to embark on a training 

program, especially one that did not provide compensation of some kind (as transitional 

employment or on-the-job training does) because they needed income as soon as possible to 

secure housing. 

Despite these factors, all of the RExO programs made educational opportunities and vocational 

training available to participants, primarily through external partners. Of the opportunities 

available, the most commonly utilized training was GED instruction. A GED was a prerequisite 

for many jobs and was the appropriate next level of educational attainment for most of the 

members of this population. Approximately 17 grantees reported that they referred participants 

to community colleges or other community organizations for these courses. Two grantees 

reported having these classes available in-house. Program staff members noted that many 

participants who were referred for GED classes did not attend them or dropped out before 

completion. 

Grantees also provided opportunities for participants to enroll in vocational training. These 

programs varied in scope; most commonly, grantees referred participants to short programs 

focused on upgrading or learning specific skill sets. The areas of training include Occupational 

Health and Safety Administration regulations, forklift operation, hazardous materials handling, 

landscaping, commercial trucking, and Microsoft Office training or certification. These trainings 

usually lasted from a few days to a few weeks. Grantees used the RExO grant to fund the 

training but a few grantees were able to leverage resources from their partners to offset this cost. 
VI-24

These findings are consistent with what grantees reported in the MIS, which shows that 387 

participants (18%) received some form of education and vocational training. 

Exhibit VI-9: 

Participation in Education and Vocational Training 

Number of Percent of 

Program 

Participants 

Using Service 

Program 

Participants 

Using Service 

387 18.0% 

 Other Education or Job Training* 308 14.3% 

 Vocational/Occupational Skills 

Training 94 4.4%

 GED Preparation 24 1.1% 

 Math/Reading Remediation 2 0.1% 

*Other education or job training includes computer classes, job skills class, Bible study, 

employability class, etc. 

Source: DOL RExO MIS data

Follow-Up Services 

Follow-up services included staff members’ efforts to (1) maintain contact with participants after 

they obtained employment or exited from the program and (2) provide ongoing case 

management or supportive services. Follow-up contact and support were the primary 

responsibility of the case managers, though job developers also contacted participants as needed. 

As with WIA-funded programs, customers exited from the program after they had not received a 

service for 90 days, and no future service was planned. They could however, continue to receive 

services after entering employment. 

Once participants were in “follow-up” status—which occurred once they had exited the 

program—case managers attempted contact in order to check on their employment status and 

personal well-being. As mentioned above, clients were offered a variety of incentives for 

bringing in a pay stub so that the case managers could document the clients’ employment status. 

Case managers contacted clients anywhere from once a week to once a quarter, though some 

case managers did not have any type of schedule. Others followed a very structured approach to 

conducting follow-up, contacting participants 30, 60, 90, and 180 days after employment. 

Different modes of communication were used to reach participants, such as e-mail, text 

messaging, face-to-face visits, and telephone calls. 

Another goal of follow-up services was to provide additional services if participants lost their 

jobs or struggled with personal challenges that might affect their employment, such as a relapse 
VI-25

in drug use. For example, one participant was hired as an administrative assistant in a financial 

company where she worked for six weeks before she was terminated. She returned to the RExO 

program to get help looking for work and to access supportive services. Because she had no 

income to pay rent, the RExO program helped secure $200 to help cover her rent until she could 

find another job. After working closely with the job developer, she quickly found a job at a local 

bakery. 

Providing intensive follow-up services was a common practice at a number of sites, where 

participants were encouraged to meet with case managers and mentors after exiting the program. 

Data from the MIS show that approximately 586 participants (27.3%) received some form of 

follow-up support between February 2010 to June 2011. Some of the specific services that 

participants received included incentive payments at key milestones, case management support, 

and referrals to community services, among others. For example, at the New Choice Program in 

Sacramento, follow-up services were offered for a full nine months after participants obtained 

employment. During this period, participants were required to meet with case managers once per 

month, talk to them on the phone every other week, and attend at least two mentoring meetings 

per month. This intensive follow-up support ensured that clients continued to stay focused on 

their employment goals during what the program staff members believed was a vulnerable 

transition period. 

The success of follow-up services was challenged primarily by the highly transient nature of 

many ex-offenders; often their phone numbers were disconnected or they simply failed to return 

staff members’ calls. Even though grantees provided financial incentives to improve follow-up 

connections, it was difficult to get former participants to contact case managers or to physically 

return to the RExO program site to let case managers know of their status. Grantees developed a 

range of creative strategies to overcome these challenges. They contacted probation, parole, or 

employers, or canvassed local neighborhoods. To increase its chances of locating participants, 

one RExO program asked clients during intake to include a phone number of “the person you 

would call if you needed bail money.” They then used that number to try to track down 

participants. Overall, the case managers’ ability to reach participants seemed to depend 

somewhat on the strength of the case manager–participant relationship, and the extent to which 

participants were really in need of support and services. 

Mentoring 

RExO grantees provided mentoring services to help ex-offenders develop positive relationships 

so that they could better reintegrate into society. Programs offered a mix of individual and group 

mentoring activities as well as other services that grantees described as mentoring, such as 

hosting guest speakers and conducting workshops. The most intensive mentoring activities were 
VI-26

those that required participation and connected participants one-on-one with community 

volunteers. Less intensive mentoring services were those that were informal, unstructured, and 

optional. Approximately 10 grantees required participation in some type of mentoring activity. 

The remaining 14 grantees offered mentoring activities but did not require that participants take 

part. Approximately 1,341 participants (62.5 percent) received mentoring services of some kind 

between February 2010 to June 2011. 

This section describes the use of individual and group methods, the service delivery 

arrangement, and the process for recruiting mentors, training them, and matching them with 

program participants. 

Types of Mentoring 

The RExO grantees made use of both individual mentoring and group mentoring. Some grantees 

employed only one of these types, but the majority offered both. 

Individual Mentoring 

Grantees that offered individual mentoring used two different methods to deliver it: (1) 

community volunteers were paired with participants, usually on a one-to-one basis, or (2) a 

single mentor (either a staff person or a volunteer) provided mentoring for all participants in the 

program (e.g., one mentor to up to 50 participants). Fifteen grantees used the first method, and 

three used the second. The remaining grantees did not offer individual mentoring. 

Among the 15 grantees that connected participants with community volunteers to work one-onone with participants, the mentor was responsible for a caseload of one to several mentees, 

meeting with them regularly to help them navigate and adapt to life outside of prison. At least 

four grantees paired a mentor with more than one mentee, most often because of a shortage of 

volunteer mentors. One grantee paired two to three mentors with a single mentee to prevent 

mentor burnout. Mentors were required to contact their mentees on a regular basis, most often 

once a week or twice monthly, in person or by phone, to ensure they were receiving the support 

they needed and to help them address any barriers—logistical or emotional—that they may have 

been facing. Mentors also checked in with program staff members to let them know how the 

mentees were doing. Activities mentors and mentees did together included eating a meal or 

attending a church service or program event. Mentors also sometimes drove them to 

appointments, appeared with them in court, or attended social events with them. 

A small number of grantees (three) relied on a community volunteer or a designated staff 

member to provide mentoring to all the participants in the program. Under this approach, the 

mentor was usually responsible for approximately 20 to 50 mentees. The mentor was often 

responsible for helping the participants set goals, connecting them to community services, and 

staying in regular contact with them. The Odyssey House in New Orleans provided a good 
VI-27

example of this individual mentoring method. The organization hired a full-time designated 

mentor whose sole responsibility was to “mentor” participants. This mentor met individually 

with participants and helped them develop an “improvement plan” with both long- and shortterm goals. In order to stay in contact with participants, he spent his days driving around New 

Orleans, meeting with them wherever was convenient for them. This approach to mentoring 

resembled case management, and significantly augments the support that participants received. 

Group Mentoring 

The second type of mentoring that RExO grantees provided was group mentoring, which 

encompassed a wide variety of activities from on-site group events to off-site social events. 

Almost all grantees (23) provided some kind of group mentoring activity. As shown in Exhibit 

VI-10, three major types of activities were considered group mentoring: (1) support groups; (2) 

group events; and (3) supplemental work readiness and life skills workshops. 

Exhibit VI-10: 

Group Mentoring Activities 

Grantees Offering 

this Type of 

Activity Activity 

Support Groups 16 

Group Events 7 

Group Workshops 9 

Note: Grantees usually offered more than one type 

of group mentoring activity. 

Support Groups. Sixteen grantees offered support groups as a form of mentoring, because they 

believed that peer support was a powerful way of inspiring participants to change their lives. 

Through group mentoring, participants came together in groups of up to 50 to discuss a host of 

topics, such as strategies for finding employment, staying sober, and finding stable housing. 

RExO staff members and/or designated mentors facilitated these meetings, guiding participants 

through their discussions and offering advice along the way. At the same time, participants 

offered support and advice to one another in a non-threatening, safe, and supportive 

environment. Many programs offered food and drinks during these events to encourage 

participation and to promote a safe space for sharing personal experiences. For example, at OIC 

of Broward County in Fort Lauderdale, the group mentor addressed a number of topics, such as 

staying clean, asking for help, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. He did this through an 

informal and improvisational style that allowed everyone to participate and feel comfortable in 

the session. He also let the participants direct the conversation so that they were empowered to 

share their stories. 
VI-28

Group Events. Seven grantees held events such as family nights, celebrations, and other social 

or networking events and classified these as group mentoring. These events provided 

opportunities for participants to engage their families and friends in the program and to network 

with one another outside of regular programming. These events also celebrated participants’ 

milestones, such as completing work readiness training or getting off probation or parole. For 

example, Connections to Success in Kansas City, MO, held an event called a “meet and greet” 

twice a month. This event included food, games, and occasionally guest speakers, giving RExO 

participants the opportunity to socialize, celebrate their successes, and become familiar with the 

concept of mentoring. 

Group Workshops. Nine grantees offered workshops as part of their group mentoring services; 

they considered these to be group mentoring activities because they provided additional 

opportunities for peer exchange and informal learning. Some of these workshops were focused 

on soft skills and life skills training, and were designed to supplement, rather than duplicate, 

existing services. For example, Connection Training Services in Philadelphia offered workshops 

every Friday on topics such as life skills and parenting, health and HIV/AIDS prevention, and 

information on Philadelphia’s labor laws. 

Combining Individual and Group Mentoring 

Fifteen grantees offered both individual and group mentoring to RExO participants. Grantees 

offering both approaches provided a great deal of flexibility for participants to choose what type 

of mentoring was best for them. The staff mentor at Odyssey House in New Orleans, who 

convened support groups and met with individual mentees, said that participants preferred to 

have multiple options for mentoring because their needs were so diverse. The mentor also added 

that some participants did not need intensive one-on-one mentoring, and preferred instead to 

attend support groups with their peers. This experience and others led some grantees to offer a 

combination of mentoring activities that could be tailored to individual needs. 

Mentoring Service Delivery 

Grantees used three different methods to deliver their mentoring programs. Sixteen operated the 

program internally and hired program staff members to coordinate the program; eight 

subcontracted with a mentoring provider; and two referred participants to other organizations.39

The majority of the sixteen grantees that used in-house mentoring hired mentoring coordinators 

or designated staff mentors to coordinate mentoring activities. These staff members were 

 

39 These two grantees also facilitated group mentoring sessions in-house; however, most of their mentoring 

services were available through referrals. Because these grantees used two different methods, adding the number 

of grantees using each method totals more than 24. 
VI-29

responsible for planning—and sometimes facilitating—group mentoring events, recruiting and 

screening volunteer mentors, and monitoring mentor–mentee relationships. 

The eight grantees who subcontracted with a designated mentoring provider to offer mentoring 

services did so in different ways. One grantee subcontracted with an organization that hired a 

staff person to serve as a mentor. Another grantee subcontracted with an individual consultant to 

provide group mentoring workshops. The other six grantees contracted with local providers to 

coordinate all of the mentoring activities, including recruiting volunteers, monitoring 

relationships, and facilitating group mentoring sessions. 

There were several benefits to subcontracting for mentoring services, according to program staff 

members. First, it ensured that mentoring activities were consistently available and of high 

quality. Second, it allowed RExO grantees to focus on other services such as case management 

and employment services. Lastly, it provided mentees access to additional resources available 

through the provider organization. At the Talbert House in Cincinnati, the subcontracted 

mentoring provider had strong connections to community-based organizations and could help 

RExO clients access other services from its networks, such as those dedicated to providing food, 

housing, transportation, and medical care. Grantees did note that using subcontractors to provide 

this service did require regular and active monitoring, which they attempted to do through 

regular meetings with their subcontractors. 

Finally, two grantees referred participants to mentoring services in the community but did not 

have formal agreements with the mentoring providers. For example, the St. Patrick Center in St. 

Louis identified several mentoring providers in the community to which they could refer 

participants for mentoring services such as substance abuse groups or support groups. 

Mentor Recruitment, Training, and Matching 

Grantees that offered mentoring in-house recruited volunteer mentors for both individual and 

group mentoring services. Staff members looked for stable mentors from racially and ethnically 

diverse backgrounds who were willing to make a long-term commitment to the program. 

Mentors included church congregants, retired professionals, program alumni, university students, 

and other community members. Some grantees actively targeted ex-offenders to serve as 

mentors, though they stipulated that these volunteers had to be stable and have been out of prison 

for a certain length of time (usually at least two years). To recruit volunteers, program staff 

members conducted outreach to their church congregations (especially in the case of faith-based 

organizations), made presentations at local community events, posted flyers and advertisements 

around the community, and relied on word-of-mouth referrals. 

Grantees’ success in recruiting mentors varied widely. Grantees that were well-known 

organizations or that had well-established mentoring programs were fairly successful in 
VI-30

recruiting mentors. For example, Goodwill Industries of San Antonio had a strong presence in 

the community and as of the fall of 2010, it had more mentors than interested mentees. 

However, recruiting mentors was very difficult for many programs, occasionally to such an 

extent that it caused the program to discontinue its individual mentoring program. 

Once potential mentors were identified, they were asked to submit an application to the RExO 

grantee to officially become a mentor. Programs usually conducted background and reference 

checks before a volunteer could enter the pool of eligible mentors. In addition to conducting 

these screens, grantees often had mentors undergo formal training; about half of the grantees had 

structured training that lasted from two hours to two days. 

Once mentors had attended training, they entered the pool of mentors to be matched. Grantees 

made the matches with the needs and interests of the mentees in mind. Other factors that 

influenced matching included where mentors lived in relation to the mentees and suggestions 

from case managers. In general, program staff members noted there was no exact science to 

matching mentors and mentees; it was often just a question of “chemistry.” 

Once mentors began working with participants, they received support from the program, though 

the quality and intensity of this support varied widely by site. At least one program held mentor 

support groups to discuss strategies for engaging with mentees. Two other programs offered 

ongoing training activities for mentors on topics such as helping mentees with trauma, becoming 

a good leader, and dealing with difficult situations that arose with their mentees. For example, 

the Talbert House in Cincinnati, OH, implemented a mentor support structure in which mentors 

became “apprentice” mentors, where they shadowed and learned from mentor “coaches,” before 

being assigned a mentee of their own. Grantees believed that because mentoring an ex-offender 

could be challenging, these types of supports were critical to retaining mentors in the program 

and providing strong mentoring services to participants. 

Even though many RExO grantees developed the program structure, guidelines, and expectations 

for their mentoring services, implementing a volunteer-based mentoring program was very 

challenging for several reasons. First, community mentors were very difficult to recruit. 

Program staff members reported that a lack of interest and commitment among both mentees and 

mentors was the key reason for inconsistent participation in mentoring activities. Staff noted that 

many participants were not interested in what they believed was “just for children,” or they did 

not think they needed the mentoring support. To increase interest and attendance in mentoring, 

grantees devised a variety of activities that they called mentoring, such as life skills workshops, 

support groups, and program-wide social events. Indeed, the majority of grantees did not have 

well-established individual mentoring programs even if they reported that they were available. 

For instance, 15 grantees made individual mentoring available to participants, but only six 
VI-31

grantees (or one-fourth) had fully operational and well-established individual mentoring 

programs. 

This type of mentoring is not consistent with what research shows to be strong mentoring 

support. Several studies suggest that strong mentoring programs are those that are structured as 

individual interventions based on one-on-one relations, are long in duration, and have frequent 

and consistent meetings between mentors and mentees (Keller, 2007). Thus, the individual 

mentoring programs established by the RExO grantees generally did not reach these more 

rigorous standards. 

Challenges 

Based on discussions with program staff members, the research team identified a variety of key 

challenges faced by the RExO grantees in delivering case management, employment services, 

and mentoring. Case File #4 summarizes the common challenges facing participants as they 

sought to obtain and retain employment. 

 Many case managers found it difficult to provide intensive, individualized 

support. Many case managers were responsible for other tasks in the program, 

requiring that they balanced their case management duties with other roles such as 

intake, assessment, and job development. They consequently did not have the 

time to provide an ideal level of support. 

 Case managers struggled to maintain frequent contact with program 

participants after they exited the program. While case managers tried to keep 

in touch, they were often hampered by the mobility of this highly transient 

population. Case managers frequently found disconnected phone numbers and 

were often met with unreturned phone calls. 

 Grantees were challenged in using labor market information to guide their 

job development efforts. Participants’ criminal backgrounds severely limited 

their options for employment, and often restricted their ability to pursue 

employment in promising sectors of the economy. As a result, grantees did their 

best to place participants in the positions that were available to ex-offenders, even 

if for many reasons these jobs were less than ideal. 

 Grantees had difficulty securing employer commitment to hiring participants 

at the completion of transitional employment. Although program staff 

members were enthusiastic about transitional employment opportunities and their 

benefits for ex-offenders, they found it difficult to secure employer commitments 

to hire RExO participants at the end of the trial period. To encourage employers 

to do so, at least one grantee developed contracts with employers that outlined the 

roles and responsibilities of the employer at the completion of the trial period. 
VI-32

 Engaging participants in mentoring was difficult. Grantees found that some 

RExO participants were reluctant to participate in mentoring activities because 

they felt that they did not need the support or, worse, that it was beneath them. 

As a result, grantee staff members needed 

to work hard to encourage participation in 

mentoring activities, and even then many 

participants resisted it. In those few cases 

in which mentoring seemed quite strong, it 

was based on consistent contact between 

mentor and mentee, with close supervision 

by and reporting to a mentor supervisor. 

 Mentors were difficult to recruit and 

retain, especially for the ex-offender 

population. As with many mentoring 

programs, volunteer mentors were difficult 

to recruit and retain long enough for them 

to have a meaningful mentor–mentee 

relationship. This situation was 

particularly the case with ex-offenders, as 

many potential volunteers had 

preconceptions about the mentee 

population that caused them to be 

unwilling to become involved. In 

addition, grantee staff members faced 

challenges in finding enough mentors of 

the appropriate age and gender. In 

particular, grantees had difficulty 

recruiting a sufficient number of males 

into the program, especially if they required matches to be same-sex. 

 It was difficult to adequately prepare volunteers for mentoring relationships 

with ex-offenders. Grantees and volunteer mentors noted that even though 

training was provided to mentors, it was often insufficient to prepare mentors to 

work successfully with ex-offenders. The larger challenge appeared to be that 

mentors just needed to “learn as they go” when developing a relationship with an 

ex-offender, and this was not easy to teach. 

Summary 

The RExO program provided a broad array of services to participants to help them access the 

resources they needed to secure and retain employment. The services discussed in this chapter 

provide valuable context for understanding the program impacts that will be discussed in the 

Impact Report. 

Participants received an array of services, though the sequence of these services varied 

depending on how the programs structured their services. About two-thirds of the programs (16) 

Case File #4 

Roman is in his late fifties and was 

released from a halfway house in 2009 

after serving a year in state prison for 

burglary charges. He had a tenth grade 

education and spent most of his adult life 

going in and out of correctional facilities. 

His initial service plan included résumé 

development, job search, transportation 

assistance, GED preparation, photo 

identification, and medical referral. He is 

trying to access disability benefits 

because of a long-term disability. He has 

worked as a day laborer, hydraulic 

mechanic, and sanitation worker. With 

the help of the job developer at RExO, 

Roman found work as a carpenter’s 

helper, making minimum wage. He 

received transportation passes from the 

program and attended group mentoring. 

A few months after he found a job, 

Roman was re-incarcerated on burglary 

charges. His case manager planned to 

visit the jail around the time of Roman’s 

expected release date. 
VI-33

focused on stable employment as the immediate goal for serving ex-offenders, which means that 

participants received work readiness training and job leads immediately after enrollment. The 

remaining third of the grantees focused on the provision of essential supportive services first, 

before participants were referred for jobs, which means that programs made sure participants 

were stable in their housing situation and were sober. 

Case managers served as the “glue” in the provision of RExO services. They acted as human 

supports and served as coordinators of the various services that ex-offenders needed to receive if 

they were going to succeed. Other key findings related to case management services include the 

following: 

 Intensive case management support was a core strength of the RExO 

programs. Case managers tried to maintain frequent contact with participants, 

focused on building trust and friendship, were deeply committed to working with 

ex-offenders, and were effective champions of the view that this population was 

worthy of support and a second chance.

 Having a sufficient number of case managers was important to keeping 

caseloads manageable. Grantees employed approximately 90 case managers 

(full-time and part-time), or 60 FTEs as of fall 2010 to support RExO participants. 

Having a steady pool of case managers allowed many programs to keep the 

caseloads manageable, though caseloads increased somewhat as enrollments 

increased and the number of case managers decreased toward the end of the 

program. 

 Through the support of case managers, participants gained access to 

valuable information about how to prepare for jobs, locate housing, and 

receive substance abuse treatment and other essential services. Connecting 

participants to a network of community providers gave RExO programs greater 

access to resources, thereby increasing their chances of addressing the many 

barriers to employment that were common among ex-offenders. However, the 

scarcity of community resources, such as housing and substance abuse treatment 

programs, meant that RExO participants may not have gotten the support they 

needed when they needed it. 

 The use of incentives, such as bus tokens and cash payments, motivated 

participants to stay connected to the program. The participants with whom we 

spoke reported that the incentives encouraged them to attend program activities 

and stay in touch with their case managers. 

In addition to case management support, RExO programs offered an array of employment 

services, including work readiness training, transitional employment, job placement assistance, 

and education and vocational training. Key findings related to employment services include the 

following: 

 Nearly all programs offered work readiness training, though the duration of 

this training varied widely, ranging from less than 12 hours to more than 24 
VI-34

hours. Work readiness training appeared to be well-developed, focusing on the 

core soft skills that participants needed to prepare for employment, such as 

résumé development, interviewing skills, and independent job search. Additional 

training on life skills, such as anger management and financial literacy, 

complemented this training. 

 Participants benefited from transitional jobs or trial employment, but this 

service was not provided by most grantees. Seven grantees offered transitional 

jobs/trial employment to provide opportunities for immediate employment and 

income and a chance to build work-related soft skills. Positions were typically in 

the retail, food service, construction, and manufacturing industries. Whether 

these positions led to improved outcomes will be a topic for the Impact Report. 

 Job clubs allowed participants to network and share job leads. Grantees that 

offered job clubs discovered that bringing participants together in a group to share 

job leads, challenges, and successes not only provided participants with a good 

source of moral support, but it also helped connect participants to more 

employment opportunities. Participants sometimes found job leads for which 

they were not qualified themselves, but they passed these along to other RExO 

participants as part of job clubs. 

 Outreach to employers was limited, due to factors such as insufficient job 

development staffing and the lack of marketing skills among them. Grantees 

employed far fewer job developers to assist with job search and job development

(24 FTE) than they did case managers (60 FTEs). Many of these job developers 

lacked sufficient training and experience with employer outreach and marketing, 

suggesting that more intentional staff development in this area could have been 

useful. 

 Grantees targeted the employers most likely to provide participants with 

employment opportunities. Job developers made an effort to sell the RExO 

program to employers that had a history of hiring ex-offenders. They also strove 

to educate employers about the tax benefits and Federal bonds available if they 

hired ex-offenders. 

Lastly, nearly all grantees offered mentoring services, including individual and group mentoring. 

The MIS data show that about two-thirds of participants (62.5 percent) received mentoring 

services of some kind between February 2010 to June 2011. But the quality and intensity of 

mentoring services were mixed and many programs struggled to implement strong mentoring 

programs. For instance, programs struggled to recruit a sufficient number of community 

volunteers, and as a result relied on group mentoring as a way to provide support to participants. 

While some participants in the focus groups indicated that they appreciated the support groups 

and group events that the RExO programs identified loosely as “mentoring,” these events 

appeared to resemble other services available in the program, such as work readiness training or 

life skills training. In addition, ex-offenders, essentially men, were often more willing to 

participate in group mentoring than in individual mentoring, although group mentoring was 

often not as intensive as one-on-one mentoring. Despite this, group mentoring was a convenient 
VI-35

way for programs to offer mentoring support because it did not rely on the involvement of 

difficult-to-recruit individual mentors. This is why the vast majority of grantees offered group 

mentoring activities. 

The next chapter describes the wide range of partnerships that grantees developed to deliver 

these services and to connect participants to additional resources to enhance their service options. 
VI-36

This page intentionally left blank

VII-1

VII. REXO PARTNERSHIPS 

Important to the successful operation of the 24 RExO programs—and the subsequent success of 

RExO participants—were complicated networks of relationships grantees had with other 

programs and organizations that served ex-offenders in their communities. These “partnerships” 

varied considerably in formality and strength. In fact, the term partnership had different 

meanings for different grantees. For some grantees, a “partnership” was primarily a contractual 

relationship that officially designated an organization other than the grantee (i.e., a sub-grantee) 

as responsible for providing core RExO services (i.e., employment, case management, and 

mentoring services). For other grantees, any relationship they had with a program or 

organization not officially part of the RExO program was a “partnership.” Common to both 

definitions is the notion that grantees worked with partners to supplement the services that their 

RExO programs were able to provide, thus increasing the likelihood for successful re-entry of 

program participants. 

The purpose of this chapter is to provide insight into the wide array of partnerships of which 

grantees availed themselves. It starts by examining the different ways that grantees employed 

formal, sub-grantee relationships in the delivery of RExO services. The chapter then examines 

the services and programs made available to RExO participants through the informal 

partnerships that grantees established with a variety of organizations. Then the chapter discusses 

two types of partner-like relationships: (1) those through which participants received non-core 

services at grantee and sub-grantee organizations that were not part of the RExO programs 

themselves, and (2) those with various offices in the criminal justice community, such as 

probation and parole. Finally, this chapter identifies the challenges grantees confronted in 

building and maintaining partnerships and describes some successful steps they took to 

overcome those challenges. 

Partnerships with Sub-Grantees 

Many grantees relied on contractual relationships as a means of providing the various RExO 

services, or elements of those services, as discussed in Chapter VI. More specifically, one-half 

of the RExO grantees relied on sub-contractual relationships to fully provide one or more core 

RExO services (i.e., employment, case management or mentoring services). This section 
VII-2

examines this formal sense of “partnership” in which the partner is a “sub-grantee” organization, 

responsible for providing one of these core RExO services. It illustrates three ways that RExO 

grantees structured themselves in relation to these partners: (1) some developed no partnerships 

with sub-grantees; (2) some developed very tight, or integrated, partnerships with sub-grantee 

organizations; and (3) others established partnerships in which the sub-grantee organizations 

remained distinct and independent. 

Model 1: Grantees with No Sub-Grantee Partnerships 

Twelve RExO had no formal partners responsible for the delivery of core RExO services. As is 

illustrated in Exhibit VII-1, the grantees in this model provided the bulk of their core RExO 

services themselves, rather than relying on sub-grantees or partners to deliver those services. 

These grantees did typically form less formal partnerships with other organizations—they 

referred participants out to and had relationships of varying strength with other service-providing 

agencies—as is covered more in the section below on informal partnerships. As is also discussed 

below, these partner organizations tended to focus less on the delivery of core services and, 

instead, provided substance abuse, health, and other supportive services. 

Exhibit VII-1: 

Model 1: Grantees with No Sub-Grantee Partnerships 

Also important to clarify is that grantees with no sub-grantee relationships may still have worked 

contractually with or paid other programs or individuals to provide services, which sometimes 

included distinct elements of core RExO services. Connection Training Services in Philadelphia, 

PA, for instance, contracted with a group to provide a day-long session on workplace safety 

during its three-week-long work readiness class. Similarly, Metro United Methodist Urban 

Ministry in San Diego, CA, hired a psychologist and a financial counselor to lead specific 

sessions of its month-long work readiness and life skills class. What makes these contractual 

relationships different from a sub-grantee relationship, however, is that the grantee was still 
VII-3

responsible for providing this core service. Grantees hired these contractors to provide discrete 

elements of a much larger core service, managed and operated by the grantees themselves. 

Model 2: Grantees with Integrated Sub-Grantee Partnerships 

Six grantees adopted a second model, illustrated in Exhibit VII-2, by working closely with one to 

four sub-grantee organizations to deliver core RExO services. Under this model, service 

delivery was highly integrated—often to such an extent that participants were not aware that they 

were receiving services from separate organizations. Often grantees accomplished this 

integration spatially, through co-location and similar arrangements, such as what occurs when 

partner organizations are all present at a One-Stop Career Center. In St. Louis, for instance, a 

sub-grantee, St. Vincent de Paul, provided case managers but housed them at the facilities of the 

grantee, St. Patrick Center. In Chicago, the grantee, Safer Foundation, hired the case managers 

who were then located at one of the five faith-based organizations (FBOs) with which Safer 

Foundation collaborated. Staff members located at the Safer Foundation’s office coordinated 

case managers’ work and ensured that RExO program staff members remained closely knit. 

Being located at the FBOs ensured that the case managers operated in the communities in which 

RExO program participants lived. 

Exhibit VII-2: 

Model 2: Grantees with Integrated Sub-Grantee Partnerships 

Even when program staff were not co-located, their work was still closely intertwined. In 

Boston, Span, Inc. was located just down the street from the sub-grantee, The Work Place, which 

allowed for frequent communication and ready access to one another’s services. The Work 

Place also had a job developer on staff dedicated to working with RExO participants. 
VII-4

In partnerships adhering to this model, the partners also closely coordinated services through 

frequent communication and other systems of information sharing. Staff members at 

Connections to Success in Kansas City, MO, in addition to those at Span, Inc., Safer Foundation, 

Community Partners in Action, St. Patrick Center, and Talbert House, all discussed how staff 

members from partner organizations met regularly with one another, typically weekly or biweekly, to share and update one another on participant progress and to coordinate any service 

delivery issues. Furthermore, staff members at several of these grantees discussed giving 

partners access to the RExO MIS, which made the partners’ work with clients all the more 

transparent and readily available to one another. 

Model 3: Grantees with Independent Sub-Grantee Partnerships 

Exhibit VII-3 illustrates the third way that grantees organized the delivery of RExO services 

through formal partnerships. Each of the six grantees that adhered to this model served as the 

lead agency, which managed the grant and provided most, if not all, core RExO services. The 

grantee, in turn, contracted with various sub-grantee organizations to provide various core RExO 

services. 

Exhibit VII-3: 

Model 3: Grantees with Independent Sub-Grantee Partnerships 

This model played out in two ways. In the first, each sub-grantee provided a single core 

component of the RExO program, such as mentoring. The Directors Council/Spectrum 

Resources in Des Moines, OIC of Broward County, Inc. in Fort Lauderdale, Primavera 

Foundation in Tucson, and Urban League of Greater Dallas and North Central Texas all enlisted 

a sub-grantee organization to provide mentoring services. 
VII-5

The second way this model played out was with sub-grantee organizations that offered complete, 

or nearly complete, slates of RExO services, operating something like affiliate or satellite offices 

of the grantee organization. The RExO program in Denver was the most striking example of this 

particular practice. All three partner organizations—The Empowerment Program (grantee), 

Denver Works (sub-grantee), and Turnabout, Inc. (sub-grantee)—coordinated their own case 

management, employment, and mentoring services separately. Similarly, SE Works (grantee) 

and Central City Concern (sub-grantee) in Portland both provided case management and various 

employment services to RExO program participants. 

Either way, the distinctive feature of this partnering model was that sub-grantee organizations 

tended to operate at something of a distance from the grantee, and, if there were multiple subgrantees, they operated at a distance from one another. Grantee and sub-grantee staff members, 

for instance, were not co-located. Additionally, formal meetings and reporting often took place 

on a monthly or even quarterly basis rather than weekly or bi-weekly. While this model clearly 

had advantages for the grantees that used it, it may also have had some drawbacks. Staff 

members at some of grantee organizations commented on how a greater degree of coordination 

and information sharing around the services they provided and resources they had might have 

improved their ability to leverage the services provided by partners. Sub-grantees that provided 

only single services for the RExO program rarely had access to the MIS. Lastly, making changes 

in procedures was sometimes difficult, more closely resembling changes between two 

organizations than those operating a single program. For example, staff members at two 

different grantees initially experienced low take-up in their mentoring programs and had to work 

with the sub-grantee organizations to redefine expectations, rework customer follow-up 

procedures, and clarify reporting processes to ensure that mentoring services improved. 

Informal Partnerships 

Separate from any formal, contractual grantee/sub-grantee relationships, all 24 grantees 

maintained partnerships of varying strengths with non-RExO programs and organizations. As 

was discussed in Chapter VI, grantees used these partnerships to ensure that program participants 

received the services they needed. In a few cases, these services were supplementary to or even 

slightly redundant with the core services provided through RExO. In most cases, though, 

grantees used these partnerships to fill important gaps in the services that their programs 

provided. Although the relationships that grantees had with these partner organizations varied 

considerably, the types of services accessed through these informal partnerships were relatively 

consistent across grantees. The services provided by informal partners included, but were not 

limited to, the following: 
VII-6

 assistance with housing and utilities; 

 substance abuse treatment services; 

 transportation assistance; 

 mental health services and basic life skills coursework; 

 employment and training services (mostly through One-Stop Career Centers but 

also through vocational rehabilitation programs); 

 financial counseling; 

 food, clothing and other basic staples; 

 legal assistance (typically for securing IDs, expunging records, and guidance 

around child-support issues); 

 health care, dental work, and eye care; and 

 other services such as domestic abuse counseling. 

The relationships that grantees had with these external organizations existed along a continuum. 

At one end of the spectrum were very limited, informal relationships, which mostly consisted of 

a referral list of providers to which grantee staff members sent RExO participants, but with 

which the grantee had only an informal and often distant relationship. These lists may have 

included both a comprehensive inventory of every available service in the community, often a 

tool developed by another provider, or a slightly more culled list including services that staff 

members felt had a good reputation. These types of referral lists are all that existed to constitute 

a relationship when grantees exhausted closer partnership options. Grantees also included these 

types of lists as part of a standard package of materials handed to a participant when first 

enrolled. 

Most frequently mentioned amongst these sorts of weaker partnerships were providers of 

substance abuse treatment services; food, clothing, and housing assistance; and mental health 

services. Many times, these relationships were weaker because these organizations were smaller 

or had limited budgets or slots available for participants. As such, grantees could not rely on 

them consistently to provide services to RExO participants. Staff members at a few grantees also 

described having a very limited relationship with their local One-Stop Career Centers, which 

they felt offered relatively weak services for (or were not particularly accepting of) ex-offenders. 

It is worth pointing out that One-Stop Career Centers were the grantees in a few locations, and in 

other several sites there was a stronger connection to the local One-Stop Center Centers. 

At the other end of this continuum were the stronger partnerships with external organizations. 

These partnerships were characterized by features such as a long history of collaboration, 

physical proximity of the organizations, and frequent information sharing. The types of services 

accessed through these partnerships seemed a less important determinant of the strength of the 
VII-7

relationships than other factors. In explaining what made these relationships strong, staff 

members mentioned the following factors. 

 The grantee made time for the partner to interact with RExO participants. 

Some grantees invited partner organizations to present during relevant sessions of 

their work readiness courses (e.g., a financial counseling service during a session 

on financial planning). Others either invited partner programs to present to 

participants as part of the normal sequence of services or during group meetings 

that sometimes served as mentoring sessions. Partners often used this time to 

present information on their programs and even do enrollment on the spot. 

 The grantee had a contractual relationship with the partner organization in 

the past. A grantee may have worked contractually with a partner organization in 

the years prior to the evaluation, but had to dissolve the contract due to factors 

other than performance (e.g., budget cuts). The partner organizations continued 

to respect one another and work together during the evaluation year, even if 

referrals were less frequent than they once were. 

 The grantee and the partner organization had a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU). The terms of the relationship were formalized in an 

MOU, which helped to clarify each party’s responsibilities and the scope of their 

relationship. 

 The grantee and the partner organization had a system for efficient and 

effective referrals. Even if not codified in an MOU, partner organizations 

developed clear ways to hand off program participants. In its simplest form, such 

a system involved grantee staff members making warm hand-offs, scheduling 

appointments, arranging for transportation, and sometimes accompanying a 

participant to an appointment with the partner organization. Grantee 

organizations also communicated with partner organizations to familiarize 

themselves about eligibility criteria and intake procedures so that they made 

participants’ entry into the partner program as easy as possible. 

 The grantee and the partner organization were physically close to one 

another. Several grantees were located within the same building or within a few 

blocks of the organizations with whom they had informal partnerships. While 

proximity alone did not make for a strong relationship, it certainly made working 

together that much simpler when the programs agreed to work together. 

 Grantee staff members had personal relationships with staff members in the 

partner organization. Through church, family, former employment, or other 

connections, particular staff members had strong knowledge of and relationships 

with staff members at other providers. Often, a staff member with such a 

relationship helped develop and maintain the partnership with the organization 

and served as the point person for a referral to that particular provider. 

 RExO staff members spent time at the partner organization’s offices. Similar 

to the co-location practices of some of the formal partnerships using Model 2, 

discussed above, a grantee located its staff members in other offices (e.g., one 

grantee secured a desk for a job developer at the local One-Stop Career Center). 
VII-8

 A grantee “piggybacked” on partnerships already established by its subgrantee organizations. One grantee with sub-grantee partners tapped into the 

strong relationships its sub-grantee partners had with other organizations. 

Internal “Partnerships” for the Delivery of Non-core 

RExO Services 

It was very common for grantee organizations to run programs and services that were not part of 

their RExO programs. As discussed in Chapter VI, grantees frequently relied on these other 

services to address participant barriers to employment such as a lack of housing, a lack of 

transportation, or struggles with substance abuse. Grantees typically did not or could not provide 

these sorts of services through their RExO programs directly because the RExO grant prohibited 

it. However, making these services available filled an important gap in a RExO program’s 

ability to meet participants’ needs. 

Including many of these services under the rubric of “partnership” is certainly a stretch since the 

grantees provided these services themselves; another distinct organization was not involved. 

However, since the programs offering these services were administratively and fiscally separate 

from the RExO program, the relationship between RExO and these other programs has many of 

the same characteristics and issues as a relationship between the grantee and an external 

organization. 

In many cases, it was difficult to disentangle these programs from RExO: the same staff 

members ran both programs; services overlapped; eligibility criteria for the various services were 

sometimes similar; and access to these non-RExO services was sometimes as simple as handing 

a participant off to a co-worker in the same office. At other grantee organizations, however, the 

divide between RExO and non-RExO programs was more pronounced. Grantees operated these 

other programs and services out of different buildings or different parts of the same building, and 

these other programs often had entirely separate enrollment processes. POCAAN in Seattle 

operated in both capacities. Some of its staff members were trained as chemical dependency 

counselors so they could provide drug counseling to participants as a matter of course; however, 

POCAAN had two other programs in which participants could enroll to receive formal, drug 

treatment services. 

Another version of this form of “partnership” was the relationship that existed between some 

grantees and their sub-grantees that offered non-RExO services. Under these relationships, 

grantees coordinated with sub-grantees to enroll participants in other programs offered by that 

sub-grantee’s parent organization. The types of services available, as with any of these more 

informal partnerships, fit into the bulleted list provided above, but were based on participant 

needs. Services such as substance abuse treatment and housing assistance were most prominent. 

The relationship between St. Vincent de Paul (sub-grantee) and St. Patrick Center (grantee) is a 
VII-9

good example of this kind of partnership. St. Vincent de Paul provided various services such as 

food, furniture, utility payments, legal assistance and transportation to people in crisis. St. 

Patrick Center’s formal partnership with this sub-grantee, which existed only to the extent that 

St. Vincent de Paul provided case management, meant that RExO staff members were readily 

aware of the services that St. Vincent de Paul could provide to their RExO participants. Staff 

members were easily able to coordinate getting participants enrolled in those services if needed. 

Partnerships with Criminal Justice Organizations 

The partnerships that grantees had with criminal justice organizations—mostly probation and 

parole offices but also transitional or halfway housing providers and the courts—are discussed in 

two other locations in this report. Because these partnerships also functioned primarily to refer 

ex-offenders to RExO programs, they are discussed in Chapter IV, which deals with intake, 

recruitment and enrollment. Since the services that criminal justice organizations provide to exoffenders tend to serve the larger ex-offender population, including any control-group members, 

these organizations functioned like alternative service providers, making any partnerships 

between them and grantees an apt subject for the following chapter covering alternative service 

providers. Grantees’ partnerships with criminal justice organizations are relevant to this chapter, 

however, because through these partnerships RExO programs were able to strengthen 

participants’ connections with criminal justice services and thereby ultimately improve 

participants’ chances for success. 

Broadly speaking, most grantees strengthened or maintained the relationships they had with 

probation and parole as well as other criminal justice partners. In large part, grantees conducted 

outreach to criminal justice partners, informing them of the various services they provided, 

which helped these partners know about RExO programs and made them more inclined to refer 

participants. However, when grantees were able to connect with specific staff members who 

supervised RExO program participants and discussed particular individuals’ needs and 

accomplishments, grantees strengthened the network of support around these participants and 

thereby increased their chances for success. Staff members at Spectrum Resources in Des 

Moines, for instance, connected with parole and probation staff members and informed them of 

the progress their individual RExO participants were making. This communication helped 

probation and parole officers to better understand what these participants were going through. If 

the need arose, a participant’s probation and/or parole officer was able to direct that individual 

into relevant services or support the RExO program’s ability to do so. As one person in Des 

Moines noted, if the RExO program was having difficulty with a participant, probation and 

parole could “intervene in being the hammer.” 
VII-10

This feedback loop may have helped participants in other ways. First, caseloads for parole and 

probation officers were already high, and with budget cuts and other policy changes, they 

seemed to be trending higher. The connections RExO program staff members developed with a 

participant’s probation or parole officer may have helped to ensure that RExO participants were 

getting attention when they might otherwise not have been. 

Second, these connections may have helped participants access the specialized services that 

some probation and parole departments offered to certain populations of ex-offenders. Denver, 

for instance, had a team of community reentry specialists with special funding to assist homeless 

parolees. Ex-offenders sometimes were not familiar enough with probation and parole services 

to let their officers know they qualified for these services, or probation/parole officers may have 

seen these individuals too infrequently to identify issues when they arose. RExO staff members, 

however, tended to stay in close contact with participants and often were able to notify 

probation/parole officers when it mattered. Furthermore, RExO staff members were better able 

to advocate on a participant’s behalf, thus increasing the likelihood of that individual getting 

these specialized services. 

Third, strong relationships between a number of grantees and probation or parole offices allowed 

for some form of co-location of RExO and probation or parole officers. This spatial proximity 

likely benefited RExO participants. In St. Louis, for example, St. Patrick Center had parole 

officers work out of its office during one day of the week, working specifically with RExO 

participants. Community Partners in Action in Hartford and Fresno Career Development 

Institute in Fresno did (or attempted) something similar. Using the converse of this approach, 

Arizona Women’s Education and Employment in Phoenix, Metro United Methodist Urban 

Ministry in San Diego, and Connections to Success in Kansas City all placed grantee staff 

members in probation and parole offices as a way of increasing the information probation and 

parole officers received on the RExO participants they supervised. 

Building and Growing Partnerships 

The above sections focus on the various types of partnerships that grantees built. The next 

sections cover the reasons why these relationships were worth building, some of the challenges 

inherent in building partnerships, and strategies that proved valuable in doing so. 

The Benefits of Having Program Partners 

Thus far, this chapter has focused on one clear benefit that partnerships brought to grantees, 

namely the additional services they made available to program participants. In other words, by 

engaging in partnerships, grantees were able to provide program participants with services to 
VII-11

which they otherwise would not have had access. Staff members at grantee organizations, 

however, pointed out some additional ways that partnerships could be helpful. 

 Partnerships provided new business opportunities. Even though organizations 

often formed partnerships around certain grants or other specific purposes, once 

these relationships were in place, they opened up opportunities that partners might 

not have first envisioned. Many of the formal, sub-grantee–grantee partnerships 

discussed earlier in the chapter, for example, were the result of these 

organizations having frequently worked together in the past, before the RExO 

program existed. Since a partnership was essentially a way of expanding the 

expertise an organization had at its disposal, partnerships likely put some 

organizations—especially smaller ones—in a better position to pursue new 

funding opportunities. Staff members at Connections to Success in Kansas City, 

for instance, discussed working with partnerships, formed under RExO, in the 

search for new funding opportunities. 

 Partnerships increased grantees’ standing in the community. To the extent 

that grantees engendered a sense of gratitude or appreciation among partner 

organizations for carrying out their side of the bargain, as was expressed by the 

staff members of several partner organizations, grantees’ reputation in the 

community improved. As one grantee staff member put it, they worked hard to 

make sure their partnerships were mutually beneficial and that the partner 

organizations benefited from these relationships. Known to more people and 

organizations as an effective agent in the community, the grantee was better 

positioned to build new partnerships and seek out additional sources of funding in 

the future. 

 Partnerships strengthened the quality of RExO services. Staff members at 

Odyssey House LA, Inc. in New Orleans, for instance, spoke about how 

collaboration with their partner organizations helped deepen their understanding 

of RExO participants and improved their ability to address the issues facing them. 

Staff members at many grantees spoke about how partner organizations served as 

valuable resources for learning about RExO participants. Grantee staff members 

learned information about program participants when those individuals did not 

communicate regularly or were not forthcoming. Partners also provided one other 

way for RExO staff members to locate participants when they disappeared. 

Partnership Challenges 

While there were multiple benefits to having partnerships, building and maintaining them was 

sometimes challenging. As discussed above in relation to the third model of sub-grantee 

partnerships, sometimes communication between partners was infrequent and not systematic, 

leading to challenges in day-to-day program coordination. Staff members from grantee and 

partner organizations identified several other challenges that RExO grantees faced in working 

with partners, including both formal sub-grantees and organizations with which they had less 

formal relationships. 
VII-12

Staff members at several grantees discussed how insufficient funding was a substantial barrier to 

forming or maintaining strong partnerships. In some cases, the partner agencies were the ones 

with limited funds. While happy with the quality of the services provided by many partners, 

grantee staff members spoke about how certain programs, especially the smaller ones, simply ran 

out of money to serve participants. This lack of consistently available services led to frustration 

on the part of both program staff and RExO participants and certainly affected the ability of 

grantees to rely on certain partner organizations on a regular basis. In other cases, it was the 

grantee that lacked funding. Staff members at a few grantees discussed how diminishing RExO 

funds over the years allowed for fewer formal partnerships than they would have preferred; 

reductions in funding meant that grantee organizations had to dissolve certain sub-contractual 

relationships. This situation arose for at least three grantees prior to start of the evaluation. 

Another challenge for grantees was dealing with the various requirements imposed by partner 

organizations. Often, RExO staff members discussed the restrictions or requirements—such as 

curfews or mandatory group meetings—placed on RExO participants who were also enrolled in 

various residential programs. Most frequently, though, RExO staff members commented on the 

demands participants faced as a result of their involvement with the criminal justice system—the 

courts, probation or parole officers, and transitional facilities. The criminal justice system, for 

instance, commonly requires ex-offenders to: 

 meet with parole or probation officers; 

 find work after release, often within a few weeks; 

 bear the cost of transitional housing (typically in the range of $10–$20/day); 

 bear the cost of supervision by probation or parole (typically in range of $40-

$80/month); and 

 undergo testing for substance abuse. 

RExO program staff members were usually familiar with these requirements, but employers and 

many partner programs were often not. Even when they were aware of these requirements, 

partners did not always understand the importance of ex-offenders meeting them and doing so in 

a timely way. Since grantees were ultimately responsible for RExO participants’ success, this 

situation put them in a difficult position—enforcing one program’s set of requirements over 

another—especially when partner programs had their own stringent demands. Employers, 

similarly, did not always understand or were not accepting of frequent daytime interruptions or 

restrictions on their employees’ ability to work. Grantees learned that not all partners or 

employers were flexible enough to work with ex-offenders, and subsequently sought out 

different partner programs. 

Staff members from quite a few RExO programs also commented on the poor quality of services 

provided by some partner organizations. The issues identified by these staff members included 
VII-13

poor customer service skills, questionable financial practices, a lack of awareness of ex-offender 

issues, a lack of skills tailored to ex-offenders, and poor client feedback. A couple of grantees in 

particular noted how their One-Stop Career Centers were unhelpful and uncooperative when it 

came to serving ex-offenders. In most cases, the relationships with these poor-performing 

organizations were relatively informal, which made ending the partnerships as simple as no 

longer referring RExO participants. In other cases, the contractual nature of these relationships 

made it more difficult for grantees to resolve these issues. In most cases, these particular 

contracts were not renewed. 

A few other challenges were noteworthy in the partnerships of a handful of grantees. 

 A partner organization worked with participants differently than the 

grantee. In a few cases, a partner had different eligibility criteria than the 

grantee. In others, the partner’s service mission or service philosophy was 

different. Some grantees overcame these kinds of challenges through increased 

dialogue. Others came away with a better sense of their partnering limits. 

 Partnerships were dependent on specific staff. As discussed above, some 

partnerships were born out of the relationships staff members had with other 

organizations. If the critical staff members left, so too might the partnership. 

 Too few participants accessed a program. For a variety of reasons, ranging 

from limited participant interest to insufficient follow-through on referrals, takeup in some partner programs was low. 

 The grantee was unwilling to work with partners. At least two grantees 

worked with very few, if any, partners. Respondents from these grantees 

expressed no real need to work with other programs and felt that their 

organizations were able to provide sufficient services to RExO participants. 

Interestingly, staff members at other organizations in these communities noted 

that these particular grantees were not willing to work with them or were simply 

organizations with which it was not easy to work. 

Of particular interest to this report is that few grantees seemed to face any challenges with 

partner organizations around the implementation of the impact study in the fifth year. As 

discussed in Chapter IV, the impact study did create friction with criminal justice partners for 

several grantees, which likely contributed to some diminished capacity for these grantees to 

recruit participants into RExO and required these grantees to reconfigure intake and recruitment 

practices. Other partnerships, however, seemed relatively unhampered. At least three grantees 

found that partners were resistant to the evaluation initially. While a partner with one grantee 

left prior to the start of the evaluation, the partners with the other two later reconsidered and 

continued to work effectively with the grantee. 
VII-14

Growing Partnerships and Overcoming Challenges 

Staff members of grantee and partner organizations advocated several approaches for building 

and sustaining successful partnerships. These practices come into play during each of the three 

major stages of partnership building: (1) finding promising partnership opportunities; (2) 

entering into and ending partnerships; and (3) maintaining partnerships. 

Finding Promising Partnership Opportunities 

One significant issue that confronted many grantees is how to build partnerships in the first 

place. To what sources did the grantees turn in building partnerships? Staff members of 

grantees and partner programs provided the following examples of practices and resources for 

identifying potential partners. 

 Coalitions of service providers and re-entry meetings for ex-offenders were 

useful in making new connections. The research team documented that at least 

11 grantee communities had some kind of coalition of service providers organized 

around ex-offender issues or issues with strong overlap (e.g., homelessness). 

Meetings of coalition members offered tremendous networking opportunities for 

RExO program staff members and were responsible for many partnerships. 

Respondents in four communities also reported that re-entry meetings for exoffenders, typically organized by probation and parole offices, were an important 

means of connecting participants with services. 

 Personal networks of staff members and program participants provided a 

strong basis for partnership building. As discussed above, partnerships often 

blossomed due to the personal connections of staff members. Despite the risks 

inherent in depending too much on particular staff members to maintain these 

relationships, this resource seemed to be a strong foundation on which to build 

partnerships for many grantees. 

 Long-standing relationships were the basis for strong partnerships. Many 

grantees’ strongest partnerships arose from relationships they had been nurturing 

for years or even decades. Since many grantees were able to draw on existing 

resources for this grant, similar programs might be able to do the same. 

 A strong reputation for both service delivery and partnering attracted 

potential partners. Certainly no organization wants to have a bad reputation, but 

respondents did identify a few grantees that were not well known for being team 

players. In contrast, having a cooperation-based philosophy and a high quality of 

services helped to ensure for several grantees that other programs wanted to 

partner with them, giving them the luxury of choosing with whom they wanted to 

work. 

 Close partners were often good partners. As highlighted above, physical 

proximity was conducive to a strong partnership. Even if a nearby program had 

limited slots or was lacking in other ways, its proximity could make it a strong 

partner. 
VII-15

Entering Into and Ending Partnerships 

Several of the challenges identified above refer to issues that may have been present well before 

grantees first noticed them, which suggests that circumspection and thoughtfulness in choosing 

partners played important roles in averting conflicts and other partnership issues. Respondents 

from grantee organizations identified a few strategies for being smart about what organizations 

to partner with, which included choosing the right partners and dissolving partnerships when 

they no longer worked. 

 Research a partner program before providing referrals. Staff members at a 

few grantees pointed out how their organizations’ procedures included doing an 

investigation of an organization before referring program participants to that 

organization. This research included visiting the program and meeting with staff 

members to learn about the program itself, and how it fit with the services RExO 

provided. The goal was to make sure that a relationship was mutually beneficial. 

Speaking about learning the hard way from one particularly bad referral 

relationship, one grantee staff member noted, “we’ve been burned, but we 

learned.” 

 Know when to end a partnership. Staff members at a couple of grantees 

acknowledged that some partnerships simply do not work out. When they no 

longer provide mutual benefits, or when the drawbacks of working together begin 

to outweigh the advantages, it may be time to end them. 

Maintaining Partnerships 

The single biggest lesson that grantees drew from their experiences maintaining partnerships of 

all types was that good communication and coordination between partners were key. Almost 

half of the grantees discussed various steps they took to ensure high levels of coordination. 

Many of these steps included techniques discussed earlier in this chapter: co-locating staff 

members at partner organizations; setting up frequent meetings for partner staff members to 

discuss participants or other aspects of their organizations’ operations; and sharing information 

on participant progress and services delivered through shared access to the MIS or regular 

reports. 

Moreover, grantee and partner program staff often emphasized that communication should flow 

in both directions, with partner organizations informing grantee organizations of their progress 

and grantee organizations doing likewise for their partners. As one staff member put it, “we just 

feed them,” referring to the large amount of information the grantee gave to partner 

organizations about every aspect of its service delivery. This kind of outward sharing was 

especially important with organizations from which grantees expected to get referrals, such as 

probation and parole, but it was also important not to ignore this kind of sharing with other 

partners. 
VII-16

Another lesson shared by grantees was to be flexible in how partnerships worked. One grantee, 

for instance, found that services for a particular provider were becoming too expensive. Rather 

than end that partnership, which was beneficial to their participants, staff members at that grantee 

found a way to enroll participants in another program that had the means to pay for the services 

in question. 

The bottom line is that many partners shared the same motivation and drive to assist participants 

and it was the job of all partners involved to minimize obstacles for ensuring that this assistance 

happened. As a staff member from one grantee noted, partnerships are successful when 

everyone feels part of the same team. 

Summary 

Grantees sometimes lacked the capacity to provide the full slate of required RExO services. 

They also rarely had the capacity to provide all the programs and services needed to meet the 

many needs of the ex-offender population. In order to fill these gaps in their capacity, they 

reached out to other programs and services to form partnerships. It was through these 

partnerships that grantees were able to offer a broader range of services. These partnerships also 

helped grantees increase the likelihood of obtaining other funding by increasing their effective 

capacity, strengthening their standing in the community, and further enriching their services by 

providing staff members with the means for better knowing their own program participants. 

The partnerships formed by the RExO grantees took many different forms. In the area of formal, 

sub-grantee relationships for the delivery of core RExO services (e.g., case management, 

employment, and mentoring services), three different models existed. Half of the grantees used 

no sub-grantees at all. Six grantees had tightly coordinated sub-grantee relationships defined by 

co-located staff, frequent opportunities for information-sharing, and other systems designed to 

increase transparency and communication. The remaining six had sub-grantees that operated 

somewhat independently of the grantee and one another, in some cases offering a full range of 

core RExO services and in others just single components. 

Other partnerships were less formal and tended to involve referrals for non-core RExO services 

such as housing, substance abuse treatment, and transportation, although they may have included 

support for pieces of core RExO services such as work readiness courses or vocational training. 

These relationships with external organizations ranged from relatively weak to quite strong, 

based on various ways that grantees connected and coordinated with these partner organizations. 

Stronger partnerships were characterized by: grantees making time for partner staff to interact 

with RExO participants, past or present formal agreements with partner organizations, 

systematized referral mechanisms, physical proximity of partner organizations, close staff 

personal relationships and co-location of staff in a partner’s offices. 
VII-17

Two other partnership-like relationships existed among RExO grantees: internal “partnerships” 

with programs and services operated by the grantee or its contracted sub-grantees that were not 

part of the RExO program, and informal partnerships with criminal justice organizations. Since 

the latter partnerships with criminal justice organizations functioned primarily to refer exoffenders to RExO or as alternative providers of ex-offender services, they are discussed 

elsewhere in this report. These partnerships are relevant to this chapter, however, because of the 

way in which criminal justice staff members worked with grantee staff members to share 

information, increase the degree of services RExO participants accessed, and provide a larger 

network of support for these individuals. 

Grantees faced many challenges in building and maintaining partnerships but managed to 

overcome many of these challenges through a variety of practices. The challenges included a 

lack of funding to support partnerships, complex and sometimes competing restrictions placed on 

ex-offenders by other programs, partners with different approaches, partnerships dependent on 

particular staff members staying with the organization, low quality of services provided by 

partners, low take-up rates in partner programs, and resistance among some grantees themselves 

to building partnerships. Grantees overcame and mitigated these challenges through a variety of 

strategies that included identifying promising partnership opportunities through local provider 

coalitions, staff member networks, and long-standing relationships; attracting partners by 

building up their reputations in their communities; entering into partnerships with full knowledge 

of the potential partners; knowing when to end partnerships that were not working; and 

maintaining strong partnerships through good, frequent, and systematic communication and 

coordination. 
VII-18

This page intentionally left blank
VIII-1

VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO REXO 

Unlike prior chapters, which focus on various aspects of the RExO grantees and the services they 

offered under the program, this chapter focuses attention on the programs and services within 

grantee communities that offered alternatives to RExO programs, looking at their availability, 

accessibility, and quality. The information in this chapter comes primarily from interviews with 

a wide array of individuals within grantee communities, representing grantees, partners, 

alternative service providers, criminal justice organizations, and employers. 

Understanding these alternative services would be important in any evaluation of the RExO 

program, as they provide important context for the program itself. Insofar as this particular 

evaluation is a random-assignment impact study, which examines how RExO program 

participants fare compared to their control-group counterparts, this chapter assumes added 

significance as an examination of what control-group members might have accessed in lieu of 

receiving RExO services. While this chapter does not say definitively what services controlgroup members received or what their experiences were like—the Impact Report will include 

these data, which will come from the survey of study participants—it does provide valuable 

insight into the services that were available to them in their communities.40 

This chapter begins by providing detailed accounts of the many programs and services that 

existed during the evaluation period, suggesting what alternatives control-group members may 

have availed themselves of in their communities. The chapter next evaluates the accessibility 

and quality of these programs. Finally, the chapter examines the services offered by partner 

organizations in the criminal justice system; these services are accessible to most if not all exoffenders. 

Identifying Alternative Provider Programs 

During both rounds of site visits to RExO grantees in 2010, research team members identified, 

met with the staff members of, and otherwise investigated organizations within grantee 

 

40 The survey, which will be covered in the Impact Report, will address what services study participants—both 

program- and control-group members—actually received. 
VIII-2

communities that provided services to ex-offenders that were similar to the ones offered by 

RExO programs. These organizations (1) served ex-offenders as a specific population or as part 

of a larger population that included a high proportion of ex-offenders, such as homeless 

individuals, and (2) provided one or more of the core services that RExO programs were required 

to provide under the terms of their grants. As is outlined in Chapter VI, these core services 

included case management; employment-related services, including both work-readiness courses 

and job search and placement assistance; and mentoring. Not surprisingly, these alternative 

programs, or their parent organizations, provided many other employment-related and/or 

supportive services, including vocational training, educational services, housing, mental health 

services, and substance-abuse services. Research team members identified the core services as 

well as the supplemental ones. 

As seen in Exhibit VIII-1, this investigative effort yielded 97 alternative providers across the 24 

grantee communities. The number of providers investigated in any given community ranged 

from two to eight. This variation in the number of alternative providers in a community likely 

reflects, to some degree, the actual availability of providers. Interview respondents in a few 

communities said that ex-offender services were relatively abundant in their community, while 

respondents in a few other communities noted the relative paucity of ex-offender services in their 

communities. Still, this variation in the number of alternative providers is likely also a product 

of the research team’s use of snowball sampling; this investigative effort was not a 

comprehensive survey or inventory. Using this technique, research team members identified 

potential alternative providers through referrals from grantee staff members and the referral lists 

grantees provided to study participants assigned to the control group. In some cases, research 

team members were unable to investigate likely alternative providers due to time constraints or 

due to these providers being unwilling to participate in interviews. While it is likely that this 

effort overlooked some alternative providers, the pool of 97 providers—with mean and median 

of four providers per community—gives considerable insight into the alternatives to RExO that 

were available to ex-offenders within grantee communities during the evaluation. 

These 97 alternative providers run the gamut of organizational types. The programs in these 

organizations that serve ex-offenders range from several months to several decades old, and they 

operated as both independent organizations and as part of much larger organizations.41 Budgets 

for these programs ranged from the tens of thousands to the tens of millions of dollars and the 

parent organizations may well have been even bigger. As was the case for the RExO grantees 

themselves (see Chapter III), some alternative providers were local affiliates or branches of 

national organizations such as Goodwill Industries, the Urban League, the Salvation Army, 

 

41 In fact, a small number of these providers are separate programs within RExO grantee organizations. 
VIII-3

Catholic Charities, or Strive. Others included One-Stop Career Centers, which can be publically 

or privately operated but relied on a considerable amount of public funding. Other providers 

were local Mayor’s or Sheriff’s offices, Jewish Family Services organizations, and a variety of 

smaller faith- and community-based organizations. 

3

Exhibit VIII-1: 

Characteristics of the Sample of Alternative Providers 

in the 24 RExO Grantee Communities 

Number of Alternative 

Providers 

Alternative Providers Investigated 79 

Provided one core service similar to RExO* 51

Provided two core services similar to RExO* 12

Provided three core services similar to RExO* 84

Provided four core services similar to RExO* 1

Minimum number identified per community 2 

Maximum number identified per community 8 

Mean number identified per community 4 

Median number identified per community 4 

* Core RExO services investigated include: employment (broken down into work readiness courses and job search and 

placement assistance), case management, and mentoring services. 

NOTE: Members of the research team investigated more than 97 organizations, but only those 97 offering one of the four 

core services noted above were included in the analysis. 

The Availability of Alternative Provider Programs 

Many core RExO services were readily available to both program- and control-group members 

through alternative providers within grantee communities. As is illustrated in Exhibit VIII-1, 

above, most of the 97 providers investigated offered multiple core services, with core services 

including employment (broken down into work readiness courses and job search and placement 

assistance), case management, and mentoring services. Exhibit VIII-2 shows that out of the 97 

alternative providers investigated, 81 offered some form of work readiness services, 81 provided 

job search and placement services, and 71 provided case management services. In every grantee 

community, all three of these core services were available through some combination of 

alternative providers. 
VIII-4

Exhibit VIII-2: 

Services Available at the 97 Alternative Provider Organizations 

Across the 24 RExO Grantee Communities 

At the same time, as Exhibit VIII-2 illustrates, the alternative provider programs as a whole were 

less likely to offer other, non-core ex-offender programs and services. Only 39 alternative 

providers offered some form of vocational training and even fewer provided substance abuse 

services (31), housing services (28), educational services (28), and mental health services (21). 

Similar to their RExO program counterparts, many of these alternative provider programs simply 

referred their participants to partner organizations rather than offer all these services directly. 

It is notable how few alternative providers offered mentoring services. Only 20 of the 97 

alternative providers considered had a mentoring program, and mentoring providers were not 

available in nine grantee communities. Although this finding does not necessarily mean that 

alternative mentoring programs were entirely absent from these nine communities, it does 

suggest how limited in availability mentoring services were compared to other forms of re-entry 

services for ex-offenders; they were the least available of any core or non-core RExO services. 
VIII-5

The Accessibility of Alternative Provider Programs 

Another important factor to consider is the accessibility of alternative programs. Just because a 

service is available within a grantee community does not mean that ex-offenders—and controlgroup members in particular—know how to find it or enroll in it. 

Program visibility was one important aspect of accessibility that seemed to be an issue in some 

communities and with some providers. The relevant variable seemed to be whether these 

programs came to the attention of ex-offenders’ probation and/or parole officers, who were often 

the individuals who referred ex-offenders to various re-entry services. Interview respondents 

from various organizations in Fort Lauderdale, Dallas, and San Diego all noted how parole and 

probation officers in those communities were very familiar with the available alternative 

providers and likely to refer ex-offenders to them. In a few other communities, such as New 

Orleans, Portland, and Kansas City, RExO program participants were the ones to discuss their 

familiarity with various alternative providers, often through referrals from probation and parole 

staff. 

Respondents for organizations in three communities expressed some concerns about whether 

these various alternative providers came to the attention of ex-offenders. One concern was that 

probation and parole may have taken it for granted that ex-offenders were already familiar with 

these alternative provider programs. Another concern was that communication between all 

providers in these communities was simply more limited. These concerns may also echo ones 

raised in yet another community in which control-group members would have needed to return to 

their probation or parole officers for referrals after getting assigned to the control group in RExO 

rather than get a referral list from the RExO grantee. The concern raised in that community was 

that control-group members may simply have never ended up reaching the alternative provider 

programs in the first place, due to all the same barriers that prevent them from successfully 

engaging in many aspects of society. 

Another important element of accessibility was the location of the alternative provider. 

Respondents in two grantee communities specifically commented on how alternative providers 

tended to be clustered in very specific neighborhoods in these larger urban areas, though the 

RExO grantees themselves were not situated in these neighborhoods. To the extent that controlgroup members (and other ex-offenders) resided in these neighborhoods, they should have been 

able to access the providers. However, alternative providers, and services for ex-offenders in 

general, tended to be particularly thin in many of the neighborhoods where ex-offenders resided. 

As mentioned earlier, many respondents noted that a lack of transportation is a barrier to many 

ex-offenders when it comes to successful re-entry. Traveling to other neighborhoods in RExO 

communities is often difficult for ex-offenders, who frequently depend on often-poor public 

transportation systems. 
VIII-6

A third element of accessibility to alternative providers’ programs was their eligibility criteria, 

which ranged from restrictive to open. At the restrictive end of the spectrum, one alternative 

provider only served individuals ordered by the court to attend. At the open end of the eligibility 

spectrum were providers who accepted a group of individuals much broader than ex-offenders. 

In many cases, these programs targeted low-income and/or homeless individuals, who tended to 

include large numbers of ex-offenders. In other cases, such as with the One-Stop Career Centers, 

these alternative providers served even broader categories of individuals. The danger with this 

overly accessible type of alternative provider was that the programs are open to so many people 

that the services may be less relevant to the needs of ex-offenders. Many of the alternative 

provider programs occupied the middle of the eligibility spectrum and tended to serve 

individuals roughly similar to those served by RExO. 

A fourth element of accessibility was service capacity. Some providers seemed to have had too 

few slots available for serving ex-offenders, leading to long wait times and few opportunities for 

services. A few interview respondents commented that some alternative provider programs were 

simply overwhelmed and that it was difficult for ex-offenders to enroll in them. Based on the 

partially complete information available on enrollment numbers for the 97 alternative providers 

investigated in this report, limited access may have been an issue for some programs, especially 

the few that served fewer participants than the RExO grantees. Yet, a sizable number of 

alternative provider programs appeared to serve at least as many individuals as RExO grantees, if 

not many more. The larger concern respondents may have been voicing here is their personal 

viewpoint that there are too few re-entry services for ex-offenders in any community. 

The Quality of Alternative Provider Services 

A third factor to consider is the quality of the services these alternative programs provided. 

Service quality is not easy to assess based solely on qualitative data collected during time-limited 

interviews with staff members. As one measure of program quality, the research team examined 

the intensity of the services offered by alternative providers. As another, the research team 

considered the views expressed by interview respondents in grantee communities. 

In order to measure the intensity of the services offered by the 97 alternative providers, the 

members of the research team collected information such as hours spent in the program (for 

work readiness programs), whether the service was provided directly or sub-contracted, the case 

manager-to-participant ratio (for case management), and the frequency of the service (for 

mentoring). Members of the research team then compared the information they collected about 

these services to the same services offered by the RExO grantee within that community. Finally, 

members of the research team determined for the core services (e.g., work readiness, job search 

and placement assistance, case management, and mentoring) whether the given alternative 

provider’s services were roughly comparable to, much more intense than, or much less intense 
VIII-7

than the same services provided by the RExO grantee.42 Given the limits of the information 

collected and the time spent on site, research team members were very conservative in their 

estimates. They erred on the side of assuming that any two services were roughly comparable 

unless there was considerable evidence indicating otherwise.43 Exhibit VIII-3 summarizes the 

research team’s ratings. 

The key finding illustrated in Exhibit VIII-3 is that although approximately half of the core 

services offered by alternative providers are roughly comparable to those offered by their RExO 

counterparts, the services provided by RExO programs overall were slightly more intense. The 

details are as follows. 

 The roughly comparable band of services (i.e., the middle band) accounts for a 

little more than half of the work readiness training services, job search and 

placement services, and case management services (55.5 percent, 50.6 percent and 

54.9 percent respectively). Slightly less than half of the mentoring services 

provided by alternative providers were roughly comparable to those provided by 

RExO (40 percent). 

 For work readiness training and mentoring services, the percentage of alternative 

provider services rated more intense (19.7 percent and 25 percent, respectively) 

was somewhat smaller than the percentage of those rated less intense (24.7 

percent and 35 percent, respectively). In other words, the services provided by 

RExO grantees in these areas appeared to have been slightly more intense, on 

average, than those provided by the alternative providers in their communities. 

Variation across sites, and the actual intensity of the services received by control 

group members, will be a focus of the impact analysis. 

 For job placement and search services and case management services, the 

percentage of alternative provider services rated more intense (8.6 percent and 7 

percent, respectively) was considerably smaller than the percentage of those rated 

less intense (40.7 percent and 38 percent, respectively). This finding suggests that 

RExO versions of these services were considerably more intense than their 

alternative provider counterparts, on average. 

 

42 Intensity for this assessment was measured by the number of days and/or hours spent in a given activity. 

43 The rule of thumb was that roughly double the intensity equated to “more intense” and roughly half as intense 

equated to “less intense.” For instance, a three-day work readiness course offered by an alternative provider 

would be “less intense” than its RExO counterpart if the RExO work readiness course was 6 or more days and 

more intense if the RExO counterpart was less than a day and a half. Otherwise, the programs were considered 

“roughly comparable” to one another. 
VIII-8

Exhibit VIII-3: 

Relative Intensity of Core Services Offered by the 97 Alternative Providers 

Compared to those Offered by RExO Grantees 

20

33

27

7

45

41

39

8

16

7

5

5

81 81

71

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Work Readiness Training Job Search and

Placement Services

Case Management

Services

Mentoring Services

Number of Alternative Provider Organizations

More Intense

Comparable

LessIntense

Note: Numbersindicate the totalnumberof alternative providerorganizations, offering atleast one core‐RExO

service, within RExOgrantee communitiesthatthe reserach team investigated.  Due to time constraints on site, limits

ofsnowballing techniques and the willingness of programstaffto cooperate,many providerprograms are likely

excluded.

Staff members from grantees and other organizations suggested several reasons why RExO 

programs might offer a higher-quality experience than those offered by alternative providers in 

their communities. One reason offered by respondents is that many alternative providers lack the 

proper focus on ex-offenders’ overall needs. Respondents in several communities spoke about 

how alternative providers may have focused heavily on specific services such as those dealing 

with substance abuse or housing, while offering little in the way of services that either met exoffenders’ immediate need for employment or offered support through case management. 

Generally, alternative programs did not offer the comprehensive package of services provided by 
VIII-9

RExO programs. As a result, ex-offenders needed to shop around, combining several programs 

to meet their overall needs. 

Limited funding was another reason suggested why some alternative providers might offer 

services that are of lower quality than those provided by RExO programs. Interview respondents 

in several communities spoke about the role that the steady and sizable funding from ETA 

played in their ability to provide a full slate of services, especially as many other organizations 

were struggling for funds in the economic downturn. Respondents commented that employment 

services, in particular, are expensive and not as easy to provide in less well-funded programs. 

To the extent that RExO grantees provided higher-quality services, it may have been due in large 

part to their ability to offer individual attention. As discussed in Chapter VI, RExO case 

managers played an important role in guiding participants through the program and ensuring that 

they had access to the support network they may not have been getting elsewhere in their lives. 

They may even have provided employment services or supplemented the services provided by 

other program staff. Staff members of several RExO programs pointed out that one of the most 

important things their programs offered was the ability for staff members to spend in-depth time 

with participants, building strong bonds and providing a more comprehensive experience than 

what was offered by many alternative providers. 

As discussed previously in the context of accessibility, some alternative providers had much less 

narrow eligibility requirements than RExO programs. While they may have, in theory, served 

ex-offenders, they targeted types of individuals in categories that included ex-offenders but were 

far broader in scope (e.g., homeless people, low-income families, individuals in need of 

parenting services, or unemployed individuals). Subsequently, ex-offenders that were served by 

these providers may not have received services particularly specialized to their needs. While this 

broader approach may have helped many ex-offenders, respondents from a few RExO 

communities were concerned that such programs were either spreading their resources too thin or 

offering services that were too “light” to support the more-intense needs of ex-offenders. Even if 

they achieved short-term employment success, for example, the ex-offenders might have lacked 

the foundation they needed for staying out of prison in the long-term. 

One last reason why the pool of alternative providers as a whole might have offered services of 

lower quality than those of RExO programs is that this pool seemed to include a few 

fundamentally suspect organizations. Respondents in a few RExO communities spoke about 

“fly-by-night” organizations or places that “took advantage” of ex-offenders. They mentioned, 

for example, residential facilities that earn money by housing ex-offenders while putting them to 

work in jobs that developed few skills and offered little or no long-term career opportunities. 

Other examples included organizations that charged ex-offenders for light-touch services. At 

best, these providers might play a “baby-sitting” role while offering ex-offenders few quality 
VIII-10

services. At worst, these providers could simply be taking advantage of a marginal population 

and putting them in damaging or negative environments. 

The Services Provided by Criminal Justice Partners 

Excluded from the discussion of alternative providers above are two types of services: (1) those 

delivered to offenders prior to their release from prison and (2) those received by ex-offenders 

through their supervision under probation or parole. These two sets of services were not 

alternatives to RExO because they typically did not offer a comparable slate of core RExO 

services. Nevertheless, both sets of services are important to understand insofar as they were 

available to both program and control groups equally. Understanding them also helps better 

define the baseline of services upon which RExO programs were trying to improve. These two 

sets of services are finally important to understand since both were heavily responsible for 

referring ex-offenders to post-release programs—provided by both RExO grantees and 

alternative providers—in the first place. 

Interview respondents in several grantee communities discussed the pre-release services in their 

area. These services varied somewhat in intensity and quality, both across areas and within each 

area, but the norm for these programs was that they began about six months prior to release and 

included several services similar to what ex-offenders find in post-release programs. Many times 

these services included coursework consisting of several days or weeks of classes along the lines 

of a work-readiness and life skills class. In Iowa, for instance, offenders could enroll in a life 

skills class operated by local community colleges. Other times, such as with the county jail 

program in Egg Harbor, these services included a staff of counselors who provide case 

management services to offenders as they neared release. In addition, quite a few other 

organizations, including many alternative providers and RExO grantees, received grants to 

provide pre-release services. 

As discussed in Chapter VII, many probation and parole programs faced budget cuts and other 

pressures that have forced them to limit the intensity, scope, or enrollment of the services they 

provide. Still, probation and parole officers played an important role in helping ex-offenders 

access services.44 They typically made referrals to various programs, like RExO, as appropriate. 

One respondent discussed how in Des Moines, parole and probation staff members used various 

assessment tools to help identify participant needs for support, job search, and mental health 

services. Respondents in several other communities discussed how probation and parole officers 

 

44 In fact, Texas recently passed a new piece of legislation (HB 1711) that establishes a comprehensive re-entry 

program for the state. Texas State Legislature online. 

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB1711
VIII-11

planned organization resource fairs and required newly released ex-offenders to attend, giving 

them an opportunity to hear about programs and services that address employment, housing, and 

other needs they had. Sometimes probation and parole officers even provided more direct 

services to ex-offenders. In Baton Rouge, for example, these officers were able to provide some 

emergency funding for housing. In Tucson, respondents discussed how such officers might have 

helped ex-offenders secure the various forms of documentation they needed, such as IDs or birth 

certificates. 

That said, not all parole and probation departments or officers were helpful. One case manager 

spoke about a corrections staff member who actively encouraged ex-offenders to find jobs on 

their own rather than enroll in re-entry programs. Less direct, and more typical, were cases in 

which parole and probation services were simply too light to provide any real assistance. As 

discussed above, many departments experienced cuts accompanied by increasingly heavy 

caseloads. Even if probation and parole officers wanted to make referrals, they did not always 

have the time or opportunity to be useful in this regard. Furthermore, given that they must 

prioritize tracking participants and ensuring that no violations occur, these tasks often took a 

back seat, even if getting ex-offenders enrolled in various reentry programs might have otherwise 

helped. 

Summary 

Several findings emerged about the various alternative services within grantee communities that 

were available to control-group members and RExO participants alike during the evaluation 

year. 

 Alternative provider services—other than those involving mentoring—were 

readily available. The research team identified 97 providers across the 24 

grantee communities that offered at least one core RExO service. Of these 97, 81 

offered work readiness training, 81 offered job search and placement assistance, 

and 71 offered case management services. Each grantee community had between 

two and eight such providers, and each of these three services was available 

through some combination of alternative providers in every grantee community, 

with many communities having had more than one of each. However, only 20 

alternative service providers offered mentoring services and only 15 grantee 

communities had such a provider. The relative lack of mentoring services seemed 

to indicate that mentoring services are inherently challenging to operate. 

 Alternative provider services, with a few exceptions, were accessible. 

Respondents noted that alternative provider services generally were visible to the 

ex-offender population, were located where ex-offenders could reach them 

relatively easily, used eligibility criteria that left them sufficiently open to those 

eligible for RExO, and had sufficient capacity to serve control-group members. 

That said, respondents in a few grantee communities raised concerns about the 
VIII-12

ability of some alternative providers in their communities to satisfy all of these 

criteria of accessibility. 

 Within most communities, the quality of alternative provider services was 

roughly similar to or slightly lower than the quality of similar services 

offered by the RExO program. Service quality, assessed in this chapter, is 

based on measurements of the intensity of the services offered and on the views of 

respondents within grantee communities. The research team found that core 

services offered by alternative providers were slightly less intense than the same 

services offered by the grantee organizations within the same communities. 

Respondents noted that alternative provider services may have been of lesser 

quality if they offered a less-than-comprehensive package of services to exoffenders, had less overall funding, offered less individualized attention to 

participants, or used questionable practices. 

This chapter also considered two types of services that were not strictly alternatives—since they 

were accessed by both program- and control-group members—but which affected the success of 

these ex-offenders: services ex-offenders received either prior to release from prison or those 

they received post-release, under supervision by a probation or parole officer. Both types of 

services appeared to have been available in all grantee communities with pre-release services, 

and they often included a slate of services similar to what ex-offenders found in post-release 

programs. Supervision by probation and parole officers tended to involve monitoring more than 

actual service delivery, especially in times of tighter budgets. However, respondents in some 

communities did note that supervision provided ex-offenders with a higher level of access to 

services. 

When it comes to the study, the role of alternative provider services in grantee communities 

remains unclear. Control-group members appeared to have the opportunity to pursue some 

programs roughly comparable to those of RExO in most grantee communities, which could 

diminish the overall measured impact of participating in RExO. The important question, then, is 

empirical: whether control-group members accessed these services. That question is one the 

research team will address in the Impact Report. 
IX-1

IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 

This Interim Report presents findings on the implementation of the Re-integration of ExOffenders program by the 24 grantees awarded funding during the fifth year of the program 

(April 2010 to March 2011). In particular, this report gives special attention to the RA 

evaluation conducted during this fifth year and the implementation challenges it posed for 

grantees. Previous chapters have described the characteristics of the grantees, outlined grant 

budgets and staffing, summarized the services that grantees provided, analyzed the partnerships 

that grantees developed, and discussed the community context and alternative services available 

to ex-offenders within the 24 RExO grantee communities. This final chapter summarizes the key 

findings of the previous chapters, identifies some common challenges faced and successes 

realized by grantees, and outlines the next steps of the evaluation. 

Key Findings 

Over the course of five years, the 24 RExO grantees made significant strides in implementing 

their RExO programs. They successfully mobilized community partners to participate in 

program activities, leveraged existing organizational resources to strengthen their RExO 

programs, and provided much-needed employment, case management and mentoring services, as 

well as other supportive services, to thousands of ex-offenders. These grantees also successfully 

implemented a RA study of over 4,600 ex-offenders, which is intended to contribute 

substantially to the understanding of the impacts of workforce-based reentry programs for exoffenders. The following sections summarize the key findings from each chapter. 

Community Context 

RExO programs operated in diverse community contexts that reveal the challenges and 

opportunities for ex-offenders. Understanding this context is key to contextualizing the findings 

highlighted in this report and in the Impact Report that will summarize program impacts. 

 Ex-offenders, both in the program and control group, faced similar 

challenges. They confronted barriers, such as substance abuse and low levels of 

education, which impeded their ability to find work and successfully re-integrate 
IX-2

into society. Furthermore, ex-offenders confronted employer biases, formal 

hiring policies, and less formal hiring practices that limited their employment 

opportunities. To the extent that ex-offenders found work, opportunities came 

from within industries offering low-skill, low-paying jobs, and the employers 

tended to be smaller, local employers who often had experience with exoffenders. 

 The economic downturn placed additional pressures on ex-offenders. 

Unemployment rates in grantee communities were high. According to grantee 

staff, employers that previously hired ex-offenders subsequently had an abundant 

and overqualified pool of candidates vying for fewer jobs and were less willing to 

hire individuals with criminal backgrounds. In addition, cuts to state and local 

budgets reduced other services that could help ex-offenders smoothly re-enter 

society. 

Grantee Administration 

Overall, grantees or lead agencies represented a diverse group of organizations such as national 

non-profits, FBCOs, community health organizations, and local or regional non-profits. Many of 

these organizations were large and resource rich, while others were small. The evaluation 

identified several key characteristics about the lead agencies that served as RExO grantees. 

 The lead agencies were well-established organizations prior to receiving the 

RExO grant. The vast majority of the lead agencies had been in operation for 

decades, with most organizations having existed for well over 20 years prior to 

receiving the RExO grant. The long duration of the grantees’ presence in their 

communities appeared to have influenced their ability to leverage community 

partnerships and reach a large number of eligible applicants. 

 The lead agencies offered many other services and programs in addition to 

RExO. Lead agencies offered anywhere from three to more than 30 programs 

including the RExO program. As a result, RExO programs leveraged existing 

resources to provide wraparound services, such as housing, substance abuse 

counseling and treatment, and others. 

 The grantees hired an aggregate total of 140 FTEs at the time of the first site 

visit (spring 2010) and employed about 135 FTEs at the time of the second 

site visit (fall 2010) to manage and deliver services. Most of the staff members 

that were hired were case managers, followed by administrative staff and 

employment services staff. Programs hired staff with diverse backgrounds and 

characteristics, some of whom had long histories in working with ex-offenders 

and other disadvantaged populations. 

 RExO programs were highly valued within grantee organizations. Even 

when RExO programs accounted for only a small portion of the overall operating 

budget for grantees, grantees considered these programs valuable. Many 

programs influenced the ways in which grantees structured other services within 

the lead agency. Staff members at several sites, for example, decided to 
IX-3

incorporate work readiness training, started under RExO, into other programs they 

offered. 

Intake/Recruitment/Assessment 

Grantees experienced a decline in enrollment in Year 5, in part because of the RA study and also 

due to overall decline in funds seen from previous years. To address this challenge, grantees 

worked closely with the site liaisons to strengthen their outreach and recruitment efforts. Some 

of the specific strategies that programs used included the following: 

 Grantees intensified their outreach and recruitment efforts to reach a larger 

pool of applicants. To address the dip in enrollment numbers, grantees reached 

out to partners to increase referrals and develop concrete recruitment strategies to 

identify applicants. Some of the more noteworthy outreach strategies included 

making presentations in prisons, at halfway houses, at local shelters, and even colocating staff at probation/parole offices. 

 Grantees adjusted their intake and enrollment procedures in order to 

implement the RA process. Both at the beginning of Year 5 and somewhat into 

the process, some grantees moved RA forward in their intake and enrollment 

process, engaging in fewer steps to screen candidates for suitability and 

willingness to participate.45 A few grantees experienced some difficulties with 

these changes while others managed to work in adequate suitability screening that 

occurred in a more limited fashion than it had previously. 

 Overall, grantees were able to meet recruitment targets established for the 

evaluation. Most grantees met or exceeded the recruitment target of 200 

participants either with their pre-existing strategies or by adopting some of the 

efforts described above. A few grantees did experience continued recruitment 

difficulties and, despite their best effort, did not meet the recruitment target. 

Random Assignment 

Nearly all the grantees implemented the RA process smoothly, though the exact point at which 

participants were assigned varied across the grantees. 

 One grantee implemented RA prior to participants being released from 

incarceration. 

 The remaining grantees assigned participants only after they had made contact 

with the grantee post-release, though there were two general models of this 

approach: 

 

45 Although all study participants will be included in the analysis, we plan to examine whether there is variation in 

impacts between those who entered the study earlier (i.e., when some grantees were using heavier screening) and 

later (when some implemented more intensive screening) to examine whether this affected the net impact of the 

program. 
IX-4

 Some grantees randomly assigned participants in conjunction with an 

orientation to the program at an initial meeting with the participant. 

 Others randomly assigned only after some screening and assessments 

were conducted to ensure the participant was a good fit for the 

program and was sufficiently motivated to participate in it. Many of 

these grantees later scaled back their screening process because they 

were struggling to meet their enrollment targets. 

A total of 4,660 individuals was assigned either to the program group (2,804, or 60.2 percent) or 

the control group (1,856, or 39.8 percent) for this study. Fifteen of the grantees reached their 

target of 200 participants (and an additional three reached at least 190), while only three grantees 

enrolled fewer than 150 participants. An analysis of the characteristics of the two groups 

suggests that there were very few differences between them, indicating that the RA process was 

implemented smoothly and operated as intended. 

RExO Services 

A number of core services were available to RExO participants, including case management, 

employment services, and mentoring. These services were usually available in-house. In sites 

with limited capacity and expertise however, some of the services were delivered by contracted 

partners. In general, grantees paid special attention to the participants’ multiple needs and 

barriers to design their service plans and leveraged community resources and support from the 

lead agency to augment the service mix. 

 Case management support was a core strength of the RExO program. Case 

managers served as an important glue that connected participants to essential 

services that could help them succeed. Recognizing the value of case managers, 

programs invested heavily in them, and hired more than 60 FTEs. Having a 

sufficient number of case managers ensured that caseloads were kept low and case 

managers could provide individualized support. 

 Work readiness training was a prominent feature within the participants’ 

service mix. Nearly all programs offered work readiness training as the core 

training activity. The intensity and duration of this training varied widely by 

grantee but the content of this training was very similar across grantees, including 

résumé development, interviewing skills, and job search strategies. 

 Seven of the grantees offered transitional jobs as an opportunity for exoffenders to earn immediate income and gain valuable work experience that 

was often missing from their résumé. These positions were not usually meant 

to lead to permanent positions, though some grantees secured employer 

commitments to hire participants should they succeed in their positions. 

Typically, the positions were in retail, food service, construction, and 

manufacturing industries. 
IX-5

 There was a wide range of mentoring approaches among the RExO grantees. 

Approximately two-thirds of program participants engaged in mentoring activities 

(62.5 percent). Grantees offered a mix of individual and group mentoring 

activities, though the vast majority of them focused primarily on group mentoring. 

Group mentoring consisted of support groups, social events, and supplemental 

work readiness and life skills training. Program staff noted that ex-offenders 

preferred group mentoring because it did not require consistent participation. 

RExO Partnerships 

Establishing partnerships was key to the programs’ ability to provide wraparound services. 

Grantees successfully linked with a wide range of partners, using formal and informal 

mechanisms to connect to them. 

 Grantees relied on a network of partnerships to fill gaps in their capacity to 

meet the needs of program participants. These relationships may have been 

formal, contractual relationships, or informal relationships. Through partnerships, 

grantees were able to offer a range of services sufficient to meet the broad needs 

of their clients, increase the likelihood for future funding by expanding their 

capacity, strengthen their standing in the community, and enrich their own 

services by coming to know better their own clients. 

 Grantees relied on one of three formal sub-grantee partnership models to 

deliver core RExO services. Half used no sub-grantees. Six grantees had tightly 

coordinated sub-grantee relationships, defined by co-located staff, frequent 

opportunities for information-sharing, and other systems designed to increase 

transparency and communication. The other six grantees had sub-grantees that 

operated somewhat independently of the grantee and one another. Though no 

clear qualitative differences emerged in the effectiveness of these competing 

models, this will be examined as part of the impact analysis. 

 Grantees leveraged various informal partnerships to supplement RExO 

services. Grantees relied on less formal partnerships, which could range from 

loose attachments to quite strong relationships, to provide services such as 

substance abuse treatment, housing services, mental health services, health care, 

transportation, etc. 

 Strong partnerships shared a number of common practices and included 

links with partners that shared common goals and objectives with the RExO 

program. Some of the strongest partnerships included those that maintained 

frequent contact, had a history of collaboration, were bound by memoranda of 

understanding or contracts, and were located physically close to one another. 

Weak partnerships however, lacked these attributes and in some cases a potential 

partner may have been hesitant to serve ex-offenders. 

 Partnerships with criminal justice organizations strengthened RExO 

services. These partnerships included those with probation and parole offices, 

transitional or halfway houses and the courts. When strong, these partners could 
IX-6

refer participants to RExO, enhance communication and coordination with 

program staff, and enhance participants’ access to additional services. 

Alternatives to RExO 

An analysis of the available alternative programs in the 24 communities indicates that RExO 

programs generally did not operate in communities that were starved for services. Specifically, 

key findings included the following: 

 Grantee communities offered many alternatives to RExO. In every grantee 

community, ex-offenders could find some combination of work readiness 

training, job search and placement assistance and case management services for 

ex-offenders through providers other than the RExO grantee. With some 

limitations, these services appeared to be accessible to ex-offenders and of 

roughly comparable, or only slightly lesser, quality than those offered by grantees. 

 Mentoring services were less frequently available than employment services 

and case management. Mentoring services were the exception to the general 

rule of available services, and appeared to be much less available in grantee 

communities other than through the RExO program. 

Successes and Challenges 

These findings suggest that grantees achieved a number of significant accomplishments and also 

experienced a range of challenges throughout the life of the grant. 

Successes 

 Grantees served over 17,000 participants in Years 1 to 4 of the grant and an 

additional 2,804 as part of the RA study in Year 5. These programs were thus 

able to support a significant number of people in re-entering society. 

 Grantees as a whole successfully implemented a large-scale RA study, 

enrolling 4,660 individuals. They also adapted recruitment and intake procedures 

as needed to implement the study. 

 Grantees offered a diverse mix of services that were intensive and 

comprehensive. The core services that made up the RExO program—case 

management, employment services and mentoring—allowed participants 

flexibility in choosing the services that best met their skills and needs. In 

addition, the overall funding levels allowed these programs to offer a level of 

intensity and comprehensiveness not easily found in their communities, at least in 

a single location. Combined with services grantees were able to leverage from 

partners, RExO offered participants a relatively comprehensive package of 

services. 

Challenges 

 The RA study appeared to have affected recruitment and enrollment. 

Respondents noted that applicants may have been afraid of being turned away 
IX-7

from receiving services and as a result, fewer of them sought services at RExO 

programs. Subsequently, enrollment numbers decreased, requiring grantees to 

develop intentional and focused recruitment efforts to reach their enrollment 

goals.

 Grantees experienced difficulty implementing the mentoring program. 

Mentoring services were new to most grantees and they were difficult to 

implement. One of the most challenging aspects of the mentoring program was 

recruiting volunteer mentors, many of whom were reluctant to work with exoffenders. Because of this challenge, the vast majority of programs offered group 

mentoring services, which resembled many other services already available 

through the programs, such as peer support groups and workshops on work 

readiness training. 

 Participants’ barriers to employment posed a serious challenge to placing 

them in jobs. Grantee staff members noted repeatedly that barriers such as lack 

of education, lack of work experience, unstable or transitional housing, 

transportation limitations, restrictions on movement due to terms of parole, and 

substance abuse issues, among others, presented the largest barriers to participants 

finding employment. 

 Many employers were reluctant to hire ex-offenders. A major recurring 

challenge for the RExO programs was that employers were hesitant to hire exoffenders due to their criminal backgrounds. Grantee staff members felt that this 

perspective came from prejudice and lack of interaction with ex-offenders. As 

RExO job developers continued to work with employers to open opportunities for 

RExO participants, they frequently combated biases about ex-offenders’ skills and 

work ethic, suggesting that employing well-trained job developers may lead to 

better employment outcomes for offenders.

 Even though grantees sought to sustain the program and the RExO services, 

many of them were unable to find alternative funding sources to replace 

RExO by the time the program was slated to end. The funding climate was 

difficult for ex-offenders, according to program staff. As a result, they explored 

multiple options, such as local, state, and Federal funding that would sustain some 

of the RExO services. While some grantees were successful, others were still 

struggling to find new funders when their RExO funding ceased. 

 The impact analysis will not be of a single program model. Given that the 

services offered by grantees and their partners varied substantially, and the point 

of RA varied across grantees as well, what constitutes the program varied across 

sites. As a result, the analysis of impacts will be of the RExO funding stream 

rather than of a single program model. 

 The service contrast varied substantially across sites, which may affect the 

impact analysis. Because both the services provided by RExO grantees and 

those available through alternative providers varied across the 24 sites, the 

contrast in services between program and control group members likely varied as 

well. Depending on the extent of this contrast, it may have implications for the 

impact analysis. Though this was known prior to the onset of RA, the 
IX-8

implementation study has shown that this service contrast indeed differs markedly 

across sites. 

Conclusion and Next Steps 

This report provided some context for the Impact Report by presenting information about the 

labor market situation in the communities in which programs operated, the major barriers facing 

ex-offenders, the organizational features of the RExO programs, the services available through 

the programs, and the services available in the community. The report also discussed the 

strategies that grantees used to leverage the resources available through key partners to deliver 

services to program participants. Further, this report highlighted some positive features of the 

RExO program, such as the presence of additional resources at many program sites to enhance 

services for ex-offenders, the intensive and committed case management support to ex-offenders, 

and the diverse range of partnerships that were developed as a result of the RExO grant. 

Grantees also made a good-faith effort to tailor services to ex-offenders so that they could 

maximize their ability to succeed in the program and workplace. By examining participants’ 

barriers at intake and determining the most appropriate service plan at the onset, grantees were 

able to refer participants to supportive services such as substance abuse treatment, provide work 

readiness training, or paid work experience opportunities immediately after enrollment. These 

programmatic features likely influenced the pathways that ex-offenders took as they sought new 

opportunities. 

Several important challenges remained for program participants, however. The end of the RExO 

grant meant that some programs were unable to continue to sustain their program models at full 

capacity (or at all). This meant that in the vast majority of sites, RExO services were scaled back 

or ended significantly due to decreased funding. Grantee staff also reported that the national 

recession affected the participants’ employment outcomes. This particular challenge likely 

exacerbated the relative weakness of RExO programs in their focus on job development. Too 

often, RExO programs did not provide adequate support to the job development function—in 

both the training available to job developers and the staff support to ensure that this function was 

adequately funded. Future funding for programs of this type could better emphasize the role of 

job developers to ensure that that ex-offenders get the support they need to compete with other 

job applicants in the marketplace. 

In the subsequent months, the evaluation team will conduct a survey of all participants to 

document the outcomes they achieved in the months since they enrolled in the study. 

Additionally, the team will collect administrative data on criminal justice outcomes for 

participants for this same period. These data will allow the evaluation to examine outcomes on 

service receipt, employment, earnings, recidivism, and other key indicators, such as health, 
IX-9

mental health, substance abuse, and childcare support. Results from the analysis of these data 

will be presented in the Impact Report, which is to be submitted to ETA in late 2013.

R-1

REFERENCES 

Bernstein, Jared and Ellen Houston. 2000. Crime and Work: What We Can Learn from the LowWage Labor Market. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2007 “Key Facts at a Glance” Web site: 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exptyptab.htm 

Holzer, Harry, Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll. 2007. “The Effect of an Applicant’s 

Criminal History on Employer Hiring Decisions and Screening Practices: Evidence from Los 

Angeles.” In Barriers to Reentry, edited by Shawn Bushway, Michael Stoll, and David 

Weiman. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 

Holzer, Harry, Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll, 2003. “Employment Barriers Facing ExOffenders.” Wsahington DC: Urban Institute. 

http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/410855_holzer.pdf. Downloaded on April 25, 2011. 

Keller, T.E. 2007. “Youth mentoring: Theoretical and methodological issues.” In T.D. Allen 

and L.T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspective approach

(pp. 23-48). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 

Langan, Patrick and Daniel Levin. 2002. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. 

Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. New York State 

Division of Criminal Justice Services, 2008. 

Nelson, Marta, Perry Deess, and Charlotte Allen. 1999. The First Month Out. PostIncarceration Experiences in New York City. New York: Vera Institute of Justice. 

Pager, Devah. 2007. “Two Strikes and You’re Out: The Intensification of Racial and Criminal 

Stigma.” In Barriers to Reentry, edited by Shawn Bushway, Michael Stoll, and David 

Weiman. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 

Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” In American Journal of Sociology. 

Vol. 108, No 5: 937–75. 

Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: 

Oxford University Press. 
R-2

Pettit, Becky and Christopher Lyons. 2007. “Status and the Stigma of Inceration.” In Barriers 

to Reentry, edited by Shawn Bushway, Michael Stoll, and David Weiman. New York: 

Russell Sage Foundation. 

Raphael, Steven and Michael A. Stoll 2007. “Why Are So Many Americans in Prison?” 

Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper no. 1328-07. Madison, Wisconsin: 

Institute for Research on Poverty. 

Sampson, Robert and John Laub. 2005. “A Life Course View of the Development of Crime.” 

Annals AAPSS, 602, November 2005. 

Urban Institute Justice Policy Center Researchers. 2006. Understanding the Challenges of 

Prisoner Reentry: Research Findings from the Urban Institute’s Prisoner Reentry Portfolio. 

Washington DC: The Urban Institute. 

Visher, Christy, Laura Winterfield, and Mark Coggeshall. 2005. “Ex-Offender employment 

programs and recidivism: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Experimental Criminology (2005) 

1:295-315. 

Visher, Christy and Pamela Lattimore. 2008. Major Study Examines Prisoners and their 

Reentry Needs. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Visher, Christy and Pamela Lattimore. 2009. The Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI: Summary 

and Synthesis. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Western, Bruce, Jeffrey Kling, and David Weiman. 2001. “The Labor Market Consequences of 

Incarceration.” Working Paper #450. Princeton University Industrial Relations Section. 
A-1

3

Appendix A: 

Tenure of RExO Coordinators 

Grantee Name City, State 

Number of Years 

Working on RExO 

Episcopal Community Services of Maryland Baltimore, MD 5 

Church United for Community Development Baton Rouge, LA Less than 6 months 

Span, Inc. Boston, MA 3 

Safer Foundation Chicago, IL 3 

Talbert House Cincinnati, OH 3 

Urban League of Greater Dallas & North Central 

Texas Dallas, TX 2 

The Empowerment Program Denver, CO 13 

The Directors' Council Des Moines, IA 4 

Career Opportunity Development Egg Harbor, NJ 5 

OIC of Broward County Fort Lauderdale, FL 1.5 

Fresno Career Development Institute Fresno, CA 3 

Community Partners in Action Hartford, CT 2 

Connections to Success Kansas City, MO 7 

Odyssey House Louisiana New Orleans, LA 5 

Connection Training Services Philadelphia, PA 3 

AWEE Phoenix, AZ 3 

OLSHA Pontiac, MI 3 

SE Works Portland, OR 1 

MAAP, Inc. Sacramento, CA 2 

Goodwill Industries San Antonio, TX 8 

Metro United Methodist Urban Ministries San Diego, CA 5 

POCAAN Seattle, WA

St. Patrick Center St. Louis, MO 2 

Primavera Foundation Tucson, AZ 4 

Note: Data as of Round 1 site visit (summer 2010).

B-1

Appendix B provides a detailed description of the number of staff available in each RExO 

program in the following staffing categories: (1) administrative staff, (2) case management staff, 

(3) employment services staff, (4) mentoring staff, (5) intake/outreach staff, and (6) other. The 

gray bars in the graph depict the number of staff in each of these categories, ranging from .5 FTE 

to 11 FTE. 
B-2

Appendix B: 

Allocation of Staffing Resources by Job Category by Grantees (Baltimore- Fort 

Lauderdale) 

0 2 4 6 810

Round 2

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1

OIC of

Broward

County (Fort

Lauderdale)

Career

Opportunity

Development

(Egg Harbor)

The Directors'

Council (Des

Moines)

The

Empowermen

t Project

(Denver)

Urban League

of Greater

Dallas

&

North Central

Texas (Dallas)

Talbert House

(Cincinnati)

Safer

Foundation

(Chicago)

SPAN, Inc

(Boston)

Church

United for

Community

Development

(Baton

Rouge)

Episcopal

Community

Services of

Maryland

(Baltimore)

Number of FTE

Admin staff Case Mgmt Staff Employment Services Staff Mentoring Staff Intake/Outreach Staff Other

Note: : Two sites were omitted because their staffing data was unavailable or incomplete.  

FTEs are divided evenly for staff members who performed multiple roles.

12
B-3

Appendix B: 

Allocation of Staffing Resources by Job Category by Grantee (Hartford-Tucson) 

0 2 4 6 810

Round2

Round1

Round2

Round1

Round2

Round1

Round2

Round1

Round2

Round1

Round2

Round1

Round2

Round1

Round2

Round1

Round2

Round1

Round2

Round1

Round2

Round1

Primavera

Foundation

(Tucson)

St. Patrick

Center (St.

Louis)1

POCAAN(Seattle)

MetroUnited

Methodist

Urban

Ministries

(SanDiego)

Goodwill

Industries

(SanAntonio)

MAAP, Inc

(Sacramento)

OLSHA

(Pontiac)

Connection

Training

Services

(Philadelphia)

Odyssey

House

Louisiana

(New

Orleans)

Connections

toSuccess

(Kansas)

Community

Partnersin

Action

(Hartford)

Number of FTE

Admin staff Case Mgmt Staff Employment Services Staff Mentoring Staff Intake/Outreach Staff Other

Note: : Two sites were omitted because their staffing data was unavailable or incomplete.  

FTEs are divided evenly for staff members who performed multiple roles.

1 Intake staff and substance abuse counselor  were funded  by partner organizations.

12