Examining a New Model for Prisoner 

Re-Entry Services: The Evaluation

Of Beneficiary Choice

Final Report

March 16, 2011

Jeanne Bellotti

Michelle Derr

Jillian Berk

Nora Paxton

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the many individuals who contributed to the development of 

this evaluation report. 

Most importantly, this study would not have been possible without the support and invaluable 

time provided by the grantees, services coordinators, specialized service providers, and program 

participants who participated in our in-depth site visits. We appreciate the help offered by the 

grantees in coordinating the visits and the willingness of staff and participants to share their personal 

stories with us.

A number of staff at the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration 

provided valuable input and guidance throughout the study. We especially appreciate the support 

and advice of Eileen Pederson (the evaluation project officer) and Dan Ryan from the Division of 

Research and Evaluation. Richard Morris and Evan Rosenberg from the Division of Youth Services 

also provided feedback and support.

At Mathematica, Karen Needels and Gretchen Kirby served invaluable roles as Senior Advisor 

and Quality Assurance Reviewer. Alexander Persaud and Luis Rodriguez collected and helped 

analyze the state criminal justice records. Cindy George and John Kennedy provided editorial 

assistance, and Linda Heath provided secretarial support for the project.

Jeanne Bellotti

Michelle Derr

Jillian Berk

Nora Paxton

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of Policy Development and Research by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 

under contract number DOLJ061A20351. The views expressed are those of the authors and should 

not be attributed to DOL, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations 

imply endorsement of same by the U.S. Government.

Contents Mathematica Policy Research

v

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. xv

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

A. DOL Efforts to Serve Ex-Offenders ...........................................................1

B. The Beneficiary Choice Program Model ....................................................3

C. Participating Sites and Their Local Economies..........................................4

D. Overview of the Evaluation.......................................................................6

E. Organization of the Rest of the Report.....................................................7

II. GRANTEES, SERVICES COORDINATORS, AND SSPS...........................................9

A. Grantees................................................................................................10

1. Responsibilities ..............................................................................10

2. Types of Organizations...................................................................10

3. Assets and Limitations....................................................................11

B. Services Coordinators............................................................................11

1. Responsibilities ..............................................................................11

2. Contracting Out the Services Coordinator Role................................12

3. Grantee Acting as Services Coordinator ..........................................12

4. Staff Turnover.................................................................................13

C. SSPs ......................................................................................................13

1. Responsibilities ..............................................................................14

2. Staffing Arrangements....................................................................14

3. Identifying and Selecting SSPs.........................................................15

4. SSP Turnover ..................................................................................17

D. Community Partnerships .......................................................................18

1. Correctional Agencies.....................................................................18

2. One-Stop Career Centers ................................................................19

3. Employers ......................................................................................19

4. Education and Training Providers....................................................20

III. OUTREACH, ORIENTATION, AND PARTICIPANT SELECTION OF SSPS ..............21

A. Eligibility and Recruitment.....................................................................21

1. Eligibility Requirements ..................................................................22

2. Recruitment....................................................................................22

3. Use of Pre-Enrollment Activities ......................................................22
Contents Mathematica Policy Research

vi

B. Orientation............................................................................................23

1. Orientation Format .........................................................................23

2. Length and Timing of Orientation...................................................24

C. Participant Choice .................................................................................24

1. Structure and Information...............................................................25

2. Altering the Pool of SSPs.................................................................25

3. Participants’ Experiences with Choice .............................................25

4. SSP Choice......................................................................................26

D. Services Coordinator Assessment and Employment Planning .................26

E. Referring Participants to SSPs ................................................................27

IV. PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS AND SERVICES USE ....................................29

A. Participant Characteristics .....................................................................29

B. Service Receipt ......................................................................................33

1. Timing and Total Number of Services .............................................34

2. Types of Services Received .............................................................35

C. Overall Picture of Service Receipt...........................................................39

V. EMPLOYMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOMES .......................................41

A. Employment Outcomes..........................................................................41

1. Overall Job Placement Rates............................................................42

2. Variation in Outcomes Across Grantees ..........................................44

3. Understanding Variations in Outcomes ...........................................47

B. Criminal Justice Outcomes.....................................................................52

1. Overall Arrest and Re-Incarceration Rates........................................52

2. Variations in Outcomes Across Grantees.........................................55

3. Comparing MIS and Administrative Data .........................................57

C. Connections Between Service Receipt and Outcomes .............................58

1. Relationship Between Service Receipt and Outcomes.......................58

2. Relationship Between Job Placement and Recidivism Outcomes.......60

VI. PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACTING AND PROGRAM COSTS.......................63

A. Performance-Based Contracts ................................................................63

1. Structure of Payment Points............................................................64

2. Emphasis of Payment Points ...........................................................65
Contents Mathematica Policy Research

vii

B. Total Costs of Providing Beneficiary Choice Services ..............................67

1. Grantee and Services Coordinator Expenditures..............................67

2. Payments Made to SSPs...................................................................69

3. Total Cost per Participant ...............................................................71

4. Use of Leveraged Resources ...........................................................72

VII. SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED DURING THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF BENEFICIARY CHOICE..................................................75

A. Community Capacity and Collaboration .................................................75

B. The Role of Participant Choice ...............................................................76

C. Providing Services to Beneficiary Choice Participants .............................76

D. Participants’ Ability to Find Employment and Avoid Criminal 

Involvement...........................................................................................77

E. Use of Performance-Based Contracts......................................................78

F. Policy Considerations and Next Steps for Research ................................79

REFERENCES: .............................................................................................................81

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS METHODS .............................................A.1

APPENDIX B: COMPLETE PARTCIPANT CHARACTERISTICS ...........................................B.1

APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS..........................................................................C.1

APPENDIX D: CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOMES ............................................................. D.1

Tables Mathematica Policy Research

ix

TABLES

ES 1. The Beneficiary Choice Grantees................................................................... xiv

I.1. The Beneficiary Choice Grantees..................................................................... 4

I.2. Characteristics of Demonstration Communities .............................................. 5

I.3. Racial Composition of Demonstration Communities ...................................... 5

II.1. The Beneficiary Choice Services Coordinators............................................... 12

II.2. Number of FBCOs Serving as SSPs ................................................................ 15

II.3. Average Earnings of SSPs that Stayed or Dropped Out of the Demonstration 17

III.1. Orientation Structure, by Site ....................................................................... 23

IV.1. Demographic Characteristics of Beneficiary Choice Participants.................... 30

IV.2. Factors Influencing Service Needs at Enrollment........................................... 32

IV.3. Criminal History Before Enrollment............................................................... 33

IV.4. Rates, Number, and Timing of Service Receipt.............................................. 34

IV.5. Number of Program Services ........................................................................ 35

IV.6. Workforce Preparation Services .................................................................... 35

IV.7. Education and Job Training Services ............................................................. 37

IV.8. Other Supplemental Services ........................................................................ 38

IV.9. Length of Receipt of Program Services in Months ......................................... 39

V.1. Job Placement Rate, by Demographic Characteristics.................................... 42

V.2. Follow-Up Employment Outcomes ................................................................ 44

V.3. Timing and Number of Placements in Unsubsidized Employment, by Site ..... 45

V.4. Job Characteristics of Initial Placement, by Site............................................. 46

V.5. Follow-Up Employment Outcomes, by Site .................................................... 48

V.6. Employment Barriers of Beneficiary Choice Participants, by Site.................... 50

V.7. Job Placement Rates, by Employment Barriers and Site ................................. 50

V.8. Weeks from Program Enrollment to Initial Placement, by Employment Barriers 

and Site........................................................................................................ 50
Tables Mathematica Policy Research

x

V.9. Match Rate Between MIS and State Administrative Criminal Justice Records .. 53

V.10. Re-Arrests for New Crimes, by Demographic Characteristics......................... 54

V.11. New Arrests During the 12 Month Follow-Up Period...................................... 56

V.12. Comparison of MIS and Administrative Criminal Justice Data for Participants 

with a New Arrest Reported in Either Source................................................. 58

V.13. Job Placements and Characteristics of Initial Placements, by Service Receipt. 59

V.14. Arrests for New Crimes and Re-Incarcerations, by Service Receipt................. 60

VI.1. Number and Structure of Payment Points ..................................................... 65

VI.2. Emphasis of Performance-Based Contract Payment Points, Year 2................. 66

VI.3. Grant Expenditures in Thousands, July 2007-September 2009...................... 68

VI.4. Breakdown of Total Grantee and Services Coordinator Expenditures, July 2007-

September 2009........................................................................................... 69

VI.5. Average Payments per Participant, July 2007-September 2009...................... 70

VI.6. Percentage of Payments to SSPs, by Benchmark............................................ 70

VI.7. Average Total Cost per Job Placement, July 2007-September 2009 ............... 72

VI.8. Types of In-Kind Resources Garnered by Grantees, Services Coordinators and 

SSPs ............................................................................................................. 73
Figures Mathematica Policy Research

xi

FIGURES

ES 1. Placements in Unsubsidized Employment, by Site........................................ xvii

ES 2. Arrests for a New Crime Within 12 Months of Release, by Site .................... xviii

IV.1. Enrollment Patterns, by Site.......................................................................... 30

IV.2. Receipt of Any Follow-Up Services, by Site .................................................... 39

V.1. Weeks to Job Placement................................................................................ 43

V.2. Placements in Unsubsidized Employment, by Site......................................... 45

V.3. Unemployment Rate in Metropolitan Areas ................................................... 51

V.4. Arrests for a New Crime, by Site................................................................... 55

V.5. Re-Incarceration Within 12 Months, by Site................................................... 57

V.6. Criminal Justice Outcomes, by Job Placement ............................................... 61

Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In July 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration 

created the Beneficiary Choice Program, a demonstration to help ex-offenders successfully enter and 

remain in the workforce and stay free of crime. DOL awarded five grantees a total of $10 million 

through two rounds of grants to serve approximately 450 participants each. To be eligible to receive 

services, ex-offenders had to be between the ages of 18 and 29, within 60 days after release of 

incarceration, and convicted of a federal or state crime. DOL contracted with Mathematica Policy 

Research to evaluate how the program unfolded over time. This report presents the findings of this 

evaluation.

The Beneficiary Choice Model

The Beneficiary Choice model represents a new direction in the provision of services to exoffenders and, therefore, is likely to pique the interest of policymakers and program administrators 

alike. Unlike prior prisoner reentry initiatives, the Beneficiary Choice program involved an indirect 

funding model in which grantees were expected to engage in performance-based contracts with at 

least five local faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) acting as specialized service 

providers (SSPs) to provide a range of employment-focused service options to participants. DOL 

was interested in knowing how this model affected participant choice and capitalized on the 

strengths of FBCOs to improve participant outcomes. Three key components of the Beneficiary 

Choice service delivery strategy distinguish it from prior prisoner reentry programs:

1. Emphasis on Participant Choice. The cornerstone of this program was that it 

involved a range of providers, that each offered different services and allowed 

participants to choose the program that best meets their needs. While each SSP had to 

offer three core services—workforce readiness training, career counseling, and six 

months of follow-up services, SSPs were also expected to offer, either directly or 

through partnerships with other organizations, a unique combination of supplemental 

services. After receiving detailed information about the mix of services available at each 

SSP, participants selected the one they wished to attend.

2. Expansion of the Service Delivery Network. Grantees were encouraged by DOL to 

engage a wide range of SSPs that offer a variety of secular and faith-infused services. 

The choice-based model allowed Federal funds to be used to provide “inherently 

religious activities” that would be prohibited if Federal funding was directly provided. 

DOL also required that each grantee partner with at least one local service provider with 

which it had not worked before. In this way, the demonstration could draw on the 

unique qualifications of FBCOs that may not typically partner with the government.

3. Use of Performance-Based Contracts. Grantees were required to engage in 

performance-based contracts with at least five SSPs that offered services to participants. 

Providers received benchmark payments as they documented their success in helping 

participants achieve key outcomes, such as completing services, obtaining a job, and 

retaining employment for six months.

To achieve these aims, the Beneficiary Choice model used a three-tiered administrative 

infrastructure. At the first level, the grantees were responsible for designing and administering the 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xiv

program and reporting grant expenditures and program outcomes to DOL. At the second level, 

services coordinators had primary responsibility for recruiting and enrolling participants in the 

program. In some cases, they continued to provide basic case management to participants 

throughout the grant period. Grantees provided services coordinator responsibilities by either 

contracting with a separate provider or handling these responsibilities in house. Finally, at the third 

level, SSPs provided direct services to participants by offering assessments, career counseling, job 

readiness, and job placement and retention services, among other services.

Table ES 1 lists the five grantees. All were located in large metropolitan areas, although the 

Colorado grantee chose to implement the program in both Denver and Mesa County (a rural area) 

and the Iowa grantee provided services in both Des Moines and Waterloo (also a rural area). 

Table ES 1. The Beneficiary Choice Grantees

Grantee Name City, State

Arizona Women’s Education and Employment, Inc. (AWEE) Phoenix, AZ

Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (DLE) Denver, CO

City of Chicago, Department of Family and Support Services (DFSS) Chicago, IL

Indianapolis Private Industry Council, Inc. (IPIC) Indianapolis, IN

The Directors Council (TDC) Des Moines, IA

Evaluation Design

The evaluation was designed to describe the implementation of the program, the short-term 

outcomes of participants, and the costs of providing services. It addresses six research questions: (1) 

How do grantees plan for, implement, and operate the program? (2) How do grantees ensure that 

participants have a true and independent choice of providers? (3) How does performance-based 

contracting influence implementation? (4) What are the characteristics of participants and what 

services do they receive? (5) What are the employment outcomes and recidivism rates of 

participants? (6) What are the costs of the program?

To answer these questions, the study draws upon four key sources of data.

1. Site Visits. The evaluation involved two rounds of in-depth site visits, the first 

conducted in July 2008 and the second conducted in October and November 2009.

2. Management Information System (MIS) Data Collection. Grantees collected 

information on participant characteristics, service use, and short-term outcomes 

(including employment and self-reported recidivism data), using an internet-based 

tracking system.

3. State-Level Criminal Justice Administrative Data. Mathematica collected 

administrative data on participants in four sites to analyze patterns of recidivism and 

assess the reliability of grantees’ MIS data collection. 

4. Cost Data Collection. Local grantees provided information on their actual 

expenditures as well as performance-based payments made to SSPs.
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xv

The Pool of SSPs

Requiring grantees to identify and work with a pool of at least five FBCOs expanded contract 

opportunities to small, inexperienced grassroots organizations that might not have had a competitive 

edge or the service capacities of the large, well-established providers. Through several rounds of 

solicitations, the five grantees were able to engage 44 FBCOs as SSPs. The number of SSPs per site 

that were actively engaged in the demonstration ranged from 5 to 10. At the time of the first round 

site visits, about half were community-based organizations and half were faith-based organizations. 

They ranged in size, their level of experience serving ex-offenders, their experience providing 

employment services, the extent of their employer networks, and their ability to leverage supportive 

services for participants.

Sustaining SSPs once they were selected was more challenging than grantees envisioned. Nine 

of 30 SSPs involved at the time of the first site visits had dropped from the project by the second 

round of visits. Limited earnings from the project appear to have contributed substantially to 

turnover. Those SSPs that stayed with the program tended to be located where participants lived or 

were accessible by public transportation, had a strong reputation in the community for serving exoffenders or helping hard-to-employ job seekers find and keep jobs, and received funding from a 

range of sources, not just Beneficiary Choice.

Notably, while the indirect funding stream in the Beneficiary Choice model allowed for the 

possibility of faith-infused activities, only three SSPs offered faith-infused services, and they served a 

small number of participants. Two of these SSPs were involved in the first round of site visits, 

however they had dropped out by the time of the second site visit. One new faith-infused provider 

was added in Indianapolis but had only enrolled nine participants by the time of the second site visit. 

In the end, the model did not provide an opportunity to learn about whether and how faith-infused 

services could engage ex-offenders and help them overcome their barriers to employment and 

successful reentry.

Outreach, Orientation, and Participant Selection of SSPs

Grantees and services coordinators were charged with raising community awareness of the 

demonstration and conducting outreach efforts to target potential enrollees. Correctional agencies 

were pivotal in meeting recruitment and enrollment goals. Other recruitment activities included 

presentations to inmates, referrals from community partners, and referrals directly from the SSPs. 

Once individuals expressed interest in the program, they had to attend an orientation at the services 

coordinators to learn about the program and to select an SSP.

Most grantees made formal efforts to ensure that participants were fully informed about the 

available SSPs so they could make independent choices; others used less-structured methods to 

facilitate customer choice. Three sites used structured and consistent orientation materials to 

describe the SSPs involved in the demonstration and allow participants to make an independently 

and full informed selection. This was done either through group orientations or a combination of 

group and individual orientations. Two grantees, on the other hand, used a more “guided” choice 

approach using individual orientations only. These involved informal, unscripted meetings in which 

participants received input from services coordinator staff on the decision-making process. In these 

cases, some participants may not have had full information about all available providers and may 

have been encouraged to make selections quickly.
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xvi

Despite information about the range of services offered at SSPs, interviews with participants 

and services coordinator staff suggest that participants chose SSPs primarily based on their 

geographic location and agency reputation. In fewer cases, participant choices were based on the 

mix of services offered.

It was only after an interested individual attended orientation, selected an SSP, and arrived at 

the SSP for service that he or she was officially enrolled in the program. In some cases, SSPs also 

imposed additional activities that needed to be complete before a new participant could enroll. 

Driven in part by DOL performance standards and the use of performance-based contracts, site 

visits revealed that services coordinators and SSPs introduced more pre-enrollment activities over 

time to identify and enroll the most motivated participants.

Participant Characteristics and Service Use

By June 2010, the five grantees had enrolled 2,382 ex-offenders. The majority of participants 

had many barriers to employment including low educational attainment, poor work histories, 

unstable housing, and extensive criminal histories. The proportion of participants who faced 

observable barriers was particularly great in Chicago and Indianapolis. All the grantees reported that 

Beneficiary Choice created opportunities for these ex-offenders to receive workforce services that 

may otherwise have been unavailable in their communities.

Both participants and their SSPs had incentives to focus on quick placements in unsubsidized 

employment, resulting in a relatively light-touch program with a work-first approach. The desire for 

job placement was usually what brought participants to the program. Although ex-offenders may 

recognize that they have a myriad of service needs, their most immediate need is often for income. 

Additionally, parole and probation conditions usually require stable employment. The service 

providers also had reasons to focus on immediate job placement. The DOL performance measures 

regarding entered employment, employment retention and wages provided incentives for the 

grantees to structure their performance-based contracts with SSPs to emphasize immediate job 

placement instead of investments in education and training and other supportive services.

Despite the potential for substantial variation in service delivery across SSPs, the resulting 

services were heavily focused on short-term employment-based activities. About 40 percent of 

participants received services for one month or less with an average length of service receipt across 

grantees of 1.8 months. About 96 percent of participants received at least one workforce 

development service through Beneficiary Choice. This was most often work readiness training (92 

percent) followed by career counseling (47 percent). About 20 percent also received education or 

training services, with the highest rates in Denver and Indianapolis at 45 and 31 percent, 

respectively. 

Once these formal activities were complete, site visits revealed that job search activities were 

largely or entirely self-directed and self-initiated by participants at many SSPs. Some SSPs provided 

participants with job leads or conducted formal outreach to employer networks on behalf of 

individual participants. However, others were less experienced with workforce development and had 

limited relationships with local employers, leaving participants to conduct their job searches 

independently.
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xvii

Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes

Driven by the work-first model, 65 percent of participants received a placement in unsubsidized 

employment. Placements were made an average of nine weeks after enrollment. Among those 

participants placed in jobs, 72 percent worked a full-time schedule during their first week at work 

and earned an average of $9.23 per hour. 

There was fairly substantial variation, however, in placement success across grantees (Figure 

ES 1). The placement rates in Phoenix, Denver, and Des Moines exceeded 75 percent; Chicago and 

Indianapolis had placement rates of 48 and 44 percent, respectively. These differences are partially 

attributable to differences in participant characteristics and local economic conditions. Chicago had 

the highest unemployment rate and Chicago and Indianapolis had substantially more participants 

who faced significant barriers to employment. In particular, lack of education seemed to present a 

substantial barrier to job placement. Only 54 percent of participants without a high school diploma 

were placed in unsubsidized employment compared to 80 percent of participants who received a 

high school diploma. Not surprisingly, Chicago and Indianapolis had the largest percentage of 

participants without a high school diploma (83 and 57 percent, respectively). Site visits suggest that 

some of the difference may also be due to a lack of accurate reporting and differences in grantees’ 

familiarity with the MIS

Figure ES 1. Placements in Unsubsidized Employment, by Site

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

When examining recidivism outcomes, participants continued to have significant rates of 

criminal justice involvement. Across grantees, 34 percent of participants were rearrested for a new 

crime within one year of release. By comparison, the most recent comprehensive study of recidivism 

nationwide showed that 44 percent of released offenders were rearrested within 12 months (Langan 

and Levin 2002). That study also showed a strong relationship between an offender’s age and 

probability of recidivating, with younger offenders more likely to recidivate than older offenders. 

65

76

80

48

44

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Overall Phoenix,

AZ

Denver,

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Percent of Participants
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xviii

This suggests that the rearrest rate for Beneficiary Choice participants is lower than the national rate 

for offenders between 18 and 29 years.

Overall, the most common reason for arrest fell into the category of “other personal crimes,” 

which included disorderly conduct and driving under the influence. The other common reasons for 

arrest included drug use or possession and assault or battery charges. Among participants who were 

arrested in the year after release, fewer than 20 percent of participants were arrested while enrolled 

in the Beneficiary Choice program.

Across grantees, the recidivism rate ranged from 25 percent in Colorado to 50 percent in 

Indianapolis (Figure ES 2). When comparing recidivism numbers across states, it is important to 

acknowledge that the data are limited by variations in the policies and procedures of the criminal 

justice system agencies in each state. In particular, the data may reflect differences in how states 

distinguish between arrests for new crimes and arrests for technical violations. Another possible 

source of variation in recidivism outcomes across grantees are differences in the participant 

populations they served.

Figure ES 2. Arrests for a New Crime Within 12 Months of Release, by Site

Source: State criminal justice administrative data from CO, IL, IN, and IA.

Note: Only includes participants enrolled by June 30, 2009 who had a valid match in the administrative data.

In addition to the state-level criminal justice administrative data, the grantees also collected 

recidivism outcomes and recorded them in the MIS. An important finding from the study is that, 

despite grantee efforts to validate their outcome data, the MIS suffered from underreporting of 

criminal justice involvement. This highlights the value of using administrative data as an outside 

validation of outcome measures.

34

25

38

50

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Overall Denver,

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IA

Des Moines,

IA

Percentage of Participants
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xix

Performance-Based Contracting and Program Costs

As discussed earlier, the program model required that grantees enter into performance-based 

contracts with all participating SSPs. These contracts were designed to pay service providers only 

when they achieved agreed-upon benchmarks, referred to as payment points. DOL allowed grantees 

a great deal of flexibility in structuring their payment points, including choosing the number, timing, 

and dollar amount of each payment point.

Both grantees and SSPs experienced a steep learning curve in the use of these contracts. Over 

time, most of the grantees chose to simplify and standardize the benchmark payments across SSPs 

and streamline the documentation process. Site visits revealed two reasons for this shift. First, 

grantees implemented some changes to make it easier for them to administer and track payments. 

Second, grantees wanted to make it easier for SSPs to recoup their costs. For example, SSPs in one 

site were struggling to meet the numerous payment points, strict definitions, and complex 

documentation requirements. In another site, some SSPs were unable to cover their initial program 

costs since the largest payment points were associated with outcomes that both took longer and 

were harder to achieve.

As of September 30, 2009, total expenditures across all five sites exceeded $5.5 million, which 

was slightly more than half of the total grant amount. At that time, the grantees had been in 

operation for two years and three months of the demonstration, reflecting a much slower than 

expected pace of expenditures. Of the total expenditures, 31 percent supported activities at the 

grantee, 13 percent was paid to services coordinators, and 56 percent was paid to the SSPs.

SSPs were paid an average of $1,455 per participant, although this varied across sites. This was 

substantially lower than the grant budget of $2,677 per participant. SSPs received the majority of 

payments for providing initial services, such as enrollment and assessment, and completion of work 

readiness training. Payments for job placements and retention were a small proportion of overall 

payments because many SSPs had difficulty helping participants achieve those benchmarks and, 

even if a participant got or retained a job, SSPs found it challenging to document their employment.

Only one grantee—Denver—was able to leverage substantial resources to help support the 

program. These funds were used for occupational skills training in designated fields in which jobs 

were immediately available, including asbestos abatement, hazardous materials handling, and forklift 

operation.

Conclusions

The Beneficiary Choice program tested a new model for administering reentry services to exoffenders. Combining participant choice and performance-based contracting created challenges for 

participating organizations, including risk and uncertainty. This was particularly true for small, 

inexperienced FBCOs. Local grantees were able to mitigate some of this risk by redefining contract 

benchmarks and easing documentation requirements to facilitate payments to SSPs. Nonetheless, 

sustaining SSPs over time was challenging.

The initial philosophy of the program was that placement in a stable job along with 

individualized supplemental services would help participants remain free from criminal involvement. 

About 65 percent of participants were placed in jobs, although some programs were more successful 

than others in helping their participants find employment. Criminal justice administrative data show 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xx

that 34 percent were rearrested for a new crime in the 12 months after program enrollment, which is 

lower than the national rate of 44 percent. Despite these successes, many SSPs felt the program 

model did not fully capitalize on the unique set of services available at FBCOs and resulted in few 

participants receiving the full range of supplemental services that they needed for successful reentry 

and long-term avoidance of criminal involvement. As it evolved over time, the program offered 

relatively light-touch services over a short duration with a work-first approach.

It was beyond the scope of this study to determine the impact of the program on participants’ 

long-term outcomes and reentry success. Nonetheless, policymakers and practitioners can use the 

lessons learned from this descriptive study to shape future programs aimed at improving the 

employment and earnings outcomes of ex-offenders.
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

1

I. INTRODUCTION

In July 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration 

created the Beneficiary Choice Program, a demonstration that provided ex-offenders with workforce 

readiness training, career counseling, and intensive follow-up to help them successfully enter and 

remain in the workforce and stay free of crime. DOL awarded five grantees a total of $10 million 

through two rounds of grants to serve approximately 450 participants each. At the same time, DOL 

contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to evaluate how the program unfolded over time.

This final evaluation report details the implementation of the program, the short-term 

employment and recidivism outcomes of participants, and the costs of providing services. As a 

foundation for the remainder of the report, this introductory chapter discusses DOL’s history of

supporting ex-offender initiatives, provides an overview of the Beneficiary Choice program and the 

participating sites, and describes the evaluation.

A. DOL Efforts to Serve Ex-Offenders

The number of individuals entering and being released from prisons and jails in the United 

States has continued to grow each year for the past decade. The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that more than 672,000 individuals were released from Federal 

and state prisons in 2004, a significant increase from 405,000 individuals in 1990.1

If not adequately addressed, these challenges and barriers can reduce the ability of ex-offenders 

to obtain jobs and stay free of the criminal justice system. Of particular importance are the first few 

months after release when these individuals face critical decisions that can influence the course their 

lives take. Estimates suggest that about 45 percent of state prisoners are rearrested within the first 

year after release and 67 percent within three years (Langan and Levin 2002).

 Upon release 

from incarceration, ex-offenders often face a range of challenges. Many have low levels of 

education and literacy, limited prior attachment to the legal workforce, reduced ties to family and 

community, and histories of substance abuse and mental health problems (Bushway and Reuter 

2002; Petersilia 2003; Steurer et al. 2002; Nelson et al. 1999; Byrne et al. 2002). Former prisoners 

may also confront a number of barriers that can directly limit their ability to gain employment, 

including lack of basic documentation such as a current driver’s license, the use of criminal 

background checks by employers, and state laws and licensing requirements for jobs in certain fields 

(Clear and Cole 2000). Research has also shown that large numbers of prisoners are released into a 

disproportionately small number of vulnerable communities, causing instability and reduced social 

cohesion within these neighborhoods (Rose et al. 1999).

Prompted by this research highlighting the effects of prisoner reentry on American 

communities, Federal policymakers began in the late 1990s to shift their focus and resources to 

initiatives aimed at helping ex-offenders successfully reintegrate into society. Programs funded by 

the DOJ, such as Weed and Seed and the Reentry Partnership Initiative, began to bridge the divides 

between correctional agencies, community supervision, and local public and private social service 

agencies. DOL also realized the growing importance of helping this population prepare for, enter, 

and remain in the workforce. A series of employment initiatives emerged as a result.

 1 A summary of trends in prisoner release can be found at the Bureau of Justice Statistics website 

(http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2070).
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

2

In the late 1990s, Congress set aside more than $13 million for the Youth Offenders 

Demonstration Projects (YODP). In collaboration with the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) within DOJ, DOL awarded the first of three rounds of grants in 

1999. These grants were intended to support development of programs to address the needs of 

youth who had been or who were at risk of being under juvenile or criminal justice supervision. 

Grantees included states, counties, cities, and nonprofit community-based organizations. A process 

evaluation offered insights into how the project was implemented, differences across sites, and 

whether it conformed to DOL’s vision of the project model. It found that, at the start, sites did not 

conceptualize the program to provide the full range of services and coordination that DOL 

intended; however, their ability to provide comprehensive services improved over time. The final 

evaluation report, completed in 2006, found that more than 1,800 youth had received services and, 

despite the poor economic environment in demonstration communities, many participating youth 

were able to find employment (Jenks et al. 2006).

DOL’s work with ex-offenders continued in 2002 with the inception of the Serious and Violent 

Offender Reentry Initiative. DOL collaborated with the U.S. Departments of Justice, Education, 

Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services to fund 69 sites with 

approximately $110 million to develop new programs (or expand existing ones) to integrate 

supervision and reentry services for adults and juveniles leaving correctional facilities. Grants were 

awarded in all 50 states at both state and local levels. A process study describes innovative practices 

as well as barriers and challenges that grantees faced during implementation (Lattimore et al. 2004). 

An impact evaluation using propensity score matching showed modest improvements in outcomes 

for adult participants but no impacts for juveniles at 15 and 24 months after release (Lattimore and 

Visher 2009).

In the early 2000s, DOL sought to expand its offender initiatives to capitalize on the unique 

strengths of faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) in serving at-risk populations. The 

Ready4Work program was the first in a series of DOL-funded ex-offender initiatives to include

FBCOs. In 2003, DOL awarded 11 organizations—including seven faith-based organizations 

(FBOs)—with $27 million for three years to serve ex-offenders age 18 to 35 years old. Additional 

funding was provided by DOJ, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and 

Public/Private Ventures. The program emphasized intensive mentoring services, job readiness 

training, and employment placement. An implementation evaluation of the program revealed that 

the nearly 5,000 participants were engaged in the program for an average of eight months, just over 

half participated in mentoring, about 56 percent held a job for at least one month while they 

participated in the program, and recidivism rates appeared to be about half that of a similar 

population nationwide (Farley and McLanahan 2007). 

In 2005, DOL continued its efforts by awarding $20 million in grants to 30 FBCOs across the 

country for the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI). Several additional rounds of grants were

subsequently awarded to extend the demonstration within the original grant locations and expand

services into new communities. An evaluation report on grantees’ early implementation experiences 

found that, while grantees had made significant progress in developing community partnerships and 

conducting outreach, they were implementing very traditional one-to-one job development 

techniques. Within the first two years of the demonstration, grantees were able to place about 60 

percent of participants in jobs (Holl et al. 2009). An experimental study of the programs’ impacts on 

participant’s employment and recidivism outcomes is also underway.

Most recently, DOL announced plans in 2010 to initiate a transitional jobs demonstration 

targeted at ex-offenders and noncustodial parents. An in-depth process evaluation coupled with an
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

3

experimental impact study will assess the implementation of the program as well as its effects on 

participants’ employment, earnings, and rates of recidivism.

B. The Beneficiary Choice Program Model

As part of its initiatives to serve this needy population, DOL designed the Beneficiary Choice 

Program in 2007. Unlike prior DOL initiatives, the program involved an indirect funding model in 

which grantees were expected to engage in performance-based contracts with numerous specialized 

service providers (SSPs) to provide a range of employment-focused service options to participants. 

DOL was interested in knowing how this model maximized participant choice as well as the use of 

FBCOs to improve participant outcomes. Three key components of the Beneficiary Choice service 

delivery strategy distinguish it from prior programs:

1. Emphasis on Participant Choice. The cornerstone of this program was that it 

allowed participants to drive the choice of providers. After initiating service at the 

grantee, participants received detailed information about the available SSPs and 

selected the SSP they wished to attend. This choice-based model aimed to foster a 

diversity of service styles among providers and to enable participants to choose the 

program that best met their preferences and needs. Each SSP had to offer three core 

services: (1) workforce readiness training, (2) career counseling, and (3) six months of 

follow-up services. In addition, SSPs were expected to offer, either directly or through 

partnerships with other organizations, a unique combination of supplemental services 

such as mentoring, job placement, job retention services, education and training, 

transitional housing, substance abuse and mental health treatment, family reintegration 

services, English proficiency courses, and supportive services.

2. Expansion of the Service Delivery Network. Grantees were encouraged by DOL to 

engage a wide range of SSPs, including both faith-based and community-based 

organizations that offer a range of secular and faith-infused services.2

3. Use of Performance-Based Contracts. Grantees were required to engage in 

performance-based contracts with at least five SSPs that offered services to 

participants. Providers received benchmark payments as they documented their 

success in helping participants achieve key outcomes, such as completing services, 

obtaining a job, and retaining employment for six months.

 DOL required 

that each grantee also partner with at least one local service provider with which it has 

not worked before. In addition, the grantees were required to maintain a referral list of 

other local social service providers; the list had to contain secular alternatives to each 

faith-infused service offered directly through the program. In this way, the 

demonstration could draw on the unique qualifications of FBCOs that may not 

typically partner with the government.

 2 In July 2004, DOL issued a final set of Equal Treatment and Religious-Related Regulations outlining four key 

principles that would govern the department’s work with faith-based organizations (USDOL 2004). The regulations 

state that FBCOs that receive direct funding from DOL through contracts or grants cannot use those funds to provide 

“inherently religious activities.” These rules do not apply, however, when FBCOs receive indirect funding, such as 

through a choice-based model. In these cases, inherently religious services may be provided using Federal funds as long 

as beneficiaries are given a “genuine and independent private choice among providers or program options.”
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

4

Through two rounds of funding, DOL awarded five grantees across the country with $2 million 

each to serve 450 Beneficiary Choice program participants each. Table I.1 lists the five grantees. All 

were located in large metropolitan areas, although the Colorado grantee chose to implement the 

program in both Denver and Mesa County (a rural area) and the Iowa grantee provided services in 

both Des Moines and Waterloo (also a rural area). 

Table I.1. The Beneficiary Choice Grantees

Grantee Name City, State

Arizona Women’s Education and Employment, Inc. (AWEE) Phoenix, AZ

Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (DLE) Denver, CO

City of Chicago, Department of Family and Support Services (DFSS) Chicago, IL

Indianapolis Private Industry Council, Inc. (IPIC) Indianapolis, IN

The Directors Council (TDC) Des Moines, IA

Grantees were given a four-month start-up period to recruit and establish contracts with SSPs 

and begin developing relationships with the One-Stop Career Centers, the criminal justice system, 

and other local partners. Three of the grantees also chose to contract with local agencies to act as 

service coordinators that facilitate participant orientation and selection of providers. The sites began 

enrolling participants in November 2007. To be eligible for the program, individuals had to be 

between 18 and 29 years of age, have been convicted of a Federal or state crime, and have been 

released from a Federal or state correctional institution within the past 60 days. 

C. Participating Sites and Their Local Economies

The community context in each of these five sites is important for understanding the types of 

challenges that grantees faced in implementing and sustaining grant activities. Beneficiary Choice 

sites were primarily large urban city centers that housed relatively diverse ethnic and racial 

communities. Two sites were in Chicago and Phoenix, among the top 10 cities with the largest 

populations in the United States. Among these sites, the city populations ranged from a high of 2.8 

million residents in Chicago to 194,000 in Des Moines (Table I.2). Chicago was also among the 

most diverse communities, with more than a third of the population Black and another quarter 

Hispanic (Table I.3). Across the sites, Chicago had the lowest reported high school completion rate 

for those ages 25 or older at 71.8 percent, while Des Moines reported the highest at 83.0 percent 

(Table I.2).

Several sites were located in communities that had relatively high poverty rates. Although the 

unemployment rate was lower than the national average in all but one site at the start of the 

demonstration, unemployment in three sites ultimately exceeded the national average by 2010. All 

five cities reported poverty rates above the national average of 14.3 percent. In particular, residents 

of Chicago were struggling with the highest poverty and unemployment rates at 21.6 percent and 

11.3 percent, respectively. Des Moines reported the lowest rates for both indicators with a poverty 

rate of 17.2 percent and an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent. 
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

5

Table I.2. Characteristics of Demonstration Communities

Grantee Service Area

City 

Populationa

High School 

Completion Rate 

(25+ years old)a

Poverty

Rateb

Local 

Unemployment 

Ratec

City Crime

Index Datad

Phoenix, AZ 1,512,986 76.6 21.1 10.5 482.1

Denver, CO 566,974 78.9 19.1 8.7 350.9

Chicago, IL 2,833,321 71.8 21.6 11.3 615.5

Indianapolis, IN 785,597 81.3 20.2 10.2 679.5

Des Moines, IA 193,886 83.0 17.2 7.5 464.3

United States 307,006,550 80.4 14.3 9.5 320.9

a

U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2006, and 2009 Estimates (http://quickfacts.census.gov, accessed on October 8, 

2010).

b

2009 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau (http://factfinder.census.gov/, accessed on October 8, 

2010).

c

Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2010 (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?la.com, accessed on October 8, 

2010).

d

2008/2009 Crime index data are available at www.city-data.com, accessed on October 8, 2010. The crime index 

was calculated for all major U.S. cities to provide a standard measure for the prevalence of crime per 100,000 

individuals. The index includes a range of crimes including murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, 

thefts, auto thefts, and arson. A higher index means more crime.

Table I.3. Racial Composition of Demonstration Communities (Percentages)

Phoenix,

AZ

Denver,

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines, 

IA

White Non-Hispanic 46.0 50.8 31.3 62.7 73.1

Black 5.4 9.1 34.2 25.9 9.8

Hispanic 43.0 34.3 28.1 7.4 10.8

Other race 4.1 4.3 5.3 2.1 4.7

Two or more races 1.5 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.6

Source: www.city-data.com (accessed October 8, 2010).

Note: Totals may be greater than 100 percent because Hispanics could be counted in other races.

Based on a standardized crime index, the cities of Indianapolis and Chicago appear to have the 

highest crime rates among the grantee communities, with the rate in Indianapolis reaching more 

than twice the national average. By contrast, Denver has the lowest rate, although it is still higher 

than the average among cities nationwide.

Despite these high crime rates, most of the communities involved with this demonstration 

provided limited reentry services and supports prior to the Beneficiary Choice program. The two 

grantees in Phoenix and Des Moines were also PRI grantees that serve nonviolent offenders (with 

some exceptions). Still, in Phoenix, the demand for services reportedly far exceeded the supply. In 

Chicago, grantee staff members reported that there was a mismatch between the locations where 

reentry services were often provided (the city’s west side) and the communities where ex-offenders 

typically returned (the city’s south side). In Denver, those with high service needs and serious 

barriers to work could receive basic case management through a local transitional center, although 

resources were limited and caseloads were reportedly high. In Indianapolis, only a small number of 

the SSPs for this demonstration had served ex-offenders in the past. Given the limited supply of 
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

6

services for ex-offenders in the demonstration communities, the Beneficiary Choice grant provided 

an infusion of new funds to help satisfy the demand for services among ex-offenders whose needs 

would otherwise go unmet.

D. Overview of the Evaluation

The Beneficiary Choice program model was a new direction in the provision of services to exoffenders. This evaluation provides rich information about this new model and its potential for 

improving services to ex-offenders. It aims to address the following six main research questions

about the Beneficiary Choice program:3

1. How do the grantees plan for, implement, and operate the program? 

2. How do grantees ensure that participants have a true and independent choice of 

providers?

3. How does performance-based contracting influence implementation?

4. What are the characteristics of participants and what services do they receive?

5. What are the employment outcomes and recidivism rates of participants?

6. What are the costs of the program? 

To answer these questions, the evaluation collected and synthesized qualitative, quantitative, 

and cost data to provide a complete picture of how the program unfolded over time. The four key 

data collection activities included the following:4

• Site Visits. The evaluation team conducted two rounds of in-depth site visits in 

summer 2008 and fall 2009. The visits involved semi-structured interviews with 

administrators and staff at the grantee agencies as well as participants, employers, OneStop Career Centers, and other partners.5

• Management Information System (MIS) Data Collection. Grantees were required 

to collect and enter information on participants’ characteristics at intake, their service use 

 Team members conducted group interviews 

with SSP directors and visited two SSPs per site during each round to provide rich 

information about service offerings (although the data are not intended to be 

representative of all participating SSPs). The team was also able to interview 53 program 

participants (24 in round 1 and 29 in round 2). Again, the views of these participants do 

not represent the perspectives of all participants, but rather provide themes about the 

experiences of ex-offenders as they move through the program.

 3 A comprehensive description of evaluation activities is available in the evaluation design report (Bellotti and Derr 

2007).

4 A fifth data source was used in the first findings report published in January 2009. In conjunction with the first 

round of site visits, the evaluation team gathered detailed information about the five grantees and their SSPs through a 

grantee survey. The survey collected information about the characteristics of each participating organization, the type 

and intensity of services offered to Beneficiary Choice participants, staffing arrangements, and leveraged resources.

5 The Denver grantee served a small number of participants in Mesa County, CO. For efficiency considerations, 

the evaluation team held a telephone interview instead of an on-site interview with the local project manager to collect 

information on these participants.
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

7

throughout participation, and their short-term outcomes (including employment 

placement and retention, and recidivism), using an internet-based tracking system. 

Appendix A.1 provides more information about the MIS.

• State-Level Criminal Justice Administrative Data. In summer 2010, the evaluation 

team collected administrative data on program participants from four states.6

• Cost Data Collection. During the second round of in-depth site visits, the team 

collected detailed information on grantees’ actual expenditures as well as their 

performance-based payments to SSPs. Cost data collection is described in detail in 

Appendix A.3.

 These data 

allowed the team to analyze participants’ patterns of recidivism over time as well as 

assess the reliability of recidivism data collected by grantees and entered into the MIS. 

These data collection efforts are documented more fully in Appendix A.2.

E. Organization of the Rest of the Report

The purpose of this report is to answer the full range of research questions outlined above 

using all available data. Building on the evaluation’s first findings report (Bellotti et al. 2008), this 

report tracks the progress of demonstration implementation from its inception, explores the cost of 

providing services, and examines’ participants’ short-term outcomes as they attempt to successfully 

reintegrate into society. The report continues in Chapter II with a description of the organizations 

participating in the demonstration. Chapter III describes outreach efforts, orientation of 

participants, and the process of facilitating customer choice. The report then turns in Chapter IV to 

describing the characteristics of participants who ultimately enroll in the program and the services 

they receive at the SSPs. Next, the report describes in Chapter V the employment and recidivism 

outcomes of participants based on MIS and administrative data. Chapter VI discusses grantee and 

SSP experiences with performance-based contracting as well as an in-depth analysis of program 

costs. Finally, Chapter VII provides overall findings from the implementation of the Beneficiary 

Choice demonstration.

 6 Arizona does not have publicly available criminal justice data and requires a lengthy approval process to access 

data for evaluation purposes. As a result, the evaluation was unable to collect administrative data on participants from 

Arizona.

II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

9

II. GRANTEES, SERVICES COORDINATORS, AND SSPS

Unique to the Beneficiary Choice model is a three-tiered administrative infrastructure designed 

to expand the pool of eligible service providers and provide participants with independent choice. 

At the first level, the grantees, which included a mix of government and nonprofit agencies, were 

responsible for designing and administering the program and reporting grant expenditures and 

program outcomes to DOL. At the second level, services coordinators had primary responsibility 

for recruiting and enrolling participants in the program. In some cases, they continued to provide 

basic case management to participants throughout the grant period. Grantees provided services 

coordinator responsibilities by either contracting with a separate provider or handling these 

responsibilities in house. Finally, at the third level, SSPs provided direct services to participants by 

offering assessments, career counseling, job readiness, and job placement and retention services, 

among other services. Requiring grantees to identify and work with a pool of at least five faithbased and community organizations (FBCOs) expanded contract opportunities to small, 

inexperienced grassroots organizations that might not have had a competitive edge or the service 

capacities of the large, well-established providers. This chapter describes each structural layer of the 

Beneficiary Choice model—the grantee, services coordinator, and SSPs—and its evolution over 

time. We also describe the role of community partners within and across the study sites.

Key Findings

• Grantees that were government organizations had the ability to garner resources and 

build on long-term alliances with other government agencies to provide additional 

services to program participants, beyond those funded through Beneficiary Choice.

• Contracting out services coordinator responsibilities brought needed expertise and 

resources to the project when grantees were not positioned to provide direct services.

• Through several rounds of solicitations, the five grantees were able to engage 44 

faith-based and community organizations to serve as specialized service providers. 

This included three organizations that offered faith-infused services.

• Sustaining SSPs once they were selected for involvement in the demonstration was 

more challenging than grantees envisioned. Nine of 30 SSPs involved at the time of 

the first site visits had dropped from the project by the second round of visits.

• Initially, some grantees reported that correctional agencies saw them as competitors 

vying for the same pool of reentry funds. However, through outreach and education 

efforts by services coordinators, correctional agencies became a valuable resource for 

referrals in all five sites.

• In most sites, the involvement of the One-Stop System was limited to providing 

office space and general access to Center services, rather than to providing direct 

services as a partner in the Beneficiary Choice project.

• Reflecting the need to quickly move participants into work, grantees reported few 

relationships with education and training providers.
II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

10

A. Grantees

The solicitation for grant applications (SGA), released in April 2007, sought agencies that had 

partnerships with a network of FBCOs, the public workforce investment system, and the criminal 

justice system. Applicants were also required to demonstrate commitments of leveraged resources 

to the project. The grant was open to government agencies and FBCOs. 

Results from the grantee survey summarized in the first findings report revealed that grantees 

were mostly large, longstanding government or nonprofit organizations with extensive partnerships 

in the community. Four of the five grantees had been in operation for at least 20 years, and all five 

had previous experience with operating programs for ex-offenders and/or at-risk youth (Bellotti et 

al. 2008). Annual operating budgets ranged from $2.8 to $62 million before the grant award.

1. Responsibilities

Grantees defined the administrative infrastructure of the grant and created a service delivery 

pathway for program participants. Some grantees served as the services coordinator, described 

below, while others contracted this role out to other organizations. In addition, they recruited, 

procured, and formalized agreements with a pool of at least five SSPs, including at least one nonfaith-based organization. Once SSPs were selected, grantees provided ongoing monitoring and 

technical assistance to help them improve service quality and reporting accuracy. They also reached 

out to local community partners (for example, correctional agencies, One-Stop Career Centers, and 

SSPs) and employers, encouraging them to invest time and resources. As the grant holder, they were 

also accountable to DOL to submit quarterly reports and ensure that the administrative data were 

accurately recorded in the Beneficiary Choice MIS. 

2. Types of Organizations

As noted, DOL awarded grants to different types of agencies, each bringing different strengths 

and resources to the project. Government organizations brought extensive relationships and 

financial resources, while nonprofits brought expertise with helping ex-offenders get and keep jobs. 

Three of the grantees were governmental or quasi-governmental organizations, one grantee was a 

large nonprofit service provider, and the other was a nonprofit consortium of local agencies that did 

not provide direct services. Among the government organizations, Colorado Department of Labor 

and Employment (DLE) is a state agency, the Chicago Department of Family and Support Services 

(DFSS) is a city-based social service agency, and Indianapolis Private Industry Council (IPIC) is a 

local workforce investment board (WIB). Nonprofit organizations included Arizona Women’s 

Education and Employment (AWEE) and The Director’s Council (TDC).

Between the first- and second-round site visits, organizational changes within two grantees 

resulted in shifting grant responsibilities to another lead agency. In Chicago, the grant was originally 

managed by the Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development, but shifted midway through the grant 

period to DFSS as a result of organizational restructuring within the city. Although the shift caused 

few, if any, disruptions to service delivery, it reportedly expanded leveraged resources available to 

participants. Chicago DFSS, which includes the Office of Children and Youth Services, provides a 

range of supportive services and specialized assistance to disadvantaged populations through its six 

community service centers. These services were available to Beneficiary Choice participants who 

qualified. In Des Moines, TDC was a consortium of agencies managed by the executive director of 

Spectrum Resources (the services coordinator). Spectrum Resources used TDC to provide a 
II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

11

financial pass through and took over all grant management responsibilities. As a result, we refer to 

Spectrum Resources as the grantee for the remainder of the report.

3. Assets and Limitations

According to grantees, governmental and quasi-governmental organizations typically brought 

more leveraged resources, had more influence with other government agencies, and, in some cases, 

appeared to have more influence with SSPs. The government grantees funded other local projects 

provided by a subset of the Beneficiary Choice SSPs, and two of the three already had working 

relationships with their government partners at corrections and workforce investment agencies. In 

addition, many of the SSPs operating under government grantees talked about the importance of 

performing well on the Beneficiary Choice project so they might be awarded other contracts in the 

future. Still, government organizations often were not structured to provide direct services, but 

instead contracted out services coordinator responsibilities. The need for some government agency 

grantees to contract services out created another administrative layer to the project.

Nonprofit organizations were nimble organizations with extensive experience providing direct 

services. AWEE and Spectrum Resources had been active service providers for ex-offenders in 

their respective communities for more than a decade. As direct service providers, they had a 

reputation for successfully helping ex-offenders get and keep jobs. They were not only wellconnected with the population, but also understood the unique needs and circumstances of the 

participants. As grantees of the DOL Prisoner Re-entry Initiative (PRI), AWEE and Spectrum 

Resources were also well-prepared for the reporting and performance expectations created by DOL. 

Their ability to perform both the grantee and services coordinator roles eliminated the need for an 

additional “middle agency.”

Despite these strengths, the nonprofit grantees faced several challenges compared to their 

governmental counterparts. Both AWEE and Spectrum Resources had limited financial resources, 

particularly when the economic recession decreased the funding supply to nonprofits and increased 

the demand for services. Also, although both of these agencies had extensive partnerships with 

SSPs in the community, the Beneficiary Choice grant put them in a different role in their respective 

communities, as prime contractors rather than peers. In addition, because they brought limited 

financial resources to the relationship, they had to make a compelling case to convince government 

organizations to partner with them.

B. Services Coordinators

The primary function of a services coordinator was to recruit ex-offenders, orient them to the 

program, and link them to SSPs. While three of the grantees handled these responsibilities in house, 

two grantees relied on contracted service providers to act as liaisons with the SSPs. This section 

describes the services coordinators primary tasks, contracting arrangements, and staffing changes 

since the first round of visits. 

1. Responsibilities

Under Beneficiary Choice, services coordinators had six primary responsibilities. First, they 

recruited participants to the program through pre- and post-release methods. Second, as specified in 

the original SGA, they conducted an in-depth assessment of participants to identify their immediate 

service needs, education and work history, and career interests. Third, they assisted participants with 

choosing a provider. They also followed up with the participant and/or SSP to ensure that the 
II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

12

participant attended an initial intake appointment at the SSP. Fourth, in some sites they provided 

basic case management and work supports to address participants’ immediate service needs. Fifth, 

in sites where the grantee and services coordinator were two separate agencies, the services 

coordinator acted as a liaison between the grantee and the SSP, often providing technical assistance 

and support to the SSPs. Sixth, services coordinators were responsible for entering data into the 

MIS to facilitate grantee reporting to DOL. The services coordinator in all five sites continued to be 

involved with participants directly or indirectly even after they were referred to an SSP; however, the 

extent and nature of that involvement varied substantially.

2. Contracting Out the Services Coordinator Role

Contracting out services coordinator responsibilities brought needed expertise and resources to 

the project when grantees were not positioned or chose not to provide direct services. As 

mentioned above, government organizations that did not have the capacity to provide services in 

house typically contracted out these responsibilities. DFSS in Chicago and IPIC in Indianapolis 

contracted with Career Advancement Network (CAN) and Job Works, respectively (see Table II.1). 

For more than a decade, CAN, a local nonprofit agency in Chicago, has used a therapeutic model

called “Career Passport” for providing employment services to ex-offenders and other at-risk 

populations. Job Works, also a nonprofit agency, operates the local One-Stop Career Center in 

Indianapolis. As the services coordinator, Job Works improved the accessibility of One-Stop 

services to Beneficiary Choice participants and also ensured that participants were co-enrolled in 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) services. 

Table II.1. The Beneficiary Choice Services Coordinators

City, State Grantee Services Coordinator

Phoenix, AZ Arizona Women’s Education and Employment, Inc. (AWEE) Same

Denver, CO Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (DLE) Same

Chicago, IL Department of Family and Support Services (DFSS) Career Advancement Network (CAN)

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis Private Industry Council Job Works

Des Moines, IA The Director’s Council Spectrum Resources

3. Grantee Acting as Services Coordinator

The grantees in the remaining three sites—Denver, Phoenix, and Des Moines—acted as the 

services coordinator. All three hired new staff to help with these responsibilities, but their strategies 

differed slightly. In particular, DLE hired full-time, temporary grant managers in Denver and in the 

Mesa site. While this strategy eliminated another administrative layer, finding temporary staff with 

the right skills to handle all services coordinator responsibilities was challenging. To manage the 

workload, DLE also contracted with strong SSPs that took on some of the services coordinator 

responsibilities such as recruitment, assessment, barrier removal, and employment planning. These 

organizations were mostly larger agencies with extensive experience providing case management and 

job readiness and placement services to ex-offenders. Small grassroots organizations might not have 

been as well equipped to handle these responsibilities.

Taking a slightly different approach than DLE, grantees in Phoenix and Des Moines both hired 

case management staff who stayed actively involved with participants throughout service delivery. 

Tapping into their agency expertise, both provided ongoing case management, work supports, and 
II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

13

job placement and advancement services to participants. They also followed up with participants 

who were difficult for the SSPs to track so their employment status could be documented in the 

MIS. In three other sites (Denver, Chicago and Indianapolis), services coordinator involvement 

typically ended after the participant was enrolled in the program and began working with an SSP. 

The Denver and Indianapolis grantees continued to provide work support and pay for vocational 

training, but had limited, if any, direct involvement. 

Ongoing involvement with participants by the services coordinator had both advantages and 

disadvantages, based on local feedback during site visit interviews. On one hand, it often helped 

boost program outcomes as services coordinator staff were able to assist in accurately recording job 

placement and retention. This arrangement capitalized on the strengths of these nonprofit 

organizations. On the other hand, the ongoing involvement of services coordinator administrators 

and staff sometimes created confusion between the roles of services coordinator and SSP staffs and 

often overcompensated for low-performing SSPs. This structure also allowed some participants to 

“double dip” by requesting resources such as bus passes or clothing assistance from both the 

services coordinator and SSP staff. 

4. Staff Turnover

Only two services coordinators, Job Works and Spectrum Resources, experienced staff turnover 

during the Beneficiary Choice project. In Indianapolis, the services coordinator program manager at 

Job Works resigned, but was replaced by one of her assistants such that a degree of continuity 

remained. In Des Moines, turnover at the services coordinator case manager level was relatively 

common. However, respondents at the site reported that the turnover had minimal affect on service 

delivery. The primary challenge was training new staff on the program activities and reporting 

requirements. New staff also had to cultivate relationships with participants whom they had not 

enrolled into the program themselves and track them over time. 

While grantees and services coordinators experienced relatively low staff turnover, two of the 

services coordinators also added or planned to add staff after the first site visits to fill unmet needs. 

First, Job Works began using a job developer leveraged through a Lily Foundation grant to help 

SSPs identify job leads for participants. The grantee initially hoped the job developer would also 

provide technical assistance to SSPs to enhance their job placement services but this aspect of the 

position did not come to fruition. Second, DLE planned to add two new staff—a job developer and 

an MIS specialist—but had not yet done so at the time of the second site visit. Both positions were 

expected to be full time and to be paid for using a combination of grant and leveraged funds. 

C. SSPs

The Beneficiary Choice model was intended to create new opportunities for FBCOs that might 

not have been available under a traditional federal government funding stream. Grantees quickly 

found that, although SSPs often brought additional resources and supports for participants, many of 

them were small, inexperienced organizations with limited employer relationships. Still, SSPs 

offered a variety of strengths, including experience with serving at-risk populations; ability to bring 

additional services and resources from the community; an intensive, hands-on service approach; and 

close connections with other community partners. In addition, these organizations were often 

located in neighborhoods where ex-offenders live, making services accessible to participants. This 

section describes grantees’ experiences working with local SSPs.
II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

14

1. Responsibilities

Based on the grant solicitation, SSPs were required to offer participants three core services—

(1) work readiness, (2) career counseling, and (3) post-employment follow-up. They were also 

required to offer a unique combination of supplemental services to help meet the needs of their 

clientele. Although there was some variation across organizations during implementation, most 

SSPs performed five key functions: 

1. Career Counseling and Case Management. Case management functions primarily 

included assessment, addressing participants’ personal needs through in-house resources 

and/or referrals to community partners, referring participants to specialized assessments 

and treatment, and providing emotional encouragement and support.

2. Workforce Preparation. Workforce preparation activities included individualized or 

group job readiness workshops, help with developing a resumé, practicing interviewing 

skills, obtaining needed work supports (for example, transportation and work-related 

clothing), and teaching healthy workplace habits and behaviors.

3. Job Search and Job Placement. When participants were prepared for work, SSPs gave 

them suggestions for how to look for a job. Job search assistance was informal at most 

SSPs with staff identifying individual job leads specific to the participant’s interests or 

making referrals to local One-Stop Career Centers. SSPs rarely offered structured job 

search activities.

4. Other Supplemental Services. Beyond these basic services, SSPs offered a wide range 

of unique services. These included but were not limited to supportive services, 

mentoring, health services, substance abuse counseling, and housing assistance. 

5. Participant Tracking. Each of the SSPs has responsibility for tracking the services that 

participants received and recording them in the MIS. In all of the sites, SSPs were also 

responsible for documenting participant outcomes, such as employment and recidivism, 

both during participation and for a short time after their involvement with Beneficiary 

Choice ended. We discuss efforts to record participant service use and outcomes in 

more detail in Chapters IV and V.

2. Staffing Arrangements

The combination of participant choice and performance-based contracting created 

unpredictability about how many and what types of participants would select each SSP, the number 

of participants who would be able to achieve key benchmarks, and the amount of benchmark 

payments that the SSPs would ultimately receive. In addition, the program model required SSPs to 

make an upfront investment in staff salaries before they saw the financial payoff from achieving the 

payment benchmarks.

As a result, SSPs had to take calculated risks when determining the number and types of 

employees to use and/or hire to serve Beneficiary Choice participants. The uncertainty resulted in 

two staffing approaches. Many SSPs split staff time across multiple programs to defray program 

costs. Others hired a full-time staff person to manage all Beneficiary Choice responsibilities.

• Multiple Staff Members with Specialized Functions. Some SSPs involved multiple 

staff in the Beneficiary Choice program who had specialized functions such as case 

management, job development, job placement and retention. These staff typically split 
II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

15

their time across multiple programs, working with both Beneficiary Choice and nonBeneficiary Choice participants. Specializing staff by function allowed SSPs to tap into 

other funding sources to help cover staff salaries. However, some SSP administrators 

and staff reported that this structure pulled staff in multiple directions and limited their 

availability for cultivating ongoing relationships with participants.

• Single Staff Member with Overall Responsibility. Other SSPs relied on one staff 

person to carry out the full range of tasks. When one staff person managed all 

responsibilities, he or she developed an ongoing working relationship with the 

participants, which reportedly helped with follow-up. In addition, staff could focus their 

work on one program where they understood the intricacies of core services, targeted 

performance outcomes, and MIS data entry. The challenge was finding someone with a 

broad skill set to handle all functions (for example, assessment, case management, job 

development, and job placement and retention). In addition, investing all the 

institutional knowledge about Beneficiary Choice in one staff member left SSPs 

particularly vulnerable if that person left the agency. Replacement staff had to be trained 

and work hard to build new relationships with employers, community partners, and 

participants.

3. Identifying and Selecting SSPs

A total of 44 SSPs were awarded contracts during program implementation across the grantees 

(Table II.2). In most sites, multiple rounds of procurements were required to maintain a pool of 

SSPs across the two-year grant period. The original grant application required that grantees include 

at least five SSPs that would serve as providers. However, after the grant award, grantees were 

required to hold a procurement to recruit and select their final set of SSPs. Given the tight time 

frame for implementing the projects, the extent of outreach for the initial procurement was limited 

in most of the sites. Interesting, eight organizations included in the original grant applications did 

not apply to the grantee solicitations and were never awarded contracts (not in table).

Table II.2. Number of FBCOs Serving as SSPs

Across All 

Sites

Phoenix,

AZ

Denver,

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines, 

IA

Number of SSPs in Round 1 30 5 7 9 5 4

Number of SSPs in Round 2 35 5 7 6 7 10a

Number of SSPs Serving in Both 

Rounds 21 3 6 5 3 4

Total Number Involved at Any 

Time 44 7 8 10 9 10

Source: Site visit interviews with grantee administrators.

a

Includes addition of four SSPs in the Waterloo area (Des Moines, IA site) between rounds 1 and 2.

At the start of the demonstration, grantees mostly selected those SSPs that were familiar to 

them. In two of the sites, Chicago and Indianapolis, SSPs that were included in the original grant 

application were selected through the procurement process and served as round 1 providers. Two 

additional SSPs were added in Chicago as a result of procurement, none were added in Indianapolis. 

Spectrum Resources in Des Moines accepted all SSP applicants during the initial procurement, but 

had previous working relationships with nearly all of the agencies that applied. Denver had 

extensive outreach and created application requirements that reportedly resulted in a strong pool of 
II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

16

SSPs with experience serving the target population and providing employment services. Compared 

to the other grantees, AWEE in Phoenix had the most aggressive SSP recruitment efforts, going 

through three rounds of procurements, and attracting a broad pool of applicants of which roughly 

one quarter received awards. More details on the initial SSP procurement process can be found in 

the evaluation’s first findings report (Bellotti et al. 2008).

With the exception of Spectrum Resources in Des Moines, grantees added few SSPs to their 

projects after the first round of evaluation site visits. Spectrum Resources added 6 of the 14 SSPs 

(four community-based organizations [CBOs] and two FBCOs) by opening up a new service area in 

Waterloo, Iowa. Through a second procurement, IPIC added four SSPs (three CBOs and one

FBCO). Subsequent rounds of procurement were reportedly handled in the same way as the initial 

procurement; however, fewer local organizations applied. According to grantees, faith-based and 

community providers may have been reluctant to sign on to performance-based contracts in the 

midst of the economic recession. Grantees also reported that they were clearer with SSPs about the 

potential risks of participant choice and performance-based contracts in the second procurement 

process.

Despite the smaller pool of applicants, in most sites, grantees and services coordinators 

indicated that the newly added SSPs quickly met performance benchmarks. As the project 

progressed, they may have been more effective at identifying SSPs that were a good match for the 

project. In addition, new procurements coincided with changes to performance-based contracts that 

allowed SSPs to reach benchmarks more easily.

Although the program model allowed for their inclusion, very few faith-infused programs were 

involved in the demonstration. During the first round of evaluation site visits, two SSPs provided 

faith-infused services. Both of these agencies dropped out of the program as of the second round 

site visits. According to respondents, these SSPs decided not to continue with the program because 

they had difficulty obtaining referrals and/or were not meeting their program outcomes to recoup 

program costs. One small faith-infused provider was added as a result of subsequent procurements 

in Indianapolis. At the time of the second site visit, it had served only nine participants.

The interim report identified five potential explanations for the limited involvement of faithinfused providers (Bellotti et al. 2008). First, grantees were apparently not clear about whether and 

how explicitly religious activities could be a part of service provision. Although they received 

ongoing guidance about the rules under Beneficiary Choice, they seemed to default to what they 

knew about religious restrictions associated with the receipt of direct funding. Second, grantees 

conducted limited outreach to recruit faith-infused SSPs. By the time of the second round site visits, 

two grantees had made stronger efforts to target faith-infused providers, but had little or no success. 

Third, FBOs were likely accustomed to the religious restrictions associated with government 

funding. As a result, they continued to operate under the Charitable Choice rules.7

 7 Charitable Choice refers to several laws passed in the late 1990s that clarified the rights and responsibilities of 

FBOs receiving Federal funds. Basic Charitable Choice and Equal Treatment Policies state that faith-based groups 

receiving Federal funding may: (1) retain religious art or symbols; (2) retain religious standards for organizational 

governance and hiring (unless otherwise prohibited by statute); (3) not use funds for “inherently religious activities”; and 

(4) not discriminate against clients based on religion or require religious participation. 

 Fourth, some 

SSPs may have feared that participants would not select faith-infused providers. This fear may have 
II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

17

become a reality for the two faith-infused providers that dropped out of the program. Fifth, SSPs 

may not have been fully aware or believed that they were not allowed to provide faith-infused 

services. Many of the SSPs were hoping for long-term contracts with federal and/or state 

organizations. This may have increased their reluctance to provide only faith-infused services.

4. SSP Turnover

Sustaining SSPs once they were selected for involvement in the demonstration was more 

challenging than grantees envisioned. Nine SSPs left the project between the first and second round 

of site visits. FBOs appeared to be particularly vulnerable as 5 of 14 FBOs (35.7 percent) dropped 

out between the two rounds of site visits, compared to 4 of 16 CBOs (23.5 percent). In most cases, 

removing an SSP was a joint decision between the services coordinator and the SSP. 

Limited earnings may have contributed to turnover (see Table II.3). SSPs that left earned 

substantially less between the beginning of the grant and the second round of site visits than those 

that remained involved. The evaluation did not collect enough data to closely examine the 

correlation between SSP earnings and SSP dropout. However, grantees and services coordinators 

reported four key factors that contributed to low earnings. First, some SSPs were selected by very 

few participants, limiting their earning potential. Second, grantees reported that some SSPs simply 

performed poorly and were not able to provide participants with the needed services. Third, SSPs 

that were inexperienced with reporting requirements were unable to accurately document outcomes. 

Fourth, there was a mismatch between the work-first Beneficiary Choice model and the 

organizational service approach of some SSPs. For example, some were social service agencies that 

were inexperienced with job placement services and had limited employer relationships.

Table II.3. Average Earnings of SSPs that Stayed or Dropped Out of the Demonstration

Across All 

Sites

Phoenix,

AZa

Denver,

COb

Chicago,

ILa

Indianapolis, 

INa

Des Moines, 

IAb

Average Earnings of CBOs That 

Stayed $105,414 $107,422 $162,775 $44,733 $110,400 $141,319

Average Earnings of CBOs That 

Dropped Out $28,040 $60,624 n.a. $5,600 $6,700 n.a.

Average Earnings of FBOs That 

Stayed $127,348 $118,756 $155,833 $76,450 n.a. $160,874

Average Earnings of FBOs That 

Dropped Out $31,350 $39,237 $27,600 $45,500 $6,800 n.a.

Source: Site visit interviews with grantee administrators.

a

Earnings from Beneficiary Choice contracts as of October 1, 2009.

b

Earnings from Beneficiary Choice contracts as of November 30, 2009.

n.a. = not available.

By contrast, grantees reported three factors that may have contributed to the likelihood of an 

SSP staying with the project. First, SSPs that stayed with the project were often located near where 

participants lived or were accessible by public transportation. Second, these organizations had a 

strong reputation in the community. They had experience in serving ex-offenders, and also with 

helping hard-to-employ job seekers get and keep jobs. Third, they received funding from a range of 

sources, not just Beneficiary Choice. These organizations often co-enrolled participants in their 

other programs to recoup program costs for case management and supportive services. They also 
II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

18

shared services such as job readiness workshops and job development and placement resources

across multiple programs. 

Grantees implemented multiple strategies to reduce SSP turnover. Four key strategies emerged 

during interviews with grantee and SSP administrators (see Chapter VI for additional discussion of 

performance-based contracts). First, two grantees structured their initial contracts with SSPs to 

include payment benchmarks that heavily rewarded process activities such as assessment and job 

readiness activities. This was intended to help sustain SSPs that had limited cash flow. As SSPs 

matured, however, the contracts shifted. While continuing to reward service provision with smaller 

payments, the grantees adjusted their SSP contracts to include larger payments for job placement 

and retention outcomes.

Second, one grantee, DLE in Denver, streamlined the payment process to help SSPs quickly 

recoup program costs. Some of the smaller, grassroots organizations were particularly challenged by 

limited cash flow. To accommodate this, DLE allowed SSPs to submit invoices for payment at any 

time rather than on a designated day of the month. In addition, the grant manager streamlined the 

payment process to allow for reimbursements within a week of invoice submission. 

Third, three of the grantees simplified the verification process over time so that grantees could 

quickly pay SSPs. While the verification process increased accountability, it often created payment 

delays and uncertainty about how much the SSP would be paid. For example, AWEE in Phoenix 

began the project with an extensive invoice verification process. In response to SSP feedback that 

the process was too time intensive and cumbersome, the grantee modified the process between the 

two rounds of site visits. 

Fourth, two services coordinators increased SSP capacity-building activities. AWEE 

implemented two activities to strengthen the service capacity and improve the quality of SSP 

services. It provided monthly technical assistance visits to each SSP to improve the quality of 

services. It also created a monthly Community Partnership Council to discuss promising practices 

and opportunities to collaborate on future grants. To build a stronger relationship with SSPs, Job 

Works staff members in Indianapolis co-located in SSP offices one day per week. The services 

coordinator administrators said that this improved communication and coordination and expanded 

the reach of the One-Stop Career Center. 

D. Community Partnerships

Grantees, services coordinators, and SSPs developed a range of community partnerships that 

brought additional resources to assist with service provision. In their grant applications, grantees 

were required to demonstrate that they had existing partnerships with local correctional agencies and 

Workforce Investment System agencies. They also had to demonstrate that they had existing 

relationships with employers who were willing to hire program participants. Other partners could 

include local community and technical colleges, FBCOs that were not SSPs, and specialized 

treatment providers (for example, mental health providers and substance abuse treatment centers). 

Local agencies were instrumental with recruiting participants, providing technical assistance to SSPs, 

and expanding the services available to participants. 

1. Correctional Agencies

Across the study sites, correctional agencies were integral partners. Initially, grantees said that 

correctional agencies saw them as competitors vying for the same pool of reentry funds. However, 
II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

19

through outreach and education efforts by services coordinators, correctional agencies become a 

valuable resource for referrals in all five sites. In two sites, corrections staff provided technical 

assistance to SSPs on how to effectively work with the ex-offender population. And, in two sites, 

these partners helped to actively enforce participation in the Beneficiary Choice program. In Des 

Moines, Spectrum Resources, in particular, attributed much of their program success to their active 

working relationship with parole officials. These officials provided referrals, participated in 

orientation and case planning, monitored job placement and retention, and notified the services 

coordinator of any participant recidivism.

Partnerships with correctional agencies remained steady throughout the demonstration in all of 

the sites except Denver. The partnership between DLE and the John Inmann Work and Family 

Center (JIWFC) dissolved after the correctional agency relocated to an outlying community. In the 

early phases of the demonstration, JIWFC provided most of the referrals and ran criminal 

background checks on participants. DLE began cultivating a relationship with a federal correctional 

agency after the first round visits; however, that relationship was still relatively new by the second 

visit.

2. One-Stop Career Centers

While correctional agencies were strong partners, grantee involvement with One-Stop Career 

Centers was more limited. The extent of partnerships varied. However, in most sites, the 

involvement of the One-Stop system was limited to providing office space and general access to 

center services, rather than providing direct services.

Grantees in Indianapolis and Colorado reported that Beneficiary Choice participants were also 

participating in other workforce programs. In Indianapolis, participants were routinely receiving 

WIA core services in addition to Beneficiary Choice services. A few participants also received 

intensive and training services, although this was rare. The One-Stop Career Center also 

recommended that participants attend a two-hour “Hard Time to Full Time” workshop that was 

created using Wagner Peyser funds. In Colorado, the workforce system in Adams County had 

several grants, including a WIRED grant, that provided employment and training opportunities for 

ex-offenders. As discussed in Chapter VI, the grantee in Colorado also leveraged WIA resources to 

provide short-term, specialized training for Beneficiary Choice participants. WIA co-enrollment was 

also common in the Mesa County site as participants completed an extensive work readiness and 

interest inventory as part of their orientation. The One-Stop provider was also one of the local 

SSPs.

The remaining grantees reported that participation in WIA by Beneficiary Choice participants 

with other One-Stop Career Center programs was limited. In Des Moines, participation in WIA and 

Beneficiary Choice was not common, even though the services coordinator staff in Des Moines 

were co-located in the One-Stop Career Center. In Des Moines and Phoenix, grantee administrators 

reported that, rather than serving ex-offenders directly, the One-Stop Career Centers often referred

individuals with criminal backgrounds to the grantee agency for assistance due to the agency’s

reputation for successfully placing ex-offenders in jobs. In Chicago, the services coordinator 

reported that, although it rarely happened, participants were referred to the workforce system if they 

wanted training and might be able to access an Individual Training Account to help pay for it. 
II. Grantees, Services Coordinators, and SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

20

3. Employers

Services coordinators relied primarily on SSPs to forge relationships with employers, although 

three also made special efforts to engage employers directly. Spectrum Resources in Des Moines 

had extensive relationships with employers in the community as a result of its PRI grant and other 

programs. Spectrum staff was able to directly place many participants in jobs, rather than relying 

exclusively on the SSPs for job placement. The Colorado DLE also worked with a few employers 

that provided vocational training and job placement. The grantee in Chicago cultivated a 

relationship with the Chicago Transit Authority that resulted in up to 40 placements of Beneficiary 

Choice participants.

4. Education and Training Providers

Reflecting the emphasis on quickly connecting participants with work, grantees reported few 

relationships with education and training providers. In four sites, education and training providers 

were not actively involved with Beneficiary Choice. In Indianapolis and Chicago, participants were 

encouraged by the services coordinator to apply for WIA-funded training but few, if any, 

participants followed through. In addition, several of the Indianapolis SSPs offered General 

Educational Development (GED) certificate preparation courses and one SSP offered a transitional 

jobs program that blended education and wage-paid work. However, neither the grantee nor the

services coordinator in Indianapolis or Chicago had any formal partnerships with local educational 

institutions.

The one site in which the grantee did explicitly partner with an education and training provider 

was Colorado. Local administrators reported that three factors contributed to the success of their 

training component. First, DLE was able to leverage DOL training funds to pay for vocational 

training in skills such as asbestos abatement, hazardous materials handling, and fork lifting. The cost 

of training was about $1,500 per participant and included equipment and the cost of certification. 

Second, DLE was able to structure training activities to be completed within several weeks. This 

model fit well with the work-first approach adopted by the Beneficiary Choice model. Finally, DLE 

selected training providers who had strong connections with employers and could place participants 

in jobs immediately after training completion. One organization, Environmental Services 

Incorporated (ESI) had relationships with more than 200 employers that hired its graduates. In 

addition, ESI received a grant funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that 

enabled the organization to hire participants for insulation and weatherization projects aimed at 

encouraging energy efficiency.
III. Outreach, Orientation, and Selection of SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

21

III. OUTREACH, ORIENTATION, AND PARTICIPANT SELECTION OF SSPs

In the SGA, DOL defined a structured model with clearly delineated upfront activities for 

recruiting, enrolling, and serving participants. The Beneficiary Choice model includes the unique 

participant choice feature, which enables individuals to select from a pool of SSPs during the 

orientation period. The aim of this process is to allow participants the flexibility to select the 

provider that best meets their unique needs. Services coordinators provide the majority of the 

upfront activities, educate participants about available service providers and facilitate the process for 

choosing one, and connect participants with SSPs for ongoing direct services. This chapter 

examines how sites implemented the upfront process for enrolling participants in Beneficiary Choice 

and how choice among service providers might influence participant behavior and program 

outcomes.

A. Eligibility and Recruitment

DOL required each grantee to serve a minimum of 225 participants per year for two years. As 

discussed in the first report from the evaluation (Bellotti et al. 2008), services coordinators used a 

variety of pre- and post-release strategies in the first year of the demonstration to recruit participants 

to the Beneficiary Choice program. Such strategies included distributing marketing materials to 

inmates, partnering with criminal justice agencies that could make referrals, and encouraging 

referrals from other community partners. Once individuals expressed interest in the program, each 

of the services coordinators implemented initial enrollment or engagement activities that required a 

time commitment from the potential participant. Local staff reported that these activities often 

weeded out those who were not motivated for or committed to the program.

Key Findings

• Correctional agencies were pivotal in meeting recruitment and enrollment goals. 

Other recruitment strategies included presentations to inmates, referrals from 

community partners, and reverse referrals from SSPs.

• Group orientation, used by three services coordinators, created an efficient and 

consistent process for sharing information. Though more time consuming, 

individual orientations offered an immediate connection with participants. Two sites 

combined these approaches.

• Three services coordinators used consistent orientation materials and scripts to 

present information on available SSPs and ensure that participants had an 

independent and informed choice. Two services coordinators gave more informal 

presentations and sometimes helped guide participants in their choice of SSPs.

• Based on interviews with participants and services coordinator staff, participants 

chose providers primarily based on their geographic location and agency reputation. 

In fewer cases, participants chose based on the services offered.

• Driven in part by DOL performance standards and the use of performance-based 

contracts, services coordinators and SSPs used pre-enrollment activities to identify 

and enroll the most motivated participants.
III. Outreach, Orientation, and Selection of SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

22

1. Eligibility Requirements

Grantees typically adopted the broader eligibility requirements set by DOL and outlined in the 

initial SGA without setting additional criteria. These criteria required participants to be: (1) young 

adults between the ages of 18 and 29, (2) within 60 days of release from prison, and (3) convicted of 

a federal or state offense. When several grantees experienced slow enrollment at the start of the 

demonstration, DOL revised these eligibility requirements to include individuals being released from 

county and local jails. Three grantees placed additional limitations on serving sex offenders: the 

Colorado grantee accepted sex offenders on a case-by-case basis; Des Moines capped the number of 

sex offenders it would serve; and Phoenix elected not to serve them.

2. Recruitment

Correctional agencies were pivotal in meeting recruitment and enrollment goals. They provided 

the majority of the referrals in three sites—Chicago, Indianapolis, and Des Moines. In Chicago and 

Des Moines, local parole agencies were the primary source of referrals to the program. In 

Indianapolis, however, local probation offices, halfway houses, and work release programs served as 

the primary referral sources.

The Colorado DLE, a grantee that worked with a pool of SSPs that had strong connections to 

the ex-offender population, shifted primary recruitment responsibilities to SSPs in the middle of the 

demonstration. Its primary referral source during the first year of the grant was the John Inmann 

Work and Family Center (JIWFC), a correctional agency in the Denver Metro area. However, when 

JIWFC relocated outside of the target area for Beneficiary Choice, the grantee tapped the SSPs to 

recruit participants for the program. Most participants in the second half of the demonstration were 

enrolled as a result of these reverse referrals.

Other recruitment strategies used across the services coordinators included pre- and postrelease activities such as presentations to inmates, media advertising to the general public, and 

referrals from community partners. Although the Phoenix grantee used multiple recruitment 

strategies, program administrators reported that their most successful strategy was mailing postcards 

to young ex-offenders scheduled for release or recently released, based on lists they obtained from 

corrections agencies. 

3. Use of Pre-Enrollment Activities

During the early months of the demonstration, several grantees were delayed in starting 

participant enrollment or experienced a slower pace of enrollment than expected. For example, in 

Denver, completing the state process for procuring agreements with SSPs took nearly six months, 

putting the grantee behind in the number of program enrollments for the first and second quarters. 

Indianapolis also received far fewer referrals from probation—its key criminal justice partner—than 

expected, resulting in a slow start-up.

In an effort to engage more participants, grantees reported quickly enrolling any eligible exoffender who expressed interest in the program, showing little discretion in who they accepted. As a 

result, they may have included participants who were not fully invested and, therefore, potentially 

less likely to succeed. Later, they modified their approach to be more selective.

Driven in part by the DOL performance standards and the use of performance-based 

contracting, some services coordinators and SSPs began introducing new pre-enrollment activities 
III. Outreach, Orientation, and Selection of SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

23

aimed at weeding out those participants who were less motivated. For example, the Colorado 

grantee initially enrolled participants as soon as they attended orientation at the grantee, but shifted 

its procedures to require participants to call a hotline, contact the SSP they selected, and complete an 

individual or group orientation meeting at the SSP before they were enrolled. According to local 

staff, the explicit goal of these activities was to test a participant’s commitment to the program. 

Although these strategies tried to ensure participant motivation, they may have had inadvertent 

consequences. Not all potential participants had the stamina, time, or motivation to complete 

extensive pre-enrollment requirements. For example, depending on the timing of their application 

after their release, some may have needed employment extremely quickly to meet supervision 

requirements. Extensive pre-enrollment activities may have inadvertently discouraged or prevented 

some of the hardest-to-serve or most needy individuals from enrolling.

B. Orientation

Orientation was typically the participant’s first in-depth exposure to the program. It was used 

to inform participants about the program, begin the assessment process, introduce the SSPs, and 

facilitate the choice of SSPs. In some cases, the orientation was used to help participants begin to 

prepare for work. This section describes how services coordinators oriented participants to the 

program. 

1. Orientation Format

Services coordinators took three different approaches to structuring the orientation: (1) group 

orientation, (2) individual orientation, and (3) a mix of group and individual activities (Table III.1). 

Group orientation, used by three services coordinators, created an efficient and consistent process 

for sharing information, ensuring that all participants received the same information. By contrast, 

though more time consuming, individual orientations offered an immediate connection with 

participants.

Table III.1. Orientation Structure, by Site

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver,

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines, 

IA

Orientation Format

Group only X

Individual only X X

Both X X

Length of Orientation 4 hours plus 

30 minutes

30 minutes 2 days 3 hours plus 

30 minutes

1 hour

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Holding group interviews ensured that all participants received the same level and types of 

information about the program and the SSPs for provider selection. In addition to providing a 

uniform message, the group format was an efficient way to educate and enroll large groups of 

participants in a short period of time and create a safe and supportive environment for the 

participant, a critical need for those recently released. One services coordinator used a group format 

exclusively. In Chicago, CAN implemented a unique orientation structure based on a therapeutic 

model. The orientation included a strengths-based skills assessment, time management goal sheet, 

tools to encourage active listening, and effective resume and networking strategies. 
III. Outreach, Orientation, and Selection of SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

24

Individual orientation allowed for a more tailored approach and created an opportunity for 

services coordinators to immediately engage the participant. Two services coordinators relied on 

individual orientation meetings, using very different approaches. The Des Moines services 

coordinator held three-way meetings that included a case manager, the participant, and the 

participants’ parole officer. These meetings were used not only to introduce the program and assess 

participants’ needs, but also to develop a case plan with parole that included employment goals. The 

Colorado grantee streamlined its individual orientation process midway through implementation to 

reduce the program coordinator’s workload. Originally, the program coordinator conducted an inperson interview with each participant prior to enrollment. As the caseload increased, the grantee 

developed a centralized hotline and conducted intake interviews primarily by telephone, though 

sometimes in person. 

Using a combined method of group and individual activities, Phoenix and Indianapolis gave 

participants a supportive interaction with a case manager as well as consistent messages about the 

program. Indianapolis held a weekly three-hour group orientation that included both a presentation 

of provider options and a group assessment. It also invited inspirational figures to share their 

success with reentry. Applicants left the group meeting with a packet of materials describing each of 

the SSPs. Within a week of the group meeting, the applicants met individually with a case manager 

to discuss their provider selection and service needs. Like Indianapolis, Phoenix held a group 

orientation at least weekly; however, staff immediately met with each participant after the group 

meeting. The orientation was used to develop a service plan and build a relationship with the 

participant that continued throughout service delivery.

2. Length and Timing of Orientation

Orientations were generally short and were offered frequently to avoid participant drop off

while waiting to complete an orientation. The length of orientation ranged from 30 minutes in 

Denver to two days in Chicago. In all but Chicago, orientation lasted no more than a day and, 

according to services coordinators, was held frequently to rapidly engage participants once they 

expressed interest. Phoenix and Indianapolis provided half-day orientation sessions at least weekly. 

The Des Moines three-way orientation and enrollment meetings reportedly lasted between 45 and 60 

minutes, depending on the complexity of the participant’s service needs. In Denver, the brief 

informal conversation with staff lasted no more than 30 minutes. Chicago implemented the longest 

orientation; it was initially three days, but was reduced to two in order to improve participant 

engagement.

C. Participant Choice

DOL chose to pursue a service model built on participant choice to include a broad range of 

provider types that could attract and engage program participants. In particular, the model served 

three functions. First, it allowed SSPs to provide faith-infused services. Under Charitable Choice, 

providers using direct Federal funding are restricted from incorporating religious activities, language, 

and symbols into service delivery. However, if providers are paid through an indirect funding 

mechanism and there is a choice of religious and nonreligious services, programs may offer a faithinfused service menu. Second, choice is believed to play a role in promoting participant buy-in by 

allowing individuals to make a decision about what is best for them. Recently released ex-offenders 

emerge from prison having been largely stripped of choices. Some may see participant choice as 

empowering. Third, because the choice option required grantees to create formal relationships with 

at least five SSPs, it created opportunities for smaller agencies to provide services that might not 

have had the opportunity otherwise. Smaller, less experienced SSPs had a chance to build their 
III. Outreach, Orientation, and Selection of SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

25

capacity and to compete for future grants. In this section, we examine the implementation and role 

of participant choice in serving ex-offenders.

1. Structure and Information

According to the SGA, choice must be “free, independent, and informed.” The services 

coordinators used different approaches to providing information about available SSPs. The 

consistency and standardization of information varied to some degree based on these approaches.

Three grantees—Chicago, Indianapolis, and Phoenix—implemented procedures to try to 

ensure a consistent and equitable delivery of information about SSPs. These procedures included 

the use of structured orientation materials, such as PowerPoint slides or a video, and formal scripts 

used by orientation staff. To ensure the accuracy of the information, all of these grantees allowed 

the SSPs to develop their own slides or participate directly in the video presentation. In the two 

sites that used PowerPoint slides, the order of the slides was rotated frequently to avoid participants 

selecting the first or last SSP described. In one site, all participants were required to select their SSP 

at the same time to avoid influencing one another’s decisions. In another site, all participants were 

required to visit at least two SSPs in person before making a selection. 

The remaining two services coordinators in Denver and Des Moines introduced the SSPs 

during a more informal, individualized orientation meeting where staff members gave an unscripted 

description of each of the providers. In these sites, the discussion involved more of a guided choice, 

where case managers provided recommendations based on factors such as location and the range of 

service offerings. In Denver, where the SSPs recruited participants and made reverse referrals, most 

participants had already made their decision prior to orientation. These grantees operated under the 

guided choice model, in which participants received more input from services coordinator staff in 

the decision-making process.

2. Altering the Pool of SSPs

SSPs were temporarily removed from provider lists for reasons associated with both over- and 

under-performance. First, services coordinators sometimes removed popular SSPs that had either 

reached the maximum earnings from their Beneficiary Choice contract, reached their service 

capacity, or both. This served a redistributive function, because removing high performers from the 

list may have given needed referrals to other agencies. Second, services coordinators occasionally 

removed poor performing SSPs because they were not meeting grantee expectations. This allowed 

struggling SSPs to focus on serving participants who were already enrolled. If their performance 

improved, some SSPs might be reinstated on the list of available providers.

3. Participants’ Experiences with Choice

Based on interviews with services coordinator staff, participants chose providers primarily 

based on their geographic location and agency reputation. In focus groups with participants, the 

majority of participants in every site reported that agency reputation was their reason for selecting an 

SSP. Participants often said they heard about the SSP from a relative, friend, or another prisoner 

while incarcerated. In some cases, participants chose based on the services offered. For example, in 

Indianapolis, one of the SSPs operated a wage-paid transitional jobs program, which was reportedly 

appealing for youth who quickly needed employment. Few participants said they selected their SSP 

based on religious preference. While each services coordinator implemented a different participant 
III. Outreach, Orientation, and Selection of SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

26

choice process, there is no evidence to suggest that participant selections were different than what 

staff would have recommended to them. 

4. SSP Choice

Beyond participant choice, one grantee—Colorado DLE—also gave the SSPs a choice of 

whom they might serve. Applicants were not fully enrolled in the program until after they met with 

the SSP and both determined that the match was a good fit. Some of the SSPs immediately enrolled 

the participant after the first intake meeting. One SSP enrolled participants after completing a twoday job readiness course offered once a month. Although SSPs said they rarely did so, they liked 

having the ability to refuse to serve a given participant, particularly operating under a performancebased contract structure. SSPs reported that the primary reason for declining to serve someone was 

the participants’ lack of motivation. If a participant was declined, the grantee offered him or her a 

choice of another SSP. 

D. Services Coordinator Assessment and Employment Planning

Most services coordinators conducted structured assessments of applicants’ job skills, interests, 

and employment barriers. The SGA required services coordinators to assess participants before 

referring them to an SSP. Although all grantees conducted at least some assessments, the level of 

structure and content of these assessments varied considerably. Assessments were typically 

completed as part of or immediately after orientation and served multiple purposes including: 

(1) collecting information on educational attainment and work history, skills, and interests; 

(2) identifying and addressing immediate service needs; (3) developing an employment plan; and 

(4) building a working relationship with the participant. 

Of the five study grantees, three used standardized assessment tools such as the Test of Adult 

Basic Education (TABE), career interest inventories, and instruments to screen for barriers to 

employment. Two of these grantees pared back the amount and types of assessment tools between 

the two rounds of site visits because of the time required to complete them. For example, Phoenix 

eliminated the Career Occupational Preference System (COPS) Interest Inventory because of the 

length of time it took for participants to complete it. The other two grantees, Denver and Des 

Moines, did not use formal assessments but rather had informal conversations with participants to 

learn about their educational attainment, work histories and interests, and potential barriers to 

successful employment and reentry.

The benefit of services coordinator assessments was that the same assessment tool and/or 

process were used across all participants, whereas the quality and content of the SSP assessments 

varied widely. The services coordinator assessments helped to quickly identify and address the exoffender’s immediate service needs. Services coordinators that maintained ongoing contact with 

participants also used these assessments to target their services properly.

Still, services coordinators identified several drawbacks to their assessments. First, participants 

sometimes attached to their services coordinator staff member rather than their SSP case manager, 

particularly in sites where the services coordinator had implemented an extensive assessment 

process. This reportedly created some confusion about whom the participant should contact for 

service needs. Second, participants were required to tell their story first to the services coordinator 

then repeat it to the SSP. Many of the participants had complex histories that included substance 

abuse, mental health, domestic violence, homelessness, and limited support networks. Repeating 

their story multiple times reportedly took an emotional toll on the participant. Finally, it appeared 
III. Outreach, Orientation, and Selection of SSPs Mathematica Policy Research

27

that the assessment information was not being used by the SSPs. SSP staff indicated that they often 

ignored the services coordinator assessments so they would not bias their perception of the 

participant. They preferred to rely on their own assessment results.

E. Referring Participants to SSPs

As a final step in the upfront process, participants moved from the services coordinator to the 

SSP for more in-depth services. While some services coordinators continued to stay involved, SSPs 

had primary responsibility for serving the participant. The handoff was critical since, in all of the 

sites, participants were not fully enrolled in the program until they met with SSP staff.

Each of the services coordinators developed a formal process for ensuring participants 

immediately met with staff from the SSP they selected. Three of the services coordinators—

Chicago, Denver, and Indianapolis—e-mailed or faxed the SSP to inform it of the referral. Two 

coordinators, Phoenix and Des Moines, contacted the SSP case manager with the participant by 

telephone as part of the orientation process. 

Three of the services coordinators—Phoenix, Denver, and Des Moines—had designated 

timelines, typically within the first three days after orientation, for SSPs to meet with new 

participants. Chicago and Indianapolis designated start days and times each week when participants 

were told to show up. In Mesa County, the outlying site in Colorado, one of the SSPs was colocated with the grantee, which created an immediate, in-person hand-off for the initiation of SSP 

services.

IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

29

IV. PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS AND SERVICES USE

With explicit goals of helping ex-offenders get and keep jobs and avoid criminal behavior, 

Beneficiary Choice offered a range of core and supplemental services to participants. All grantees 

aimed to strike a balance between the intense and varied service needs of participants, the needs and 

desires of participants for immediate employment, and the structure and limitations of program 

funding. The model of indirect funding allowed grantees considerable flexibility to include SSPs that 

used a wide range of service delivery strategies. In most instances, SSPs offered a combination of 

work readiness training and a package of supportive services that would allow participants to keep 

and find jobs. This chapter discusses the characteristics of participants, participant intake and 

service initiation, and service delivery.

A. Participant Characteristics

By June 2010, the five Beneficiary Choice grantees had enrolled 2,382 ex-offenders. All of the 

grantees met their enrollment target of 450 ex-offenders, but many of them had a slow start (see 

Figure IV.1). Indianapolis continued enrollment through June 2010, much later than the other 

grantees.

As specified by DOL, any ex-offender between 18 and 29 years of age who was released within 

the past 60 days was eligible to participate in the program. Originally, program participation was 

limited to ex-offenders released from a Federal or state institution, but DOL increased the pool of 

eligible participants by allowing sites to enroll ex-offenders released after significant spells in county 

and local jails. Beyond these few criteria, grantees had the autonomy to decide who they would 

serve. In addition, participants were not officially enrolled until they had attended orientation, 

selected an SSP, and arrived at the SSP for service. The pre-enrollment activities could have served 

Key Findings

• The majority of Beneficiary Choice participants have many barriers to employment 

including low educational attainment, poor work histories, unstable housing, and 

extensive criminal histories. In particular, the proportion of participants who faced 

observable barriers was greater in Chicago and Indianapolis than in other sites.

• About 96 percent of participants received at least one workforce development 

service, most often work readiness training (92 percent) followed by career 

counseling (47 percent). About 20 percent also received education or training 

services.

• Despite the potential for substantial variations in service delivery across SSPs, most 

service receipt was heavily focused on short-term employment-based activities. Local 

staff reported that DOL performance standards and the structure of their 

performance-based contracts heavily influenced the emphasis placed on these 

activities and decreased the potential for diversity in service offerings.

• Given the service needs of participants, Beneficiary Choice was a relatively lighttouch program with 40 percent of participants served for one month or less and 

average length of receipt of services across grantees of 1.8 months.
IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

30

Figure IV.1. Enrollment Patterns, by Site

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

as hurdles that weeded out less motivated participants. As a result, it is important to understand the 

characteristics of those who enrolled in the program.

The Beneficiary Choice program served a diverse group of individuals. Overall, 88 percent of 

participants were male (Table IV.1). Phoenix had the largest proportion of female participants

(24 percent). All participants were between the ages of 18 and 29 at the time of enrollment, with an 

average age of 25. A majority of participants were African American. In fact, Chicago and 

Indianapolis served mostly African Americans (87 and 76 percent, respectively). This is not 

surprising given that both Chicago and Indianapolis have much higher percentages of African 

Americans than the other three cities in this demonstration. Phoenix and Denver served a 

significant number of Hispanic participants, and Phoenix also served more American Indians than 

the other sites.

Table IV.1. Demographic Characteristics of Beneficiary Choice Participants (Percentages Unless 

Otherwise Indicated)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN 

Des Moines, 

IA

Gender

Male 88.3 76.4 92.2 93.6 92.0 86.5

Female 11.7 23.6 7.8 6.4 8.0 13.5

Age at Enrollment

18 through 22 26.4 20.6 23.8 33.3 29.0 24.7

23 through 25 30.9 32.2 28.5 26.1 33.3 34.0

26 through 29 42.7 47.3 47.7 40.6 37.7 41.3

30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Average (in years) 25.1 25.5 25.6 24.7 24.8 25.1

Race

White 34.7 58.9 51.9 2.9 22.2 53.8

Black 58.6 28.9 39.2 87.0 75.6 42.8

Asian 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 1.1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Jun-08

Dec-08

Jun-09

Dec-09

Jun-10

Phoenix, Denver, Chicago, Indianapolis, Des Moines,

AZ CO IL IN IA
IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

31

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN 

Des Moines, 

IA

American Indian or 

Alaskan Native 4.2 10.4 5.3 6.2 0.9 1.4

Hawaiian Native or other 

Pacific Islander 0.9 0.4 0.3 3.5 0.9

Multiracial 1.2 1.4 3.0 0.4 0.0 0.9

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino origin 16.8 39.2 32.6 8.9 1.1 4.9

Non-Hispanic 73.3 58.2 64.4 73.5 81.0 88.1

Not specified 10.0 2.6 3.0 17.6 17.8 7.1

Eligible Veteran Status

Served more than 180 

days 1.6 0.7 4.2 1.5 0.8 1.1

Individuals with Disabilities 1.5 0.9 2.8 1.3 0.0 2.7

U.S. Citizen 99.2 97.6 99.3 99.5 99.6 99.8

Authorized to Work in the 

U.S. 99.4 98.2 99.7 99.8 99.6 99.8

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based on participants with nonmissing data. The prevalence of missing data is 

reported in Appendix Table A.1.1.

Ex-offenders often face significant barriers when they are released from incarceration, including 

limited education and work experience, histories of alcohol and drug abuse, and unstable housing. 

To explore these issues, this section highlights some of the demographic characteristics and prior life 

experiences of program participants. A more complete analysis of background characteristics is 

available in Appendix B. Key characteristics are as follows:

• Education. Forty-two percent of participants had not completed high school or 

received their GED (see Table IV.2). The educational backgrounds of participants 

varied substantially across grantees. While less than 30 percent of the participants in the 

Phoenix, Denver, and Des Moines programs were high school dropouts, the education 

levels of Chicago and Indianapolis participants were much lower. Only 25 percent of 

Chicago participants had graduated from high school or received a GED. 

• Work Experience. Few participants had a strong attachment to the legal labor market. 

Only 43 percent reported that formal employment was their primary income source in 

the six months prior to incarceration. Less than 30 percent of participants reported 

being employed full-time at the time of their incarceration. By contrast, about half of 

participants relied on illegal income sources, family and friends, or informal employment 

to support themselves (data not shown).

• Housing. Many recently released ex-offenders struggle to secure stable housing, and 

these program participants faced similar challenges. About 45 percent of participants 

lacked stable housing at enrollment with 29 percent in a halfway house or transitional 

home and 16 percent in an unstable situation or homeless.

• Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Participants also had histories of mental health 

problems and substance abuse. Seven percent of participants had received mental health 

treatment prior to enrollment, and the majority of participants (53 percent) reported 

Table IV.1 (continued)
IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

32

Table IV.2. Factors Influencing Service Needs at Enrollment (Percentages)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Highest Grade Completed

Less than high school diploma 42.4 24.6 22.3 74.5 58.7 29.2

GED or high school diploma 51.2 72.8 68.3 20.2 33.1 63.5

Some college or vocational 

school 6.6 2.6 9.3 5.4 8.3 7.3

Formal Employment Was Primary 

Income Over 6 Months Prior to 

Incarceration 42.7 67.7 18.7 36.7 50.1 43.2

Employed Full-time at Incarceration 27.7 27.8 38.7 9.1 12.6 53.6

Housing Status at Enrollment

Halfway house or transitional 

house 29.0 22.8 38.4 6.2 25.9 52.8

Unstable or homeless 16.3 1.1 16.4 58.6 4.8 0.9

Ever Received Mental Health 

Treatment Before Enrollment 7.1 4.2 12.1 2.6 5.0 12.1

Self-reported Alcohol Abuse or Drug 

Use

In three months before 

enrollment 2.8 5.5 2.6 3.2 2.1 0.4

In three months before 

incarceration 52.5 80.7 57.9 24.2 36.7 66.2

Both 2.1 0.2 3.9 1.7 4.2 0.0

None 42.7 13.6 35.6 70.9 57.0 33.3

Has Child Support Obligation 24.6 27.3 29.3 16.3 22.6 23.5

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based on participants with nonmissing data. The prevalence of missing data is 

reported in Appendix Table A.1.1.

alcohol abuse or drug use in the three months prior to incarceration. These self-reported 

rates of mental health treatment and substance abuse likely understate the true incidence.

• Child Support Obligations. Having child support obligations increases the pressure to 

find employment, but can also serve as a disincentive to work since wages can be 

garnished for outstanding child support payments. Almost a quarter of the participants 

reported child support obligations.

• Criminal Histories. Although the participants in this demonstration were relatively 

young, they still had significant criminal histories. While most had never been convicted 

of a violent crime, one-third were violent offenders. About two-thirds of participants 

had more than one felony arrest, and almost three-quarters had been convicted more 

than once (Table IV.3). In fact, on average, participants had been arrested three times 

for felony offense and convicted three times. These convictions resulted in substantial 

time in prison. On average, total time incarcerated was 2.5 years. 
IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

33

Table IV.3. Criminal History Before Enrollment (Percentages Unless Otherwise Indicated)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Violent Offender 32.6 32.4 36.1 45.4 21.0 29.8

Total Number of Felony Arrests

0 3.1 1.6 2.7 0.7 7.9 4.0

1 30.5 25.3 25.9 26.3 34.8 41.0

2 or 3 45.9 48.2 50.8 47.9 43.1 39.0

4 or 5 12.5 14.7 13.9 15.6 8.6 8.7

6 or more 8.0 10.2 6.7 9.5 5.5 7.2

Average 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.4

Total Number of Convictions

1 26.2 28.6 23.0 31.8 32.5 17.8

2 or 3 45.7 53.0 42.9 48.0 48.9 36.9

4 or 5 15.9 13.0 17.9 13.6 10.6 22.5

6 or more 12.2 5.4 16.2 6.6 8.0 22.9

Average 3.1 2.6 3.5 2.5 2.6 4.1

Total Time Incarcerated During 

Lifetime

Fewer than 6 months 11.9 9.6 2.2 21.0 13.1 13.5

6 months to 1 year 16.4 16.0 9.7 22.3 14.8 19.2

1 to 2 years 24.2 22.1 19.7 22.1 27.1 29.6

2 to 3 years 16.9 22.8 18.0 13.0 13.5 17.7

3 to 5 years 16.6 16.9 28.1 12.3 14.0 11.9

5 or more years 14.1 12.7 22.3 9.2 17.5 8.2

Average (years) 2.5 2.5 3.4 1.9 2.4 2.0

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

B. Service Receipt

With explicit goals of helping ex-offenders get and keep jobs and avoid criminal behavior, 

Beneficiary Choice offered a range of core and supplemental services. DOL specified that all SSPs 

must provide three core services: (1) work readiness training, including soft skills, life skills, and/or 

basic skills training; (2) career counseling, through either one-on-one or group sessions; and 

(3) follow-up services for a minimum of six months after participants exit from the program. The 

original SGA also described a model where SSPs would offer different portfolios of supplemental 

services including counseling, transitional housing, substance abuse and alcohol prevention, child 

care services, mentoring, English proficiency, job placement, GED preparation, job retention 

services, and other supportive services. Participants would work with the grantee or services 

coordinator to select the SSP that offered the package of services that best matched their service 

needs. 

In practice, the site visits suggested less diversity in the service offerings across SSPs than 

initially envisioned in the SGA. As documented in the first implementation report (Bellotti et al. 

2008) and confirmed during the second round site visits, the SSPs appeared to focus their service 

delivery on the central work-first mission of the Beneficiary Choice program. The structure of the 

payment points may have contributed to the narrowing of the service model. As addressed in more 

detail in Chapter VI, service providers were compensated through performance-based contracts for 

providing work readiness training and placing participants in jobs, but very few grantees created 

payment points to award or incentivize other types of service delivery. 
IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

34

This section provides information on the services received by participants as recorded in the 

MIS. The MIS is the best source of information on participants’ service receipt, with three 

important caveats. First, the definition of services appeared to vary across grantees as well as across 

SSPs within an area. For example, career counseling, a service whose definition was relatively vague, 

may have been defined very differently by different service providers. Some SSPs recorded 

delivering career counseling whenever a caseworker had a conversation with a participant about 

potential occupations. Other SSPs used a much more formal definition of career counseling. 

Second, site visits revealed that SSPs and grantees placed less emphasis on recording services that 

were not directly tied to payment points. If SSPs received a payment for providing a work readiness 

service, they were more diligent about recording that service than other supplementary services for 

which they were not compensated. Third, the grantees established different systems for entering 

and monitoring the MIS data and this may have led to variations in data quality. Phoenix, for 

example, had very strong oversight including hiring a full-time quality assurance specialist to monitor 

the accuracy and the completeness of the SSP’s service reporting.

1. Timing and Total Number of Services

Once individuals were actually enrolled in the Beneficiary Choice program, service delivery 

started quickly and almost all program enrollees were served. Across all of the grantees, 97 percent 

of participants received at least one service (see Table IV.4). Almost half of participants (48 percent) 

received a service the day they enrolled in the program, and only 19 percent waited one week or 

more to receive their first service. 

Table IV.4. Rates, Number, and Timing of Service Receipt (Percentages Unless Otherwise Indicated)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Received Any Services After 

Enrollment 97.3 99.8 97.4 98.5 93.1 98.5

Days Between Enrollment and First 

Servicea

0 48.1 95.3 56.4 26.1 25.2 38.4

1 to 7 33.4 3.3 20.8 56.1 37.0 48.2

More than 7 18.5 1.5 22.8 17.8 37.8 13.3

Average (number of days) 6.2 0.8 8.6 4.8 11.8 4.1

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

a

Data pertain only to those participants who received at least one service.

There was substantial variation across the grantees in the timing of the initial service, and this 

time appeared to be correlated with the intensity of pre-enrollment activities. As discussed in 

Chapter III, participants were not officially enrolled until they attended orientation at a services 

coordinator, selected an SSP, and arrived at the SSP for services. In some sites, SSPs also required 

participants to attend some activities to gauge their motivation before officially enrolling them in the 

demonstration. In Phoenix, SSPs provided a service to 95 percent of their participants on the first 

day of enrollment. The grantee encouraged this immediate service provision by associating a 

payment in the structure of their performance-based contracts. The majority of participants in 

Denver also received an immediate service. In contrast, Chicago and Indianapolis only served a 

quarter of their participants on the first day of enrollment. Both of these sites had designated dates 

and times when new participants attended orientation at their selected SSP, resulting in a few days’ 
IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

35

delay before participants began services. Depending on the site’s MIS data entry practices and

assignment of the enrollment date, this could explain some of this variation. Even in these sites, the 

average participant waited no more than two weeks to receive services.

Among the 97 percent of participants who received at least one service, participants received an 

average of eight services from the Beneficiary Choice program (Table IV.5). Almost 30 percent 

received 10 or more services. Variations in the number of services delivered may represent 

something distinct about service provision or could capture differences in service definitions or 

reporting. Some grantees did not establish clear guidelines for providing or recording workforce 

preparation. For example, an SSP could have recorded a weeklong workforce preparation class that 

included resume writing, soft skills, and basic computer training as a single service. By contrast, 

another SSP could have recorded a series of three day-long classes as separate services. As a result, 

differences across grantees in the number of services received must be interpreted with caution.

Table IV.5. Number of Program Services (Percentages Unless Otherwise Indicated)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Received Any Services After 

Enrollment 97.3 99.8 97.4 98.5 93.1 98.5

Number of Services Received Before 

Exita

1 or 2 14.0 0.8 9.6 32.8 15.4 10.8

3 to 5 29.1 9.5 31.4 45.1 28.5 30.0

6 to 9 29.2 47.3 32.4 14.3 23.1 29.7

10 or more 27.7 42.5 26.7 7.8 32.9 29.5

Average (number of services) 7.8 10.4 7.2 4.2 9.2 7.7

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

a

Data pertain only to those participants who received at least one service.

2. Types of Services Received

Consistent with the work-first focus of the program, all of the providers emphasized workforce 

preparation services. According to the MIS, 92 percent of ex-offenders who enrolled at the SSPs 

received work readiness training (Table IV.6). The work readiness training aimed to give 

Table IV.6. Workforce Preparation Services (Percentages)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Any Workforce Preparation Service 95.7 94.3 95.5 97.7 92.9 98.5

Work readiness training 92.1 92.6 90.7 94.1 87.7 96.2

Life/career counseling 47.1 3.7 32.0 39.1 79.4 76.6

Supplementary workforce 

preparation 41.9 58.9 31.5 20.4 59.7 36.6

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Data pertain only to those participants who received at least one service.
IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

36

participants the tools and skills to get and keep jobs. Based on interviews with SSP staff and 

observation of activities, work readiness activities often included resume writing, interviewing skills, 

basic computer skills training, and teaching workplace norms, such as how to dress, the importance 

of showing up on time, and workplace conflict resolution. Although some SSPs conducted these 

activities on an individual basis, most of them appeared to address job readiness skills through group 

sessions.

Beyond work readiness training, the SSPs provided career counseling and other supplementary 

workforce preparation services to a subset of participants. Career counseling tended to be informal 

conversations between SSP case managers and participants about the types of occupations that both 

appealed to the participant and matched his or her skills. In many cases, the counselor needed to

work with participants to temper unrealistic expectations about the first job placement, but also to 

discuss how this first placement might be the start of a career pathway. Although career counseling 

was a required core service, fewer than half of participants (47 percent) had career counseling as a 

reported service. Reported career counseling was particularly low in Phoenix. According to the

MIS, only four percent of participants in Phoenix received career counseling. The very low rate of 

career counseling may result from the fact that such counseling was not linked to SSP payment 

benchmarks or reported by the grantee in the DOL performance measures. On the other hand, the 

grantee also placed a strong emphasis on immediate job placement, and this may not have left 

substantial room for intensive career counseling. 

After receiving basic workforce services, most participants quickly began to search for jobs. 

While the MIS data does not capture job search assistance offered by the SSPs, site visit interviews 

and observations provide information on the strategies used in the 10 SSPs selected for in-depth 

interviews. Job search appears to be largely or entirely self-directed and self-initiated at five of the 10 

SSPs. At these programs, participants were given some job listings or leads by SSP staff but 

conducted job search activities mostly on their own. One local staff member reported that he did 

not have time for job development with employers, and another reported “We don’t go out and get 

the job for them.” By contrast, the remaining five SSPs provided at least some staff-directed job 

search assistance. All of these providers had relationships with local employers, although the extent 

and number of these relationships varied based on the size and experience of the SSP. Staff 

members were able to place some participants in jobs at these local businesses through direct 

referrals. While participants were encouraged to job hunt on their own, staff members at these SSPs 

also offered job leads on an on-going basis and provided more intensive one-on-one assistance.

In addition to workforce preparation services, some SSPs also offered education or training 

services to participants either before or during their job search. Despite the facts that more than 40 

percent of participants lacked a high school diploma or GED and many had limited work skills, only 

20 percent received some form of education or job training service (Table IV.7). In three sites, 

fewer than 15 percent received these services. Due to the focus on rapid employment, local staff 

members in these sites reported that they tended not to encourage participants to enter these 

activities. Additionally, the payment points for these sites were not generally structured to reward 

these activities. By contrast, 45 and 31 percent of participants in Denver and Indianapolis, 

respectively, received education and training services. To provide additional support to participants 

beyond those available using grant funds, Denver leveraged state workforce funds to provide 

vocational training in asbestos abatement, hazardous materials, and forklift operations. In 

Indianapolis, several SSPs offered GED courses, one offered a transitional employment program 

that included on-the-job training as an integral component, another offered an on-the-job training 

subsidy as a short-term strategy for participants who were having difficulty finding permanent 

employment, and several SSPs worked with participants to enroll them in local community colleges.
IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

37

Table IV.7. Education and Job Training Services (Percentages Unless Otherwise Indicated)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Any Education or Training 20.1 3.7 44.5 12.7 30.5 7.1

Vocational or occupational skills

training 10.4 0.0 40.8 9.6 1.9 0.7

GED preparation 3.4 2.0 0.4 1.3 11.5 0.7

On-the-job training 2.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 6.7 0.2

Math or reading remediation 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.9

Other education or training 7.1 1.8 5.2 2.1 18.8 5.5

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Data pertain only to those participants who received at least one service.

As discussed in Chapter III, few grantees used their links to the One-Stop Career system to 

provide education and training opportunities for their participants. In Indianapolis, the service 

coordinator was the One-Stop Career Center and did encourage participants to co-enroll in the 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) program, but few participants received services beyond the initial 

less-intense WIA core services. Participants may have lacked the educational credentials necessary 

to take advantage of the occupational training opportunities. An additional consideration is that the 

immediate need for income and a stable job to meet parole requirements may have discouraged 

participants from enrolling in a lengthy education or training program. 

By allowing participants to select their own provider, the demonstration was intended to ensure 

a good match between service offerings and participants’ specific needs. The vast majority of 

participants were receiving at least some supplemental services. However, despite the fact that SSPs 

offered a wide range of supplemental services to participants, the emphasis on and incentives to 

rapidly place participants in full-time employment appear to have limited the number of participants 

taking advantage of the diversity in service offerings. Table IV.8 shows the proportion of 

participants who received the following key types of supplemental services: 

• Supportive Services. About 84 percent of participants across all sites received at least 

some supportive service (Table IV.8). Transportation assistance was the most common 

type with the majority of participants (55 percent) across sites receiving this assistance. 

More than a quarter received other supportive services, which commonly included 

clothing, tools and work supplies, and food assistance. Many of these were provided by 

tapping into other existing programs offered by the SSPs. The demonstration involved 

very few custodial parents, which explains the low take-up of child care services (less 

than 1 percent). Grantees and SSPs in three sites reported that SSPs used contract 

payments primarily to support staff salaries and were, therefore, unable to provide 

supportive services at the level needed by this population without a separate funding 

stream.

• Health Services. The use of health services ranged from no participation in Chicago to 

more than a third in Phoenix. In that site, the high rate reflected the distribution of 

“hygiene shoebox kits” to about a third of enrollees. In addition, many listed as 

receiving health services were tested for drug use through urinalysis. Denver also 

reported providing substance abuse treatment to nearly 20 percent of participants.
IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

38

Table IV.8. Other Supplemental Services (Percentages)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Any Supportive Service 83.9 98.9 92.2 77.7 72.5 80.1

Transportation services 55.1 94.7 55.1 72.8 28.8 28.0

Needs-related payments 3.7 0.4 8.2 0.2 5.8 3.5

Child care services 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0

Other supportive services 28.5 54.3 30.2 4.7 25.7 28.9

Any Health Services 14.1 33.9 19.0 0.0 9.7 9.1

Any Community Involvement 

Activities 1.8 1.3 3.9 0.2 1.9 1.5

Any Mentoring 19.9 6.1 53.3 4.5 5.2 32.9

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Data pertain only to those participants who received at least one service.

• Community Involvement. Sites rarely involved participants in community involvement 

activities such as volunteer work. Fewer than four percent of participants across any site 

were engaged in community service.

• Mentoring. About 20 percent of participants attended at least one mentoring session. 

The rate was particularly high in Denver with 53 percent of participants involved in 

mentoring. The mentoring delivered under the Beneficiary Choice program was 

generally unstructured and often involved staff mentors rather than volunteer mentors 

from the community.

In addition to work readiness training and career counseling, all SSPs were required to provide 

six months of follow-up services. Follow-ups with participants after program exit allowed case 

managers to track outcomes as well as to provide additional support for clients. Overall, 57 percent 

of participants received a follow-up service (Figure IV.2). Grantees and SSPs used different 

strategies to increase participant retention. Phoenix was very actively involved in follow-up and 

encouraged its SSPs to use supportive services, primarily transportation vouchers, as an incentive for 

participants to remain connected. Perhaps as a result, the receipt of follow-up services was greatest 

in Phoenix. Chicago and Des Moines had lower rates of follow-up services. 

Notably, while the indirect funding stream in the Beneficiary Choice model allowed for the 

possibility of faith-infused services, the site visits found little evidence that SSPs chose to provide 

faith-infused services. As discussed in Chapter II, most of the providers were CBOs, and even the 

FBOs tended to provide secular core services. Both faith-infused providers involved in the first 

round of site visits served few participants and had dropped out by the time of the second site visit. 

One new faith-infused provider was added in Indianapolis but had only enrolled nine participants by 

the time of the second site visit. Since the MIS did not allow for tracking of these services, site visit 

observations and interviews provided the only information on faith-infused services.
IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

39

Figure IV.2. Receipt of Any Follow-Up Services, by Site

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

There were some subgroup differences in service receipt, but many of them stemmed from the 

different approaches of the grantees. Findings on service delivery by demographic subgroup are 

reported in Appendix Table C.

C. Overall Picture of Service Receipt

Given the extensive service needs of ex-offenders, the Beneficiary Choice model was a relatively 

light-touch program. Ex-offenders return to the community with a myriad of issues—low levels of 

education, problems with substance abuse, limited work histories, unstable housing, and the mark of 

a criminal record. The Beneficiary Choice model aimed to provide these ex-offenders with the 

services they needed to get into the labor force quickly. More than 40 percent participated for less 

than 1 month (Table IV.9). For those who participated for at least a day, the average length of

participation was 1.8 months.

Table IV.9. Length of Receipt of Program Services in Months (Percentages Unless Otherwise 

Indicated)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Length of Program Services in 

Months

Fewer than 1 43.0 61.0 29.9 48.2 24.4 50.6

1 to 2 23.8 19.0 24.3 22.3 21.9 30.9

2 to 3 13.1 9.3 17.2 13.5 14.1 11.5

3 or more 20.1 1.8 28.7 15.9 39.6 7.0

Average (number of months) 1.8 1.2 2.4 1.5 2.8 1.2

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

57

70

64

44

58

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Overall Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines, 

IA

Percentage of Participants
IV. Participant Characteristics and Services Use Mathematica Policy Research

40

Note: Data pertain only to those participants who received at least one service.

There was some variation across the grantees in the length of the service delivery and this 

differential reflected the program models pursued by various grantees. In the sites that emphasized 

job placement over education or training (Phoenix, Chicago, and Des Moines), participants spent 1.5 

months or less enrolled in the program on average. The two grantees that invested in education and 

training had longer average program enrollments—2.4 months for Denver and 2.8 months for 

Indianapolis. MIS data confirmed that the average length of program enrollment was almost twice 

as long for participants who received education or job training services.

The optimal service model and program duration is an unanswered question, but the MIS data 

on service delivery do provide important framing for considering the employment and criminal 

justice outcomes discussed in the next chapter. In the case of Indianapolis, the grantee recognized 

that educational deficiencies might prevent participants from achieving labor market success, so the 

SSPs placed a stronger emphasis on GED preparation. In Denver, the grantee recognized that the 

jobs available for ex-offenders with limited skills were not the types of jobs that lead to economic 

self-sufficiency. As a result, the SSPs worked to provide relatively short, but intensive occupational 

training programs with clear links to employers. 
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

41

V. EMPLOYMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOMES

Upon release from incarceration, ex-offenders often face a range of challenges, including 

significant barriers to employment. To address these concerns, Federal policymakers began in the 

late 1990s to shift their focus and resources to initiatives aimed at helping ex-offenders successfully 

reintegrate into society. The Beneficiary Choice model followed this tradition by seeking to address 

the specific workforce challenges of ex-offenders. By facilitating reentry into the labor market, 

Beneficiary Choice aimed to improve employment outcomes and reduce recidivism in the long run.

This chapter examines the employment and criminal justice outcomes of program participants. 

Although the primary source of outcome data is the demonstration MIS, the analysis also reported 

findings from the collection of state-level criminal justice administrative records.

A. Employment Outcomes

Both the participants and the service providers had incentives to focus on quick placements in 

unsubsidized employment. For the participants, the desire for job placement was usually what 

brought them to the program. Although ex-offenders may recognize that they have a myriad of 

service needs, their most immediate need is for income. Additionally, parole conditions usually 

require stable employment. The service providers also had reasons to focus on immediate job 

placement. As discussed in Chapter VI, DOL performance measures provided incentives for the 

grantees to structure their performance-based contracts with SSPs to emphasize immediate job 

placement instead of lengthy investments in education and training. In Phoenix, the initial 

performance-based contract structure associated the most lucrative payment point with placement in 

Key Findings

• Overall, 65 percent of participants received a placement in unsubsidized employment. 

Placements were made an average of nine weeks after employment. Among those 

participants placed in jobs, 72 percent worked a full-time schedule during their first 

week at work and earned an average of $9.23 per hour.

• Within the average job placement rate of 65 percent, there was fairly substantial 

variation across the grantees. The placement rates in Phoenix, Denver, and Des 

Moines exceeded 75 percent; Chicago and Indianapolis had placement rates of 48 and 

44 percent, respectively.

• Differences in placement rates across grantees might be partially attributable to 

familiarity with the MIS and differences in participant characteristics and local 

economic conditions. Chicago and Indianapolis had substantially more participants 

who faced significant barriers to employment, and Chicago also had the highest 

unemployment rate.

• Participants continued to have significant rates of criminal justice involvement, with 

34 percent rearrested for a new crime within one year of release. Research suggests 

that these levels, however, are lower than the national re-arrest rate for the types of 

offenders served by the Beneficiary Choice program.

• Despite grantees’ efforts to validate their outcomes data, the MIS data severely 

underreported arrests for new crimes.
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

42

unsubsidized employment within 21 days of enrollment. In other sites, the emphasis on the timing 

of the job placement was not as central, but service providers generally received a large payment 

after the initial job placement.

1. Overall Job Placement Rates

Overall, 65 percent of participants received a placement in unsubsidized employment 

(Table V.1). This overall placement rate of 65 percent occurred during a period of high 

unemployment and with a population of ex-offenders who faced significant barriers to employment. 

There was some variation in the job placement rate for different demographic groups. Female exoffenders were more likely to have a job placement than males. The job placement rate also 

increased with age. Although only 53 percent of the youngest participants were placed, the 

placement rate for participants 25 and older was 68 percent. The placement rate also differed by the 

race and ethnicity of participants. White participants had a 78 percent placement rate, compared 

with 55 percent for Blacks and 63 percent for American Indians. Hispanic participants had higher 

placement rates than non-Hispanic participants.8

Table V.1. Job Placement Rate, by Demographic Characteristics

 Job placement rates also increased with the 

education level of the participants.

Placed in Unsubsidized Employment

All Participants 64.5

Gender

Male 63.6

Female 71.2

Age at Enrollment 53.0

Younger than 22 64.2

22-24 68.2

25 or older

Race

White 76.7

Black 54.1

American Indian or Alaskan Native 62.8

Other 62.7

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino Origin 72.5

Non-Hispanic 63.7

Education

High school dropout 53.8

GED 76.0

High school graduate 80.1

Sample Size 2,382

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based on participants with nonmissing data.

GED = general educational development.

 8 As discussed in a following section, there were significant differences in the demographic composition of 

participants across sites, which could confound the interpretation of these subgroup differences.
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

43

For those participants who received a job placement, the placement occurred relatively quickly. 

Although this demonstration was implemented during a recession, the average placement was made 

nine weeks after enrollment. More than 20 percent of individuals with job placements were placed

within their first two weeks of program participation (Figure V.1).

Figure V.1. Weeks to Job Placement

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Although initial job placement is one important indicator of participant success, DOL also 

required grantees to assess employment patterns after participants exited the program. A participant 

is defined as an exiter when he or she has not received any services (excluding supportive services) 

for 90 consecutive calendar days. The date of exit was applied retroactively to the last date of 

service. Post-exit measures begin to reveal how participants fared after they are no longer receiving 

services. One challenge in interpreting these measures is that many grantees had difficulty tracking 

participants over time. In particular, grantees were able to record outcome data on only 68 percent 

of participants during the first quarter after their exit.

Almost 60 percent of Beneficiary Choice participants who had exited the program and been out 

of the program for one full quarter were employed for at least one day during that first post-exit 

quarter (Table V.2). This represents the most conservative estimate—or lower bound—because it 

assumes that all participants without a follow-up record were unemployed. Among those who had a 

follow-up record, grantees reported that 85 percent were employed in the first quarter. This likely 

represents an upper bound, as it assumes that those with missing data have rates of employment that 

are comparable to those without missing data.

The employment rate among exiters reaching the second- and third-quarter benchmarks 

dropped to 50 and 45 percent, respectively, assuming that participants with missing records were 

unemployed. This lower proportion could be largely due to grantees’ difficulty tracking participants 

over time, as the employment percentage among those with a record remained high at 86 and 84 

percent in those respective quarters. When restricting the sample to only those participants who 

were employed in the first quarter after exit and were successfully tracked in the second and third 

quarters, 66 percent retained employment for at least one day in all three quarters after exit. 

21.5

17.5

14.5

22.6

23.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Less than 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 12 12 or more 

Number of Weeks
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

44

Table V.2. Follow-Up Employment Outcomes

Percentage of 

Participants Sample Size

Employed in First Quarter After Exit 

Among all those who completed the first quarter after exita 58.3 2,156

Among those with a first quarter followup

Employed in first quarter after exitb 85.3 1,474

Employed in Second Quarter After Exit 

Among all those who completed the second quarter after exita 50.3 1,966

Among those with a second quarter followup

Employed in second quarter after exitb 86.4 1,145

Hourly wage second quarter after exitb $9.78 937

Employed in Third Quarter After Exit 

Among all those who completed the third quarter after exita 45.1 1,639

Among those with a third quarter followup

Employed in third quarter after exitb 84.3 878

Hourly wage third quarter after exitb $9.99 709

Employed in All Three Quarters After Exit Among Those Who Were Employed in 

the First Quarter After Exitb 66.4 992

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Notes: Data pertain only to those individuals who exited from Beneficiary Choice as a result of not having 

services for 90 days. Employment is defined as holding a job for at least one day during a specified 

quarter.

a

Includes all exiters and assumes that those without a follow-up record were not employed.

b

Includes only those who had a follow-up record for the appropriate benchmark.

Grantees were required to record information on the wages that participants received during the 

second and third quarters after exit. Those with jobs in the second and third quarters after exit 

earned an average of $9.78 and $9.99 per hour, respectively.

2. Variation in Outcomes Across Grantees

Behind the average job placement rate of 65 percent, there was fairly substantial variation across 

the grantees. The placement rates in Phoenix, Denver, and Des Moines exceeded 75 percent; 

Chicago and Indianapolis had placement rates of 48 and 44 percent, respectively (Figure V.2). There 

was also variation in the timing of the initial placement. Phoenix and Des Moines were particularly 

quick to find job placements for participants, with both sites averaging fewer than 7 weeks to 

placement (Table V.3). In Chicago and Indianapolis, the placements took almost twice as long, even 

though they were placing a smaller share of their participants. Although many of the Denver 

participants received intensive occupational training, the average time from program enrollment to 

job placement was 8.6 weeks and less than a quarter of placed participants took longer than 12 

weeks to find a job. On the other hand, Denver participants who received training did take almost 

twice as long to receive a job placement.

Although rapid job placement might have satisfied the immediate needs of the clients, the 

implications of immediate job placement for longer-term employment outcomes are unknown. 

Grantees were not required to enter data in the MIS on the date that a job ended, resulting in poor 

data on job tenure. In addition, SSPs might not have been motivated to enter data on additional 

jobs beyond the first placement if they were not financially rewarded for those replacements. 

Despite these limitations, there was some evidence that initial job placements might have been 
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

45

Figure V.2. Placements in Unsubsidized Employment, by Site

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Table V.3. Timing and Number of Placements in Unsubsidized Employment, by Site (Percentages 

Unless Otherwise Indicated)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Weeks from Enrollment to Initial 

Placement

Fewer than 2 21.5 26.3 27.2 9.4 14.2 23.3

2–4 17.5 22.0 12.2 16.1 10.9 23.9

4–6 14.5 17.1 15.0 12.5 12.6 14.2

6–12 22.6 18.8 22.3 24.6 23.9 24.7

12 or more 23.9 15.9 23.4 37.5 38.5 13.9

Average 9.0 6.7 8.6 13.6 12.8 6.4

Number of Placements

1 70.3 54.9 66.6 80.8 71.1 81.9

2 22.0 28.6 25.3 17.4 21.8 15.3

3 or more 7.7 16.5 8.2 1.8 7.1 2.8

Average 1.38 1.64 1.47 1.22 1.42 1.22

Sample Size 1,537 346 368 224 239 360

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Data reflect patterns among only those participants who were placed in at least one job.

relatively short term. Compared with other sites, Phoenix, which had the quickest placements, 

experienced higher rates of re-placements as participants cycled in and out of jobs. More than 40 

percent of Phoenix participants who were successfully placed in jobs had more than one placement 

(Table V.3). Grantee staff reported that many participants were young and not ready to settle into a 

job. There might also have been an inherent trade-off between quick placement and good job 

matches. Staff members feared that high job turnover rates not only had negative consequences for 
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

46

participants (for example, loss of income and decreased self-esteem), but also might have deterred 

employers from hiring participants from the program in the future. 

Placement in high quality jobs was also a leading priority of the demonstration. Based on 

performance standards set by DOL, grantees aimed to place participants in full-time positions (at 

least 35 hours per week) with average earnings of $9.22 per hour or more. Among those 

participants placed in jobs, 72 percent worked a full-time schedule during their first week at work 

and earned an average of $9.23 per hour (Table V.4). At these wages and an average of 35.4 hours 

per week, the average potential weekly earnings were estimated at $327 per week (or $17,004 per 

year). Although the average wage met the DOL performance standard, this overall statistic was 

driven up by the wages of Denver participants, who received an average of $10.96 an hour, at least 

$2.00 more per hour than the average wage in the remaining four sites. This higher wage level is 

striking and highlights the potential importance of the specialized training opportunities offered by 

Denver. With occupational training ̧ the ex-offenders were able to obtain higher-paying positions in 

fields such as asbestos abatement, hazardous materials handling, and forklift operating (all included 

in the construction and extraction category).

Table V.4. Job Characteristics of Initial Placement, by Site (Percentages Unless Otherwise Indicated)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver,

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Hourly Wage in Initial Placement

Less than $7.25 5.6 9.3 3.0 0.5 17.6 0.3

$7.25 11.3 12.1 1.1 0.5 10.5 28.3

$7.26–$8.49 29.2 31.8 16.9 48.7 36.8 22.2

$8.50-$9.99 22.6 19.1 21.5 39.7 11.7 23.9

$10.00 14.3 14.7 20.4 7.6 13.0 12.8

$10.01-$14.99 12.6 11.6 22.6 3.1 10.0 10.8

$15.00 or more 4.3 1.5 14.7 0.0 0.4 1.7

Average $9.23 $8.72 $10.96 $8.74 $8.41 $8.79

Hours Worked in First Week in 

Initial Placement

Fewer than 35 27.9 29.8 16.3 38.4 52.3 15.3

35 or more 72.1 70.2 83.7 61.6 47.7 84.7

Average 35.4 35.6 37.0 35.3 29.9 37.4

Occupation of Initial Placement

Food preparation and serving 

related 22.1 13.9 15.2 13.4 28.9 38.1

Construction and extraction 16.9 12.1 41.3 2.2 7.5 11.7

Production 15.7 12.7 5.2 32.1 18.0 17.8

Installation, maintenance, and 

repair 13.7 27.8 15.8 4.9 8.8 6.9

Sales and related 9.0 6.4 5.7 25.5 5.4 7.2

Building and grounds cleaning 

and maintenance 8.1 10.1 3.8 8.9 10.9 8.3

Transportation and material 

moving 4.9 6.1 4.6 0 11.3 2.8

Office and administrative 

support 2.9 2.9 3.8 3.6 1.3 2.5

Personal care and service 2.2 3.2 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.7

Other 4.5 4.9 2.7 7.6 5.8 3.1

Sample Size 1,537 346 368 224 239 360

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Data reflect patterns among only those participants who were placed in at least one job.
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

47

The average hourly wage was remarkably constant across the four remaining sites, but there 

were important differences in the distribution of wages. Many of the Phoenix, Indianapolis, and 

Des Moines participants received a wage at or below the Federal minimum wage of $7.25. The 

Chicago participants benefited from the higher Illinois state minimum wage.9

Placements most often occurred in jobs in the food preparation and service-related occupations 

(22 percent), followed closely by jobs in construction and extraction (17 percent) and production (16 

percent). As discussed previously, most of the construction and extraction jobs were in Denver. 

Phoenix placed nearly 30 percent of its participants in installation, maintenance, and repair 

occupations, whereas Chicago placed almost a quarter of its participants in sales occupations. 

 Although Chicago 

participants did not receive the lowest wages, their overall distribution of wages was compressed and 

few received an hourly wage of $10.00 or more. 

The variation across grantees in post-exit employment outcomes was consistent with patterns in 

the initial employment outcomes. Under the more conservative calculation, which assumed that 

those individuals without a follow-up record were not employed, the employment rate in the first 

post-exit quarter ranged from a low of 32 percent among Indianapolis participants to a high of 77 

percent among Des Moines participants (Table V.5). One potential reason for Indianapolis’s low 

post-exit employment rate was that Indianapolis had the most difficulty tracking participants over 

time. Only 41 percent of Indianapolis participants had recorded post-exit outcome data. Tracking 

participants beyond the first quarter after exit was even more difficult for grantees. Although the 

amount of valid reporting data declined, the patterns remained consistent with earlier quarters. The 

employment outcomes were more positive for Phoenix, Denver, and Des Moines participants than 

for those in other cities.

3. Understanding Variations in Outcomes

The performance of grantees on employment outcomes varied widely, but it would be 

inappropriate to attribute all of this variation to differences in the implementation of the Beneficiary 

Choice program model across the sites. In addition to differences in service delivery across the 

grantees, there are three observable factors that provide context for understanding the variations in 

employment outcomes: (1) experience with the MIS and DOL performance measures, (2) 

differences in participant populations, and (3) differences in local economic conditions.

The first factor that might have resulted in variations in employment outcomes was the 

grantee’s experience with the MIS and its focus on ensuring complete reporting. In particular, both 

Phoenix and Des Moines had been operating Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) grants since 2005. As 

PRI grantees, both were familiar with the MIS and had established formal processes for monitoring 

and tracking employment outcomes before the Beneficiary Choice demonstration. This experience

might have enabled them to report more job placements. In addition, services coordinators in both 

sites hired staff devoted to ensuring the accuracy of the MIS data. In Phoenix, a quality assurance 

specialist was responsible for monitoring and tracking outcomes. In Des Moines, the program 

manager reportedly spent most of her time reviewing and updating the service use and outcomes 

data. Indianapolis, by contrast, was unfamiliar with the MIS. In the early stages of the 

 9 The Illinois minimum wage increased from $7.75 in the initial months of the program to $8.00 and increased 

again to $8.25 on July 1, 2010. (See http://www.state.il.us/agency/idol/News/pdfs/mw.pdf accessed October 25, 

2010.)
48

Table V.5. Follow-Up Employment Outcomes, by Site

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN 

Des Moines, 

IA

Percent

Sample 

Size Percent

Sample 

Size Percent

Sample 

Size Percent

Sample 

Size Percent

Sample 

Size Percent

Sample 

Size

Employed in First Quarter After Exit 

Among all those who completed the 

first quarter after exita 58.3 2,156 65.5 438 73.1 449 39.8 415 31.8 403 77.4 451

Among those with a first quarter 

followup

Employed in first quarter after exitb 85.3 1,474 95.0 302 97.3 337 71.7 230 76.7 167 79.7 438

Employed in Second Quarter After Exit 

Among all those who completed the 

second quarter after exita 50.3 1,966 57.1 410 62.7 440 33.4 401 23.5 341 70.9 374

Among those with a second quarter 

followup

Employed in second quarter after 

exitb 86.4 1,145 96.3 243 93.9 294 83.8 160 77.7 103 76.8 345

Hourly wage second quarter after 

exitb $9.78 937 $9.55 217 $11.21 268 $8.97 132 $8.69 63 $9.16 257

Employed in Third Quarter After Exit 

Among all those who completed the 

third quarter after exita 45.1 1,639 48.9 331 56.1 399 30.9 330 15 274 69.2 305

Among those with a third quarter 

followup

Employed in third quarter after exitb 84.3 878 94.2 172 89.6 250 92.7 110 56.9 72 77 274

Hourly wage third quarter after exitb $9.99 709 $9.91 148 $11.22 221 $9.36 96 $8.40 34 $9.30 210

Employed in All Three Quarters After 

Exit Among Those Who Were Employed 

in the First Quarter After Exitb 66.4 992 67.3 226 67.9 290 62.4 141 36.8 87 76.6 248

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Notes: Data pertain only to those individuals who exited from Beneficiary Choice as a result of not having services for 90 days. Employment is defined 

as holding a job for at least one day during a specified quarter.

a

Includes all exiters and assumes that those without a follow-up record were not employed.

b

Includes only those who had a follow-up record for the appropriate benchmark.
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

49

demonstration, Indianapolis struggled to document placements and post-exit employment. As of 

the first round of site visits, Indianapolis reported job placements for only 25 percent of participants 

(Bellotti et al. 2008). Although Indianapolis’ final placement rate of 45 percent was one of the lower 

placement rates, it was a significant improvement from the grantee’s early performance. 

Improvements in service delivery might have affected placements, but Indianapolis staff also 

emphasized during site visit interviews that they made significant efforts to improve documentation 

and reporting.

A second factor that might have contributed to the observed variations in performance was the 

differences in the participant populations served by each of the grantees. Although all of the 

participants were relatively young ex-offenders, some ex-offenders faced greater barriers to 

employment. A recent survey showed that employers reported that their hesitancy to hire exoffenders varied with the characteristics of the ex-offender (Holzer et al. 2003). Employers were 

strongly averse to hiring ex-offenders charged with violent offenses and somewhat averse to those 

who were recently released from prison and those without work experience. Employer resistance 

has likely been magnified since the Holzer et al. (2003) survey because the current economic 

conditions have increased the number of individuals without a criminal record who were willing to 

accept low-skilled, entry-level positions. Job applicants with low levels of education are at a further 

disadvantage. Racial discrimination can also limit the employment options of ex-offenders. 

Findings from a labor market audit study in Milwaukee suggest that race and criminal records 

interact to severely disadvantage black ex-offender applicants (Pager 2003). The influence of a 

criminal record on the probability of receiving a job offer was 40 percent larger for Blacks than for 

Whites.

Following the literature on some of the additional barriers that ex-offenders face in the labor 

market, we constructed a simple measure of employment barriers defined by age, education, race, 

and offense type. The four barriers to employment were being young (participants younger than 25 

at enrollment), a high school dropout, Black, or a violent offender. Being young serves as a proxy 

for limited work experience. Ideally this measure would include other labor market barriers, such as 

mental health status and substance abuse, but the MIS data on these measures were self-reported 

and missing for many participants.

This measure of employment barriers highlights the strong challenges facing the Beneficiary 

Choice participants. More than a quarter of participants had three or more employment barriers 

(Table V.6). The participants served by Chicago and Indianapolis were particularly disadvantaged. 

One-third of Indianapolis’ participants had three or more barriers. In Chicago, the site with the 

most disadvantaged population, nearly 60 percent of participants faced three or more barriers to 

employment, all compounding the initial barrier of being a recently released ex-offender. 

Consistent with expectations, the observed job placement rates declined as the barriers to 

employment increased. Although the overall job placement rate was 65 percent, the placement rate 

was 81 percent for participants with no additional barriers and 49 percent for participants with three 

or more barriers (Table V.7). The sites with the lowest placement rates had fewer easier-to-place 

clients (no more than 6 percent without additional barriers). For participants without additional 

barriers, Chicago had a placement rate of 71 percent and Indianapolis had a placement rate of 50 

percent. 
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

50

Table V.6. Employment Barriers of Beneficiary Choice Participants, by Site (Percentages)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Young (< 25) 45.0 40.3 39.7 49.7 48.1 46.4

High School Dropout 49.4 26.3 34.1 83.2 56.9 44.4

Black 50.2 17.7 28.5 83.4 74.7 41.5

Violent Offender 32.6 32.4 36.1 45.4 21.0 29.8

Number of Barriers

0 12.8 25.2 18.4 1.5 5.9 14.3

1 29.6 42.0 39.3 9.3 24.7 34.0

2 30.7 25.4 29.2 32.1 36.4 29.6

3 or more 26.9 7.4 13.2 57.1 32.9 22.1

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Table V.7. Job Placement Rates, by Employment Barriers and Site

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Overall 64.5 75.7 79.5 47.6 44.4 79.5

Number of Barriers

0 80.9 80.9 82.4 71.4 50.0 95.4

1 73.0 75.5 81.3 59.1 50.4 83.8

2 63.1 72.4 80.7 52.3 47.4 72.4

3 or more 49.0 70.6 67.2 42.4 35.6 72.0

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Differences in the participant population across sites also contributed to the observed 

differences in the average time elapsed between program enrollment and job placement (Table V.8). 

In most sites, participants with no additional barriers found jobs more quickly than participants with 

greater barriers, but the differences were not dramatic.10

Table V.8. Weeks from Program Enrollment to Initial Placement, by Employment Barriers and Site

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Overall 9.0 6.7 8.6 13.6 12.8 6.4

Number of Barriers

0 5.8 4.8 6.5 4.8 10.8 5.4

1 8.8 7.5 9.9 14.4 10.8 6.7

2 9.7 6.9 8.2 12.2 15.1 6.5

3 or more 11.1 8.3 8.7 14.7 12.1 6.8

Sample Size 1,537 346 368 224 239 360

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Data reflect patterns among only those participants who were placed in at least one job.

 10 Although the difference in Chicago appears dramatic, with participants with no barriers placed in five weeks and 

other participants placed in 12 or more weeks, only 1.5 percent of Chicago participants had no barriers to employment.
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

51

This analysis highlights some of the challenges faced by ex-offenders in Chicago and 

Indianapolis, but differences in observed barriers to employment do not fully explain differences in 

the overall placement rates. Although Phoenix, Denver, and Des Moines had fewer participants 

with employment barriers, their placement rates for hard-to-place participants exceeded the 

placement rates that Chicago and Indianapolis achieved with their easier-to-place participants. It is 

difficult to know the reasons for this. It could be that having a participant population that consisted 

primarily of the hardest-to-serve participants created additional challenges by stretching staff 

resources or making it more difficult to form relationships with employers.

A third factor that might have contributed to the observed variations in grantee performance 

was the local economic conditions. All of the metropolitan areas served by Beneficiary Choice had 

sharp increases in unemployment during the demonstration (Figure V.3). In January 2008, the 

metropolitan unemployment rates ranged from 4.4 percent in Des Moines to 5.9 percent in Chicago. 

Unemployment rose throughout 2008 and for the first half of 2009. In some of the cities, 

unemployment has continued to increase. At its peak, unemployment reached 7.1 percent in Des 

Moines and 11.7 percent in Chicago. The unemployment rate for less-skilled ex-offenders was likely 

substantially higher.

Figure V.3. Unemployment Rate in Metropolitan Areas

Source: Local area unemployment statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Downloaded from 

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?la on 11/9/2010.

As the recession deepened and unemployment rates increased, sites reported that it was harder 

to arrange job placements for program participants. In particular, staff reported that it was taking 

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Local Unemployment Rate

Indianapolis

Phoenix

Denver

Des Moines

Chicago
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

52

longer to find placements. Certain grantees had restricted employment placement options. In the 

early phase of Beneficiary Choice, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) had been a significant 

employer of program participants. As CTA faced job cuts, these positions were no longer available. 

The actual employment outcomes did not reflect the challenges of the recession, with no clear trend 

of worsening employment outcomes. One possible reason that the impact of the recession was not 

evident was the confounding of changes in economic conditions with other programmatic changes 

in Beneficiary Choice. As the SSPs matured and weaker SSPs withdrew from the demonstration, the 

outcomes of participants might have been improving over time holding economic conditions 

constant.

B. Criminal Justice Outcomes

Reducing recidivism was one of the primary goals of the Beneficiary Choice program. DOL 

expected sites to track the criminal justice involvement of participants for the first year after their 

release from incarceration. Although the grantees were required to verify the data recorded in the 

MIS, there were concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the reported information. As a 

result, the evaluation team also collected administrative criminal justice data directly from the states. 

The team was able to collect data for all of the Beneficiary Choice states except Arizona.11

The two data sources have different strengths and weaknesses. The MIS might be more 

comparable across the grantees because they all followed DOL reporting instructions. However the 

quality of MIS criminal justice data was affected by variations in data monitoring and the 

completeness of reporting, as well as differences in access to administrative data sources for 

verification. The state-level administrative data have a more complete record of arrests, but there 

are important differences in the policies and procedures in the state reporting systems that make it 

difficult to obtain comparable estimates. For more information on the administrative data sources, 

see Appendix A.2.

Because all of the Beneficiary Choice participants were recently released ex-offenders, we would 

expect almost all would be matched in the administrative data. Overall, more than 90 percent of 

participants were matched to state administrative data (Table V.9). The participants least likely to 

have a state record match were those released from Federal prisons.

1. Overall Arrest and Re-Incarceration Rates

The primary outcome measure was arrests for a new crime, subsequent to program enrollment, 

within 12 months of release. One advantage of using arrests as the primary outcome measure is that 

arrests are more consistently reported in the state administrative data than court dispositions, and 

the reporting is immediate. An arrest that occurs within the first 12 months might not have a 

disposition for another 12 months. We also discuss re-incarcerations within 12 months. Although 

 11 Arizona restricts access to the state criminal justice data repository and accessing these records requires approval 

from a series of individuals, including the state attorney general. Given the time line of data collection, we were unable to 

use criminal justice data from Arizona.
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

53

Table V.9. Match Rate Between MIS and State Administrative Criminal Justice Records

All Participants

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Overall 93 94 98 88 92

Federal prison 83 82 100 0 80

State prison 95 95 98 91 93

County or city jail 85 100 100 83 NA

Sample Size 1,477 439 341 373 324

Sources: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010 and state 

administrative data.

Note: Only includes participants enrolled by June 30, 2009.

NA = not applicable.

these re-incarcerations could result from a new crime, they were frequently the result of technical 

violations of probation or parole that occurred within the same period.

According to the MIS, only eight percent of participants were re-arrested for a new crime in the 

year after release (Table V.10). The arrest rate recorded by each of the grantees is reported in 

Appendix Table D.1. Because grantees entered a criminal justice outcome for almost all participants, 

this percentage was not sensitive to assumptions about the recidivism outcomes of those with 

missing data. A re-arrest rate of eight percent would be a very promising policy outcome, but some 

of the recorded re-arrest rates seemed implausibly low. In the most recent comprehensive study of 

recidivism nationwide, 30 percent of released offenders were re-arrested with the first six months 

and 44 percent were rearrested within 12 months (Langan and Levin 2002). Because of uncertainty 

about the completeness of the MIS data, the remainder of the analysis uses the state administrative 

criminal justice data. Possible reasons for differences between the MIS and state data are discussed 

later in this chapter.

Among states with administrative data, 34 percent of participants were re-arrested for a new 

crime within 12 months of release (Table V.10). 12

 12 In our measure of arrests for a new crime, we excluded arrests for escape from parole. While escape can be 

treated as a new crime, this varies across states and individual circumstances. We also excluded arrests for public 

nuisance crimes including public intoxication and violations of local ordinances. If the measure were calculated with 

these charges included as new crimes, the rearrest rate within 12 months of release would be 43 percent across all sites.

 The arrest rates found in the administrative data 

were more consistent with national recidivism numbers but could be substantially lower than the 

national re-arrest rates for the types of offenders served by the Beneficiary Choice program. 

Because the program had an age restriction, the participants were younger than the full population 

of ex-offenders described in Langan and Levin (2002). That study, in fact, showed a strong 

relationship between an offender’s age and the probability of recidivating. Although Langan and 

Levin (2002) did not report re-arrest rates by age for arrests within one year of release, they did 

report the rate by age subgroup for re-arrests within three years of release. They found that among 

ex-offenders who were ages 18 to 24 at release 75 percent were re-arrested within three years 

compared with 45 percent of ex-offenders 45 and older at release.
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

54

Table V.10. Re-Arrests for New Crimes, by Demographic Characteristics (Percentage)

Re-Arrested for New Crime in Year 

Following Release

Re-Incarcerated in Year 

Following Release

MIS

State Administrative 

Data

State Administrative 

Data

All Participants 8.1 34.2 19.4

Gender

Male 8.1 34.9 19.9

Female 8.2 26.3 14.0

Age at Enrollment

Younger than 22 9.1 39.1 21.3

22-24 10.7 34.6 19.7

25 or older 6.7 32.5 18.7

Race

White 9.1 27.1 20.4

Black 7.7 40.7 19.2

American Indian or Alaskan Native 8.1 19.6 7.8

Other 2.4 27.8 8.3

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino Origin 7.6 27.9 18.6

Non-Hispanic 8.3 34.0 19.7

Sample Size 1,831 1,374 1,374

Sources: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010 and state criminal 

justice administrative data from CO, IL, IN, and IA (see Appendix A.3 for more details).

Note: Percentages based on participants with non-missing data. The administrative data only includes 

participants enrolled by June 30, 2009, and percentages are based on participants who had a valid 

match in the administrative data.

Subgroup patterns in the state administrative data also mirrored those found nationally. The rearrest rates were higher for male participants than female participants. The re-arrest rates also 

declined as the age of the participant increased. Black participants had higher re-arrest rates than 

white participants. The re-arrests rates of Hispanics were lower than the re-arrest rates of nonHispanics.

In addition to arrests, it is important to consider the rates of re-incarceration. Re-incarceration 

has significant social costs, and a program that has the potential to reduce the rate of reincarceration might also produce savings for society. Within 12 months of prison release, 19 percent 

of Beneficiary Choice participants had been re-incarcerated. As a point of comparison, Langan and 

Levin (2002) found that 10 percent of released offenders returned to prison with a new sentence 

within 12 months of release. Including technical violations would have substantially increased this 

recidivism rate.

Because the correctional facilities reported the incarcerations directly to the administrative data 

repositories, it was not always possible to link the incarceration with the cause and ascertain if the 
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

55

incarceration was for a new crime or for a technical violation.13

Subgroup patterns in the rate of re-incarceration were generally similar to the subgroup patterns 

in the re-arrest rates, with one notable difference. Although Black participants were substantially 

more likely than whites to be re-arrested for a new crime, the rates of re-incarceration were very 

similar for white and Black participants.

 Technical violations of probation or 

parole frequently lead to immediate incarceration after the parolee or probationer is cited for the 

violation. 

2. Variations in Outcomes Across Grantees

Based on the administrative data at 12 months after release, the rate of new arrests ranged from 

a high of 50 percent for Indianapolis participants to 27 percent for Des Moines participants (Figure 

V.4). Although the majority of participants were not arrested for a new crime in the 12 months 

following release, more than 11 percent were arrested two or more times (Table V.11). Among 

Chicago participants, 9 percent had three or more arrests for new crimes. On average, the first arrest 

occurred 20.6 weeks after enrollment. As a point of comparison, participants were enrolled

Figure V.4. Arrests for a New Crime, by Site

Source: State criminal justice administrative data from CO, IL, IN, and IA (see Appendix A.3 for more 

details).

Note: Only includes participants enrolled by June 30, 2009, who had a valid match in the 

administrative data.

 13 The incarceration measure includes all incarcerations subsequent to program enrollment within 12 months of 

release. Since we cannot link all of the incarceration spells to the arrest, it is possible that our reported incarceration rate 

includes incarcerations for crimes that occurred prior to program enrollment.

19

13

24

30

10

34

25

38

50

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Overall Denver,

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IA

Des Moines,

IA

Percentage of Participants

6 Months 12 Months
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

56

Table V.11. New Arrests During the 12 Month Follow-Up Period (Percentages Unless Otherwise 

Indicated)

All 

Participants

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Arrested for a New Crime 34.2 24.5 37.6 49.5 26.8

Number of Times Arrested

0 65.8 75.5 62.4 50.5 73.2

1 22.9 20.2 20.3 30.7 21.1

2 7.4 3.9 8.1 13.7 4.4

3 or more 3.9 0.5 9.3 5.2 1.3

Average Weeks from Enrollment 

Until First Arrest for New Crimea 20.6 18.8 19.0 19.8 26.7

First Arrest Occurred While 

Enrolleda 18.5 18.8 28.6 17.2 5.0

Arrested at Least Once for the 

Following:a

Murder 2.1 3.0 1.6 3.0 0.0

Assault or battery 24.7 20.8 29.4 23.9 23.8

Robbery 4.9 5.0 4.0 8.0 0.0

Theft 19.8 20.8 12.7 23.9 21.3

Drugs 34.7 25.7 47.6 30.7 33.8

Other property crimes 11.7 14.9 23.8 3.7 5.0

Other personal crimes 41.5 63.4 17.5 42.9 48.8

Miscellaneous crimes 4.3 3.0 11.1 0.0 3.8

Source: State criminal justice administrative data from CO, IL, IN, and IA (see Appendix A.3 for more details).

Note: Only includes participants enrolled by June 30, 2009, who had a valid match in the administrative 

data.

a

Data reflect patterns among only those participants who had at least one arrest for a new crime in the year 

following release.

in the demonstration for an average of 1.8 months (or approximately eight weeks). The timing of 

the first arrest was similar for Denver, Chicago, and Indianapolis participants, whereas the first arrest 

occurred later for Des Moines participants. Among participants who were eventually arrested within 

the first year, fewer than 20 percent had the first arrest occur while enrolled in the Beneficiary 

Choice program, and in Des Moines, only five percent were arrested while still enrolled in the 

program. In the other sites, the share with an arrest during enrollment was 17 percent or higher.

The sites also had variation in the level and type of participants’ criminal justice involvement. 

Overall, the most common reason for arrest was the category of “other personal crimes,” which 

included disorderly conduct or driving under the influence. This category was the most common in 

three of the four sites. In Chicago, the most common type of arrest was for drug use or possession. 

Chicago also had nearly 30 percent of participants who were re-arrested on an assault or battery 

charge. 

We have attempted to create comparable criminal justice outcomes, but the comparability of 

the data is limited by variations in the policies and procedures of the criminal justice system agencies 

in each state.14

 14 In particular, differences in re-arrest rates across the sites were sensitive to the treatment of the escape from 

parole charges. For example, in Denver, the site with the largest number of arrests for escape, the 12 month re-arrest 

rate would have been 39 percent instead of the 25 percent reported in Table V.11 if escape charges were treated as 

arrests for new crimes. 

 Thus, cross-site comparisons should be interpreted cautiously. The arrest rates were 
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

57

very similar for Denver and Des Moines participants, whereas Chicago and Indianapolis participants 

had higher arrest rates. By contrast, in the MIS data, Des Moines participants had higher arrest 

rates than Denver and Chicago participants, potentially reflecting the importance of their MIS 

monitoring efforts and a strong relationship with local parole offices. 

In addition to variations in the rate of arrests for new crimes, the rate of re-incarceration ranged 

from 14 percent for Chicago participants to 23 percent for Denver participants (Figure V.5). 

Perhaps more than the re-arrest rate, the incarceration rate reflects state-level criminal justice 

policies. The treatment of technical violations varies significantly across states and likely plays an 

important role in the incarceration rates of program participants. For example, although Chicago 

participants had the highest rate of arrests for new crimes, the incarceration rate was the lowest. 

This difference might be due to less active enforcement and penalizing of technical violations.

Figure V.5. Re-Incarceration Within 12 Months, by Site

Source: State criminal justice administrative data from CO, IL, IN, and IA (see Appendix A.3 for more 

details).

Note: Only includes participants enrolled by June 30, 2009, who had a valid match in the administrative 

data.

As mentioned earlier, another possible source of variation in recidivism outcomes across 

grantees was the difference in the participant populations. In national statistics, men have higher 

recidivism rates than women, Blacks higher than Whites, non-Hispanics higher than Hispanics, 

young ex-offenders higher than older ex-offenders, and ex-offenders with longer records higher 

than ex-offenders with shorter records (Langan and Levin 2002). There are also differences in 

recidivism rates by offense type, with the highest re-arrest rates for drug and public-order offenders.

3. Comparing MIS and Administrative Data

The discrepancies between the relatively low levels of criminal justice involvement reported in 

the MIS and more substantial criminal justice involvement observed in the state administrative data 

highlight the value of using administrative data as an outside validation of outcome measures. If one 

considered all reported new arrests, either those recorded in the MIS or those observed in the 

19

23

14

22

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

Overall Denver,

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Percentage of Participants
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

58

administrative data, only 13 percent of arrests were reported in both data sources (Table V.12). 

More than 82 percent of the arrests were reported only in the administrative data, and the remaining 

4 percent were reported only in the MIS. Arrests reported only in the MIS might highlight 

incomplete state administrative files, but in most cases these were classified in the administrative 

records as technical violations, not new arrests.

Table V.12. Comparison of MIS and Administrative Criminal Justice Data for Participants with a New 

Arrest Reported in Either Source (Percentages)

All 

Participants

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des 

Moines,

IA

Reported in MIS and Administrative Data 13.4 14.0 2.4 19.5 17.0

Reported in Administrative Data Only 82.3 80.4 96.9 76.9 73.9

Reported in MIS Only 4.3 5.6 0.8 3.6 9.1

Sample Size 491 107 127 169 88

Sources: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010 and state criminal 

justice administrative data from CO, IL, IN, and IA (see Appendix A.3 for more details).

Note: Only includes participants enrolled by June 30, 2009, who had a valid match in the administrative 

data. Data reflect patterns among only those participants who had at least one arrest for a new 

crime in the year following release reported in the MIS or the administrative data.

It appears that the MIS suffered from severe underreporting of criminal justice involvement. 

This is consistent with previous DOL research studies, including the Youth Offender 

Demonstration Project Evaluation (Jenks et al. 2006). Although DOL required grantees to verify 

and document that participants were not re-arrested, some grantee staff might have used a “no news 

is good news” approach by recording that participants had not recidivated if they were not able to 

verify the outcome. Grantees also reported challenges with accessing state administrative records to 

verify recidivism numbers. In Chicago, the grantee reported that all arrests appeared as technical 

violations because an arrest for a new crime was inherently a violation of release requirements. This 

problem could have accounted for Chicago’s unrealistically low MIS recidivism numbers.

C. Connections Between Service Receipt and Outcomes

The Beneficiary Choice study was not designed to measure the impacts of services on 

employment and criminal justice outcomes. Because the study does not include a control or 

comparison group, we cannot observe what would have happened to participants in the absence of 

the program. Although the analysis is not causal, it is still informative to examine the associations 

among service receipt, employment outcomes, and criminal justice outcomes. If certain services 

were associated with more positive outcomes, they might be important services to test in future 

causal impact evaluations.

1. Relationship Between Service Receipt and Outcomes

To assess the relationship between the receipt of Beneficiary Choice services and the 

participants’ key outcomes, we conducted subgroup analyses to test differences in employment and 

criminal justice outcomes by service receipt. We also estimated multivariate regression models that 

looked at associations between outcomes and service receipt while controlling for a participant’s 

location and employment barriers. Relationships identified through these analyses do not imply 

causal relationships. Individuals who chose to participate in various program services were likely to 
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

59

be systematically different from the participants who did not participate in the service. With these 

caveats in mind, the analyses showed positive relationships between some types of service receipt 

and employment and recidivism outcome measures.

For employment, we examined service receipt subgroups differences in four labor market 

outcomes: job placement, weeks until placement, starting wage, and hours worked (Table V.13). 

Participants receiving workforce preparation services were more likely to have a job placement than 

those who did not receive services, but there is reason to be cautious about this association. 

Because almost all participants received workforce preparation services, individuals who were not 

served likely had low levels of commitment to the program. There were also significant differences 

between participants who received education and training services and those participants who did 

not. Here the findings mirror the expectations for a human capital investment based on prior 

literature. Participants in training took longer to start their initial job placements, but they received 

higher starting wages. Participants receiving mentoring had significantly higher rates of job

placement, a shorter time to placement, and higher starting wages.

Table V.13. Job Placements and Characteristics of Initial Placements, by Service Receipt

Any Workforce 

Preparation Service

Any Education or

Job Training Any Mentoring

Overall No Yes No Yes No Yes

Job Placement Rate 64.5 40.8 65.6* 64.1 66.4 60.6 80.5*

Weeks Until Job 

Placementa 9.0 7.5 9.1 8.2 12.4* 9.5 7.7*

Hourly Wage at Initial 

Placementa $9.23 $9.33 $9.23 $9.02 $10.04* $9.03 $9.82*

Hours Worked in First 

Weeka 35.4 36.0 35.4 35.7 34.6* 35.4 35.4

Sample Size 2,382 103 2,279 1,903 479 1,909 473

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

a

Data reflect patterns among only those participants who were placed in at least one job.

*Subgroup difference is statistically different from zero at the .05 level, using a two-tailed test.

For criminal justice outcomes, we examined service receipt subgroup differences in three 

recidivism measures: arrests for new crimes within six months, arrests for new crimes within 12 

months, and re-incarceration within 12 months. There were few significant differences in outcomes 

by service receipt subgroups (Table V.14). The only significant subgroup differences were for 

education and training services. Participants who received these services were less likely to be 

arrested for a new crime or re-incarcerated within 12 months of release.

In addition to the general concerns about unobservable differences in the motivation of 

participants who receive services and those who do not, these subgroup differences have other 

important caveats. Grantees in different cities might have pursued different service strategies, so 

these subgroup differences could be capturing underlying differences in the labor market conditions 

of the different metropolitan areas. Additionally, service receipt could have been associated with the 

demographic characteristics of participants. For example, participants without a high school degree 

might have needed or sought more education services. If participants with more barriers to 

successful reentry received a particular service, this would confound the observed differences in 

outcomes by service receipt subgroups. Although we could not address unobservable differences in 
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

60

Table V. 14. Arrests for New Crimes and Re-Incarcerations, by Service Receipt (Percentages)

Any Workforce 

Preparation Service

Any Education or

Job Training Any Mentoring

Overall No Yes No Yes No Yes

Arrested for a New Crime 

Within 6 Months 18.9 25.5 18.7 19.7 16.8 21.2 11.4*

Arrested for a New Crime 

Within 12 Months 34.2 38.3 34.1 36.1 29.2* 37.0 25.3*

Re-Incarcerated Within 12 

Months 19.4 25.5 19.2 20.5 16.5 19.2 20.1

Sample Size 1,374 47 1,327 1,004 370 1,050 324

Sources: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010 and state criminal 

justice administrative data from CO, IL, IN, and IA (see Appendix A.3 for more details).

Note: Only includes participants enrolled by June 30, 2009, who had a valid match in the administrative 

data.

*Subgroup difference is statistically different from zero at the .05 level, using a two-tailed test.

motivation, we estimated multivariate regression models examining the associations between service 

receipt and outcomes while controlling for the grantee and for a participant’s barriers to 

employment (see Appendix C).15

After controlling for the grantee at which the participant enrolled and the barriers to 

employment that the participant faced, workforce preparation and mentoring still had significant 

associations with job placement (Appendix Table C.2). Adding control variables did not change the 

relationship between education and training services and employment outcomes. Receiving 

education or job training services was associated with a longer elapsed time until the initial 

placement and higher wages in the initial job placement. Participants who received mentoring had 

higher wages than participants who did not receive these services, but this difference was not 

significant after controlling for the grantee and barriers to employment. 

With the criminal justice outcomes, the only significant association between service receipt and 

recidivism probabilities was for education and job training services (Appendix Table C.3). 

Participants receiving these services had a lower likelihood of recidivating than those who did not

receive such services. 

The associations between service receipt and outcomes suggest the value of education and job 

training services. Although this association is promising, it is not causal. Participants who were 

willing to commit to training programs could be more patient or more committed to successful 

reentry than those unwilling to commit to training programs.

2. Relationship Between Job Placement and Recidivism Outcomes

The Beneficiary Choice program model aimed to reduce recidivism by facilitating the labor 

market reintegration of ex-offenders. Although the relationship is not causal, the participant 

outcomes were consistent with the logic of the program model: Participants successfully placed in 

 15 The barriers to employment included indicators for being younger than 25, being a high school dropout, being 

Black, and being a violent offender.
V. Employment and Criminal Justice Outcomes Mathematica Policy Research

61

unsubsidized employment had lower recidivism rates (Figure V.6). Among the participants 

successfully placed, 29 percent had an arrest for a new crime within 12 months of release. For 

participants without a job placement, 44 percent had a new arrest. This difference was statistically 

significant and remained significant after controlling for grantee and employment barriers in a 

multivariate regression (Appendix Table C.4). Job placement appeared to have a weaker association 

with the probability of being incarcerated. Because many of the incarcerations were due to technical 

violations, it might be important to consider if employment is less of a protective barrier from 

committing a technical violation than from committing a new crime.

Figure V.6. Criminal Justice Outcomes, by Job Placement

Sources: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010 and state criminal 

justice administrative data from CO, IL, IN, and IA (see Appendix A.3 for more details).

Note: Only includes participants enrolled by June 30, 2009, who had a valid match in the administrative 

data.

*Subgroup difference is statistically different from zero at the .05 level, using a two-tailed test.

30

44

25

14*

29*

17*

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

New Arrest Within 

6 Months

New Arrest Within 

12 Months

Incarceration Within 12 Monhts

Percentage of Participants

No Placement Job Placement

VI. Performance-Based Contracting and Program Costs Mathematica Policy Research

63

VI. PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACTING AND PROGRAM COSTS

The Beneficiary Choice program represents a $10 million investment toward helping exoffenders find employment, avoid recidivism, and reintegrate into society. This substantial 

investment was spread across two years and five grantees with the goal of serving a total of 2,250 

young ex-offenders. With the use of performance-based contracts, the Beneficiary Choice program 

represents an innovative approach to contracting with and paying local providers for high quality 

services. The intent behind this contracting approach was to enhance specialized service provider

(SSP) accountability and performance as well as participant outcomes. Although performance-based 

contracts had the potential to motivate staff and possibly improve participant outcomes, these 

contracts presented a great deal of uncertainty and risk for SSPs.

Given the sheer size of the investment and the innovative performance-based contract 

structure, an in-depth cost analysis was a critical piece of the overall evaluation. Using both

quantitative and qualitative data, this chapter examines how grantees structured the performancebased contracts, including the structure and emphasis of payment points. It then estimates the total 

cost of operating the Beneficiary Choice program and examines the distribution of spending across 

participating organizations, including SSPs’ relative success at meeting payment points and covering 

the costs of operating their programs. Appendix A.3 provides more details on the cost study data 

sources and analysis methods.

A. Performance-Based Contracts

The program model required that grantees enter into performance-based contracts with all 

participating SSPs. Performance-based contracts were designed to pay service providers only when 

they achieved agreed-upon benchmarks, referred to as payment points. DOL allowed grantees a 

great deal of flexibility in structuring their payment points, including choosing the number, timing,

Key Findings

• As of September 30, 2009, grantees were in operation for two years and three 

months. Total expenditures across all five sites exceeded $5.5 million, which was 

slightly more than half of the total grant amount.

• Both grantees and SSPs experienced a steep learning curve in the use of 

performance-based contracts. Over time, most of the grantees chose to simplify the 

benchmark payments and documentation process to allow SSPs to more easily 

recoup their costs.

• SSPs were paid an average of $1,455 per participant, although this varied across sites. 

This was substantially lower than the grant budget of $2,667 per participant.

• SSPs received the majority of payments for providing initial services, such as 

enrollment and assessment and completion of work readiness training. Payments for 

job placement and retention were a small proportion of overall payments due to 

difficulty helping participants achieve these benchmarks and documenting participant 

outcomes.

• Only one grantee—Denver—was able to leverage substantial resources to help 

support the program. These funds were used for occupational skills training in 

designated fields in which jobs were immediately available.
VI. Performance-Based Contracting and Program Costs Mathematica Policy Research

64

and dollar amount of each payment point. Encouraging innovation, DOL was interested in 

understanding the range of possibilities that grantees created and, through the evaluation’s cost 

analysis, exploring how well these approaches unfolded.

Grantees and SSPs had varying levels of experience with performance-based contracts prior to 

Beneficiary Choice, and it proved to be a learning process for all involved. All of the grantees had at 

least some experience with performance-based contracts, but few staff members involved in the 

demonstration had ever determined the number, timing, and amount of payment points. Most 

SSPs, on the other hand, had little or no experience with these types of contracts. This section 

explores the choices grantees made related to contract structure and payment points and how they 

changed over time.

1. Structure of Payment Points

DOL required that grantees pass through 60 percent of total grant funds to SSPs for the 

provision of direct services to participants. This represents $1.2 million for SSPs within each site to 

serve 450 participants over two years. Divided evenly across participants, this amounts to $2,667 in 

total payments per participant.

In practice, however, developing an algorithm to calculate potential payments per participant is 

often more complicated than simple division because it is generally understood that not every 

participant will achieve each benchmark. Grantees tried to find a balance between setting attainable 

benchmarks to allow SSPs to cover costs and rewarding them for good performance related to the 

main program objectives. Performance-based contracts generally assume that only a portion of 

participants will meet each payment point benchmark. Therefore, when setting dollar values for 

payment points, contracts estimate the percentage of participants who are likely to meet the specific 

benchmark. For example, assume that an SSP is expected to serve 50 participants. If the grantee 

estimates that the SSP will place 65 percent of participants in jobs and awards $500 per job 

placement, the expected total payments for job placement would be $16,250. These estimates are 

very important. If a grantee underestimates the proportion of participants who will achieve the 

benchmark, it may end up over-committing funds for payments to the SSPs. Conversely, if the 

grantee overestimates how many participants will meet the benchmark, it could result in unexpended 

grant funds and a potentially inadequate flow of resources to SSPs to provide services. 

At the beginning of the program, the total maximum payment per participant built into SSP 

performance-based contracts ranged from $2,667 to $4,500 across grantees, with an average of 

$3,478 (Table VI.1). Four of the grantees set their total maximum payment higher than $2,667 

assuming that not all participants would meet each benchmark. Only the Des Moines grantee 

divided the total dollar amount equally across three payment points and assumed that all of the 450 

participants would meet each benchmark.

Over the course of the grant period, nearly all grantees made changes to their performancebased contracts. Most notably, as shown in Table VI.1, there was a clear shift by grantees toward 

standardized payment points across SSPs. During the first site visit, only three of the five grantees 

had contracts with standardized payment points for SSPs within their site. The other two grantees 

had customized payment points to account for the unique service components of individual SSPs. 

For example, initial payment points in Denver included four standard payment points and up to two 

payment points that the SSPs created for their organizations. However, by the time of the second 

site visit, all grantees had adopted standardized payment points.
VI. Performance-Based Contracting and Program Costs Mathematica Policy Research

65

Table VI.1. Number and Structure of Payment Points

Standardized 

Payment Points

Number of Payment 

Points

Total Possible Reimbursement 

per Participant

Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2

Phoenix, AZ Yes Yes 8 7 $4,500 $4,000

Denver, CO No Yes 4 or 6 6 $3,000 $3,000

Chicago, ILa Yes Yes 3 or 4 3 or 4 $3,100 - $4,100 $4,700 - $6,200

Indianapolis, IN No Yes 7 to 12 8 $2,950 - $4,450 $3,250

Des Moines, IA Yes Yes 3 3 $2,667 $2,667

Sources: Site visit interviews with grantee administrators and SSP directors, as well as contract documents 

collected from sites.

a

In Chicago, SSPs that offered training had five standard payment points and SSPs that did not offer training had 

four.

Site visits revealed two reasons for the contract changes. First, grantees wanted to make it 

easier for SSPs to recoup their costs. For example, in Phoenix, SSPs were struggling to meet the 

numerous payment points, strict definitions, and documentation requirements. As a result, the 

grantee reduced the number of payment points, changed the definition of a placement,

16

2. Emphasis of Payment Points

and 

reduced the documentation burden on SSPs. In Chicago, the grantee doubled the amount of the 

enrollment benchmark payment to get money to SSPs since they were struggling to meet the later 

benchmarks and cover their program costs. Second, some changes were implemented to make it 

easier for the grantee to administer and track costs. The Indianapolis grantee, for example, changed 

the number of payment points from a maximum of 12 to 8, reducing the burden on grantee staff to 

verify invoices.

When structuring their contracts, grantees chose to emphasize job placement and job retention 

by linking a combined 55 percent of total potential payments to those benchmarks (Table VI.2). 

This represents a significant shift from the original contracts, in which these two benchmarks 

accounted for only 32 percent of total potential payments. However, this emphasis varied widely 

across grantees. The Chicago grantee allocated the highest percentage of the total payments 

(78 percent) to job placement and retention. By contrast, Des Moines did not link any payment 

points directly with job placement and retention. However, it linked one of the largest payment 

points to follow-up, which can only occur after a participant has been placed in a job.

Enrollment and assessments as well as work readiness training were also common payment 

points. However, the dollar amount associated with these benchmarks was usually much lower than 

the amount associated with job placement and retention. The grantees reported that early payment 

points were generally easier to achieve and therefore they were structured to get money flowing to 

 16 Originally, in order to meet the job placement payment point, SSPs had to place participants in a job within 21 

days of enrollment with a wage of at least $8.00 per hour and at least 35 hours per week. However, in July 2009, 

Phoenix adopted the DOL definition of job placement, which only requires a participant to work one day in the quarter.

Phoenix no longer imposed a time limit, a minimum number of hours, or a minimum wage.
66

Table VI.2. Emphasis of Performance-Based Contract Payment Points, Year 2

Enrollment and 

Assessments

Work 

Readiness 

Training

Occupational 

Skills 

Training or 

Certification 

Attainment

Other 

Nontraining 

Servicesa

Job 

Placement

Job 

Retention

Follow Up 

or Other 

Outcomes Total

Average Across 

All Sites

Amount $500 $452 $200 $200 $900 $1,100 $272 $3,623

Percentage 14 12 6 6 25 30 7 100

Phoenix, AZ

Amount $0 $400 $0 $500 $1,000 $2,100 $0 $4,000

Percentage 0 10 0 13 25 53 0 100

Denver, CO

Amount $300 $400 $500 $0 $900 $900 $0 $3,000

Percentage 10 13 17 0 30 30 0 100

Chicago, ILb

Amount $1,200 $0 $500 $0 $2,000 $1,500 $0 $5,200

Percentage 23 0 10 0 38 29 0 100

Indianapolis, IN

Amount $250 $500 $0 $500 $600 $1,000 $400 $3,250

Percentage 8 15 0 15 18 31 12 100

Des Moines, IA

Amount $750 $958 $0 $0 $0 $0 $958 $2,667

Percentage 28 36 0 0 0 0 36 100

Sources: Site visit interviews with grantee administrators and SSP directors, as well as cost data and contract documents collected from sites.

a

Nontraining services includes services such as job counseling, monthly contacts with participants, and GED preparation.

b

Chicago is the only site that had any variation in payments across SSPs. Three of the nine SSPs in Year 2 were training SSPs and had an additional 

benchmark payment for occupational training. The $1,500 benchmark payment was multiplied by one-third to reflect the percentage of SSPs eligible to 

receive this payment.
VI. Performance-Based Contracting and Program Costs Mathematica Policy Research

67

SSPs to help offset costs. Notably, unlike the other four grantees, Des Moines allocated 64 percent 

of the total payment per participant to these two early payment points.

B. Total Costs of Providing Beneficiary Choice Services

Although participant enrollments were largely on pace with the original grant timeline, grantees 

and most SSPs were slow to draw down funds. Two and a half years into the demonstration, just 

over half (56 percent) of the total grant money had been spent. By comparison, 2,168 participants, 

or 96 percent of the total target, had enrolled in the program by September 30, 2009. This section 

discusses the factors influencing both the pace and the distribution of grant expenditures across 

participating organizations.

1. Grantee and Services Coordinator Expenditures

Grantees and services coordinators had spent a total of $2,459,943 by September 30, 2009 

(Table VI.3). At 44 percent of all expenditures through that date, this is a slightly higher than the 40 

percent outlined in the DOL grant requirements. This pattern is not surprising, however, given that 

grantee and services coordinator expenditures were front-loaded due to their responsibility for 

recruitment and orientation. The percentage will likely come down as new enrollments end and 

SSPs continue to serve clients and receive payments for their services.

There was little variation in the total value of grantee and services coordinator expenditures 

across four of the five sites. Denver’s expenditures were much lower than those of the other four 

sites due to its extensive leveraged resources (discussed in detail later in this chapter). Notably, the 

two grantees with the highest expenditures—Phoenix and Des Moines—also provided the most 

ongoing support to participants after they were referred to their selected SSP. As discussed in 

Chapter II, the grantees at these two sites provided ongoing case management and follow-up to

most participants. Although this approach ultimately cost more, local staff members believed that it 

helped keep participants engaged in the program and ensure job placements. Interestingly, given 

that Indianapolis and Chicago passed grant resources and responsibilities onto a separate services 

coordinator, the non-SSP costs at these sites were three to nine percent higher than those of the 

Phoenix and Des Moines grantees that served as both grantee and services coordinator.

To provide a better understanding of how these organizations chose to spend their portion of 

the grant funds, the evaluation collected a breakdown of total expenditures across labor categories, 

other direct costs (ODCs), and indirect costs. Across all sites, total labor costs as a percentage of 

total costs ranged from 20 percent in Denver to 42 percent in Chicago (Table VI.4). Again, 

Denver’s ability to leverage resources can be seen in this table. Denver’s labor costs were

substantially lower than those of the other four sites because the project director’s time was fully 

leveraged with other grant funds. Phoenix, Denver, and Des Moines spent less than one-third of 

total grant expenditures on labor costs. Chicago and Indianapolis labor costs were higher at 34 and 

42 percent, respectively.

Several factors may explain variation in labor costs across the sites. In Chicago, higher grantee 

and services coordinator labor costs are likely due to a lengthy orientation and SSP selection process. 

Given that SSPs in Chicago and Indianapolis consistently struggled to meet DOL performance 

measures, the grantees and services coordinators spent more time on coordination and SSP training. 

For example, in Chicago, the director of the Career Advancement Network reported hosting routine 

meetings with SSPs to provide technical assistance related to DOL performance measures and the
68

Table VI.3. Grant Expenditures in Thousands, July 2007-September 2009

All Participants Phoenix, AZ Denver, CO Chicago, IL Indianapolis, IN Des Moines, IA

Amount Percenta Amount Percenta Amount Percenta Amount Percenta Amount Percenta Amount Percenta

Total Expenditures $5,563 100% $1,071 100% $1,031 100% $1,059 100% $1,013 100% $1,389 100%

Grantee and Services Coordinator $2,460 44% $523 49% $283 27% $567 54% $551 54% $536 39%

Grantee $1,740 31% $523 49% $283 27% $109 10% $289 29% $536 39%

Services Coordinator $720 13% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $458 43% $261 26% n.a. n.a.

SSPs $3,103 56% $549 51% $748 73% $492 46% $462 46% $852 61%

Source: Cost data collected from grantee administrators during site visits.

a

Percent of expenditures to date.

n.a. = not applicable.
VI. Performance-Based Contracting and Program Costs Mathematica Policy Research

69

Table V1.4. Breakdown of Total Grantee and Services Coordinator Expenditures, July 2007-

September 2009 (Percentage of Expenditures)

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Labor Costs

Administrators 0.7 0.0 13.5 2.2 3.6

Project managers 4.7 19.8 11.1 25.8 6.0

Case managers 16.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 19.0

Retention specialists, job coaches, job 

developers 0.0 0.0 1.1 8.1 0.0

Accounting staff 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.9 0.0

Other staff 8.8 0.0 3.3 2.6 0.0

Subtotal Labor Costs 30.6 19.8 34.1 41.6 28.6

Other Direct Costs

SSP payments 51.2 72.7 46.4 45.6 61.4

Rent and facilities upgrades 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 3.4

Supplies and equipment 2.9 1.6 2.5 1.0 2.6

Staff training and travel 1.4 3.5 0.0 1.4 0.4

Payments or incentives paid to 

participants 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 5.1 2.4 6.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal Other Direct Costs 63.5 80.2 62.0 48.0 67.8

Indirect Costs 6.0 0.0 4.0 10.0 3.6

Source: Cost data collected from grantee administrators during site visits.

MIS. Likewise, in Indianapolis, the grantee and services coordinator spent a significant amount of 

time conducting audits, providing technical assistance to SSPs, and helping SSPs improve their 

outcomes.

Excluding SSP payments, ODCs did not represent a large percentage of grantee or services 

coordinator expenditures. Of the remaining categories, rent was the most costly ODC for two of 

the five sites. Notably, only Phoenix chose to use grant funds for direct payments to participants. 

These included bus passes and gift cards used as incentives for participants to bring their pay stubs 

to local staff as documentation of employment.

2. Payments Made to SSPs

SSPs across all grantees were paid slightly more than $3 million, or about 56 percent of all grant 

expenditures during the cost study period. As reflected above, this is slightly lower than the 60 

percent required by DOL. Although this percentage may increase as SSPs continue to serve 

participants, it reflects the difficulty that many SSPs faced in meeting payment points.

SSPs were paid an average of $1,455 per participant, although this varied drastically across sites 

(Table VI.5). In Indianapolis, SSPs on average earned $1,060 per participant, while in Des Moines, 

SSPs earned more than double that amount or $2,136 per participant.

Providers in only one site—Des Moines—were able to meet the majority of payment 

benchmarks in their contracts. Given the SSP contract structure with a small number of attainable 

benchmarks, SSPs in Des Moines received an average of 80 percent of total possible payments. By 

contrast, SSPs in Phoenix, Chicago, and Indianapolis received one-third or less of the total possible 

payment for each participant. 
VI. Performance-Based Contracting and Program Costs Mathematica Policy Research

70

Table VI.5. Average Payments per Participant, July 2007-September 2009

Number of 

Participants

Average Amount 

Paid per Participant

Total Potential 

Payment

Percentage of Total 

Potential Payments

All 5 Grantees 2,138 $1,455 $3,523 41%

Phoenix, AZ 441 $1,244 $4,000 31%

Denver, CO 440 $1,700 $3,000 57%

Chicago, IL 422 $1,165 $5,200a 22%

Indianapolis, IN 436 $1,060 $3,250 33%

Des Moines, IA 399 $2,136 $2,667 80%

Sources: Cost data collected from grantee administrators during site visits as well as Beneficiary Choice 

Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

a

Chicago is the only site that had any variation in payments across SSPs. Three of the 9 SSPs in Year 2 were 

training SSPs and had an additional benchmark payment for occupational training. The $1,500 benchmark 

payment was multiplied by one-third to reflect the percentage of SSPs eligible to receive this payment.

Two separate issues contributed to this pattern. First, some of the original benchmarks set by 

these grantees were relatively strict and narrowly defined. For example, the initial SSP contracts in

Phoenix awarded a job placement payment only if the participant got a job within 21 days of 

enrollment and kept it for 60 days. Indianapolis required grantees to document that a participant 

had worked for 30 days at a minimum of 30 hours per week to receive any payment for job 

placement. Although these requirements were meant to spur on performance, many SSPs reported 

that they were unrealistic and tended to reduce payments. Second, inexperienced SSPs struggled to 

get participants to achieve key benchmarks and to provide all required documentation for payment. 

As shown in Chapter V, SSPs in Chicago and Indianapolis struggled to place participants in jobs and 

therefore did not receive some of the largest payments defined in their performance-based contracts.

Despite the emphasis that grantees placed on job placement and retention through higher 

payment points, a majority of payments to SSPs came from enrollment and work readiness training

(Table VI.6). These were the two earliest benchmarks and the services most often provided to 

Table VI.6. Percentage of Payments to SSPs, by Benchmark

All Sites

Phoenix, 

AZ 

Denver, 

CO

Chicago,

IL

Indianapolis,

IN 

Des Moines,

IA

Enrollment and Assessments 28 18 25 46 19 33

Work Readiness Training 26 18 26 8 39 38

Occupational Skills Training or 

Certification Attainment 1 0 6 0 0 0

Other Nontraining Services 9 17 5 0 24 0

Job Placement 15 10 23 33 9 0

Job Retention 7 4 14 13 5 0

Follow Up or Other Outcomes 13 32 0 0 4 29

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Cost data collected from grantee administrators during site visits.

Notes: The detailed breakdowns of SSP payments provided by the grantees did not always match the total 

reported payments. All of the detailed breakdowns were within four percent of total reported 

payments, except for Chicago. The detailed breakdown of payments for one SSP in Chicago was

almost double the total reported payment. The higher of the two numbers was used for this 

analysis.

The reported percentages for Colorado do not include the two SSPs in Mesa because the data was 

not provided by the grantee.
VI. Performance-Based Contracting and Program Costs Mathematica Policy Research

71

participants. By contrast, job placement and job retention payment points were often cited as the 

most difficult to meet. As discussed in Chapter V, poor economic conditions and the significant 

barriers faced by participants made it challenging for participants to find employment. Although 

grantees reported that 92 percent of participants received work readiness training services, only 64 

percent were placed in employment and even fewer (57 percent) received follow-up services.

Once a payment point was met, SSPs had to submit an invoice along with documentation to the 

grantee for payment. During the first round of site visits, SSPs and grantees reported that invoices 

for SSP payments were often denied due to lack of documentation. For example, SSPs reported 

having difficulty tracking participants over time and getting them to provide copies of pay stubs. 

For several reasons, this issue appeared to be largely resolved by the time of the second visit. First, 

it was clear that SSPs that were inexperienced with performance-based contracts had adjusted to the 

system. They became more familiar with the expectations of the grantee and the documentation 

process. Second, grantees made changes over time to simplify payment points. These changes, 

discussed earlier, were often in response to feedback from the SSPs. Third, some grantees eased 

documentation requirements and definitions. For example, by the time of the second visit, Phoenix 

had changed its documentation requirements for employment so that SSPs only had to obtain one 

pay stub rather than two. Finally, a few grantees used incentives to get participants to show up to 

document and/or complete benchmarks. These included hard incentives such as bus passes as well 

as soft incentives such as displaying participants’ photos and success stories on a “Wall of Honor.” 

Although the invoice and payment process had improved markedly, a small proportion of invoices 

were still denied due to inadequate documentation.

During the first round of evaluation site visits, many SSPs reported difficulty covering the costs 

of serving Beneficiary Choice participants and were concerned they would not break even in the 

long run. However, by the time of the second visit, most SSPs were optimistic that they would 

break even. Changes to the payment points contributed to this shift. For example, Phoenix 

reported that more SSPs were able to cover costs once it simplified the contracts in July 2009. Also, 

according to SSP project directors, the ability to co-enroll participants in other programs helped 

cover costs. For example, four larger, more established SSPs reported during the focus group that 

they were all able to co-enroll many participants in other programs within their organization.

3. Total Cost per Participant

When averaged across grantees, total program costs per participant were $2,602 (Table VI.7). 

This includes expenditures at all three levels of service – grantee, service coordinator and SSPs. 

These costs appear to fall in the middle range compared to other programs providing similar 

services to ex-offenders. For example, an evaluation of the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) 

demonstration, which served non-violent ex-offenders across 30 grantees, reported average total 

costs of slightly less than Beneficiary Choice at $2,495 per participant (Holl et al. 2009). By contrast, 

an evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Prisoner Reentry Program, a 

transitional jobs program for ex-offenders in New York City, estimated higher costs of about $4,200 

per participant, although this included subsidized wages paid directly to participants (Redcross 

2009).

When considering workforce programs that serve a wider population, the average cost per 

participant under the Beneficiary Choice program appears to be slightly lower. While estimates are 

not available for the cost of providing services under the Workforce Investment Act, a study of 

JTPA programs in the 1990s estimated average total costs of about $3,000 per participant (LaLonde 

2003). 
VI. Performance-Based Contracting and Program Costs Mathematica Policy Research

72

Table VI.7. Average Total Cost per Job Placement, July 2007-September 2009

Total Expenditures

Number of 

Participants

Total Cost per 

Participant

Job Placement 

Rates

Average Cost 

per Placement

All 5 Grantees $5,562,820 2,138 $2,602 64.5 $4,034

Phoenix, AZ $1,071,381 441 $2,429 75.7 $3,209

Denver, CO $1,030,849 440 $2,343 79.5 $2,947

Chicago, IL $1,058,927 422 $2,509 47.6 $5,271

Indianapolis, IN $1,012,784 436 $2,323 44.4 $5,232

Des Moines, IA $1,388,879 399 $3,481 79.5 $4,379

Sources: Cost data collected from grantee administrators during site visits as well as Beneficiary Choice 

Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Another important step in the cost analysis is to analyze how program costs relate to the 

program’s desired outcomes, such as placement in unsubsidized employment. In particular, across all 

five grantees, the average cost per job placement was $4,034. The cost ranged from $2,947 in 

Denver to $5,271 in Chicago. While Des Moines had the highest total costs per participant served, 

when job placement rates are taken into account their costs are just above the average. Conversely, 

due to lower job placement rates, Chicago and Indianapolis have the highest costs per job 

placement. By comparison, the average cost per job placement was slightly lower for the PRI 

program (Holl 2009). 

4. Use of Leveraged Resources

Upon release, ex-offenders typically face many barriers to successful reentry and require a wide 

array of potentially costly services. Although the SSPs were permitted to use funds for a full range 

of services, SSP directors reported that the payments they received generally covered only basic 

labor costs and some minor supportive services. As a result, the extent to which grantees could 

provide participants with critical supportive services depended on their ability to leverage additional 

resources beyond the grant funds.

Based on the qualitative site visit data, the amount of leveraged resources varied across grantees 

and appeared directly related to the size of the organization. The two larger government 

organizations in Denver and Chicago leveraged the most resources. Both of these grantees secured 

funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (Table VI.8). Denver was the 

only grantee that reported leveraging funds through the Workforce Investment Act and Wagner

Peyser. Specifically, Denver used funds from a performance incentive awarded by DOL to support

customized training for Beneficiary Choice participants. It designated $170,000 for participants in 

Denver and $50,000 for participants in Mesa County. The grantee also designated $74,000 for 

training in 2010 and 2011 from its DOL employment services funds. In Chicago, in addition to the 

ARRA funds that were used to support transitional jobs for participants, the grantee contributed 

$200,000 in city funds to support start-up activities. These funds were used to pay SSP directors 

during the planning phase and to support a small grant to a new SSP that needed funds to develop 

its infrastructure and design its curricula.

 
VI. Performance-Based Contracting and Program Costs Mathematica Policy Research

73

Table VI.8. Types of In-Kind Resources Garnered by Grantees, Services Coordinators and SSPs

Number of Grantees or 

Services Coordinators Number of SSPs

Grant Funds

ARRA funds 2 0

WIA funds 1 0

Wagner Peyser 1 0

Other grants from foundations and community 

agencies 1 2

Unpaid Staff Overtime 5 1

Donations

Clothing donation 3 2

Office space or rent assistance 3 1

Medical services 0 3

Educational services 0 2

Computer labs 0 2

Transportation assistance 0 1

Gift cards 1 0

Volunteers and Mentors 1 2

Sample Size 5 10

Source: Site visit interviews with administrators and staff at grantees, services coordinators, and SSPs.

Note: Includes only SSPs that were visited in person during second site visit.

Other in-kind donations were also relatively common. All five grantees and their services 

coordinators reported that key Beneficiary Choice staff worked uncompensated hours to support 

the project. Additional in-kind donations included office space, clothing, and medical services. 

Grantees and SSPs rarely used volunteers and mentors.

VII. Successes, Challenges, and Lessons Learned Mathematica Policy Research

75

VII. SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED DURING 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BENEFICIARY CHOICE

The Beneficiary Choice demonstration tested a new model for administering reentry services to 

ex-offenders. Combining participant choice with performance-based contracting created a challenge 

for participating organizations as well as a level of risk and uncertainty. With the ultimate goal of 

helping this hard-to-serve population successfully reintegrate into society, the demonstration hoped 

to engage the unique skills of FBCOs to provide individualized support to meet participants’ needs. 

The initial philosophy of the program was that placement in a stable job along with supplemental 

services would help participants remain free from criminal involvement. The evaluation explored 

how the demonstration unfolded over time and drew a number of lessons about the program model 

and the success of those who participated.

A. Community Capacity and Collaboration

All grantees reported that Beneficiary Choice created opportunities for ex-offenders to 

receive workforce services that may otherwise have been unavailable. Each of the 

communities involved in the demonstration reported an unmet need for services to ex-offenders 

who were recently released from incarceration. These individuals face a myriad of needs as they 

attempt to enter the labor market and reintegrate into society. In the face of a severe economic 

recession, local staff and participants reported that ex-offenders were even further displaced as more 

skilled workers vied for the low-paying jobs that many ex-offenders would typically take. 

Beneficiary Choice presented a new opportunity for participating communities to offer workforce 

services to this needy population.

Grantees engaged a wide range of SSPs, but sustaining their involvement was more 

challenging than expected. Grantees were able to successfully engage FBCOs they had partnered 

with before as well as some new FBCOs with whom they had not partnered previously. They 

provided a range of capacity-building activities and made significant efforts to retain those SSPs in 

the demonstration. Despite those efforts, grantees reported a number of factors that resulted in 

about one-third of FBCOs dropping out of the demonstration over time. Factors contributing to 

this turnover among some SSPs included: few participants selecting the SSP’s services, poor SSP job 

placement performance, a lack of experience with reporting requirements and outcome 

documentation, and mismatches between the SSP’s mission and the work-first model. Those SSPs 

that remained with the program were often located in neighborhoods where ex-offenders lived, had 

strong agency reputations, relied on other funding sources to co-enroll participants, and had 

experience helping hard-to-employ individuals find and keep jobs.

Grantees felt that strong communication and collaboration were essential for the project 

and laid the groundwork for ongoing relationships between participating organizations.

When asked about lessons learned, administrators at all five grantees stressed that communication 

was a key component of their success with this demonstration. They felt that routine meetings 

between participating organizations, open and frank discussions, and accessibility of key staff

enabled them to work through numerous challenges during implementation. Grantees and many 

SSPs felt that this created a foundation for future relationships and partnering opportunities.

Although the indirect funding mechanism created by participant choice allowed for the 

inclusion of faith-infused SSPs, very few chose to participate. Only three faith-infused 

providers were involved in the demonstration and two dropped out partway through it. Two of 

these were small one-person shops that served a limited number of participants. The third was a 
VII. Successes, Challenges, and Lessons Learned Mathematica Policy Research

76

larger, more established organization. An administrator at this larger SSP felt that few participants 

selected the program because they were deterred by the faith component. Several factors, including 

limited outreach by some grantees and a lack of understanding about which services were allowable 

under the program model, may have contributed to limiting the number of faith-infused providers 

involved in the demonstration. In the end, the model did not provide an opportunity to learn about 

whether and how faith-infused services could engage ex-offenders and help them overcome their 

barriers to employment and successful reentry.

B. The Role of Participant Choice

Most grantees made formal efforts to ensure that participants were fully informed about 

the available SSPs so they could make independent choices; others used less-structured 

methods to facilitate customer choice. Three sites used structured and consistent orientation 

materials to describe the SSPs available for participants to chose from and allow participants to 

make an independent and fully informed selection. Two grantees, on the other hand, used a more 

“guided choice” approach that involved informal, unscripted meetings in which participants received

input from services coordinator staff on the decision-making process. In these cases, some 

participants may not have had full information about all available providers and may have been 

encouraged to make selections quickly. For example, a participant who was “reverse-referred” to 

the program and requested to receive services from the referring SSP may not have been provided 

with full information about the other SSP options before finalizing the selection. Although it rarely 

happened, one site also allowed SSPs to reject participants who selected their program if they felt the 

participant was not motivated or was not a good fit for the program. For the choice to be truly 

meaningful, future efforts may need to ensure that participants receive a comprehensive presentation 

about all of the available SSPs.

Despite the inclusion of diverse SSPs, participants’ choices appeared largely driven by 

agency location and reputation. The indirect funding mechanism implemented through the 

Beneficiary Choice demonstration allowed for the inclusion of SSPs that might not otherwise have 

been able to compete for federal funds, such as those that were smaller and less experienced or 

offered faith-infused services. However, site visit data suggest that the choices participants made 

were largely driven by the SSPs’ location and reputation within the community. Local staff and 

focus groups revealed that few participants made selections based on the unique combination of 

services offered by an SSP.

C. Providing Services to Beneficiary Choice Participants

Initial activities required by services coordinators and some SSPs were intended to 

identify the most motivated participants. Sites enrolled participants more freely at the start of 

the demonstration but tried to narrow the pool of participants over time to include only highly 

motivated individuals. Services coordinators reported that orientation and assessment services 

offered before participants were formally enrolled in the demonstration not only facilitated 

participant choice and helped prepare participants for the program, but also created some hurdles 

that would result in less-motivated individuals dropping out of the application process. Some SSPs 

also introduced their own activities before enrollment to weed out less-motivated participants. This 

structure appears largely driven by performance requirements and the use of performance-based 

contracts. Grantees and services coordinators wanted to ensure that participants were highly 

motivated and likely to achieve success. At the same time, SSPs wanted to enroll only those 

participants who were likely to achieve key benchmarks, result in contract payments, and allow them 
VII. Successes, Challenges, and Lessons Learned Mathematica Policy Research

77

to recoup the cost of services. The potential negative effect of this approach is that some of the 

hardest-to-serve participants who were most in need of services may not have been enrolled.

Many factors drove the need for participants to get immediate employment and created 

a strong work-first approach to service delivery. Upon reentry, ex-offenders not only need 

immediate income, but also often face parole or probation requirements to find employment. DOL 

performance measures and the structure of performance-based contracts also emphasized job 

placement and retention as key outcomes for participants. Although the Beneficiary Choice model 

was initially designed to tap the unique sets of services available at FBCOs, the program evolved 

over time to focus largely on rapid attachment to the labor force. This ultimately reduced the 

diversity of services offered across the SSPs. Participants typically received work readiness training 

and a small number of other supportive services before being placed in a job. Few participants 

received the full range of supplemental services that SSPs felt they needed for successful reentry and 

long-term avoidance of criminal involvement. Two grantees explicitly stated that a dedicated 

funding stream for supportive services would have helped to better support participants as they 

sought employment.

After receiving work readiness training, many participants appeared to have conducted 

their own job searches with limited assistance from the SSPs. Some SSPs provided 

participants with job leads or conducted formal outreach to employer networks on behalf of 

individual participants, but others were less experienced with workforce development and had 

limited relationships with local employers. Site visit interviews and observations revealed that many 

participants conducted their own job searches independently after participating in work readiness 

training classes. Administrators at one grantee stated that, in hindsight, they would have selected 

only those organizations to serve as SSPs that could demonstrate, not just state, that they were 

actively working with employers in the community prior to the demonstration. Although it is 

unclear, this lack of structured job search assistance may have contributed to the low proportion of 

participants who obtained employment in some sites.

D. Participants’ Ability to Find Employment and Avoid Criminal 

Involvement

Driven by the work-first model, sites placed 65 percent of participants in unsubsidized 

jobs. Participants who found employment earned an average of $9.23 per hour and were placed 

within an average of nine weeks after enrollment. Although there was variation across sites, the 

most common industries in which participants found jobs included food preparation and servicing, 

construction and extraction, and production. Participants who received education and training 

services earned about $2 more per hour on average.

Participant characteristics, local economic conditions, and sites’ experience with 

Federal reporting appeared to affect job placement rates across sites. Phoenix, Denver, and 

Des Moines placed between 78 and 80 percent of their participants in unsubsidized employment. 

However, Chicago and Indianapolis struggled more to place participants in jobs (although their rates 

increased over time); by summer 2010, they had job placement rates of 48 and 44 percent, 

respectively. Both Chicago and Indianapolis served more participants with multiple barriers to 

employment. All five local areas experienced increased unemployment during the demonstration 

period, but Chicago’s economy appeared to suffer more significantly over time. Lastly, two of the 

three high-performing sites—Phoenix and Des Moines—were more familiar with DOL reporting 

requirements as a result of their MIS experience in the Prisoner Reentry Initiative. 
VII. Successes, Challenges, and Lessons Learned Mathematica Policy Research

78

Based on state-level criminal justice records, approximately 34 percent of participants 

were rearrested for a new crime within 12 months after release from incarceration. This rate 

is lower than national statistics across ex-offenders of all ages, but subgroup statistics by Langan and 

Levin (2004) suggest this level may be substantially lower than the national rearrest rates for the 

types of offenders served by Beneficiary Choice. Among those who were rearrested for a new 

crime, about 21 percent were arrested for the first time while participating in the Beneficiary Choice 

program.

Despite grantees’ efforts to validate their outcomes data, MIS data severely 

underreported arrests for new crimes. Compared to the 34 percent reflected in administrative 

data, only eight percent of participants were reported by grantees in the MIS as rearrested for a new 

crime within 12 months after release. Some grantees may have taken a “no news is good news” 

approach to data reporting, while others reported challenges in accessing state police records to 

verify their knowledge of participants’ circumstances. This analysis underscores the importance of 

using alternative data collection methods to validate grantee data on key outcomes.

E. Use of Performance-Based Contracts

All participating organizations experienced a learning curve in the use of performancebased contracts. Most grantees and services coordinators had engaged in performance-based 

contracts in the past, but few key staff involved in the demonstration at these organizations had 

been responsible for establishing benchmarks and validating provider performance. Moreover, very 

few of the SSPs had worked under performance-based contracts and were experienced with 

documenting participant outcomes.

Most grantees and SSPs felt that performance-based contracts helped improve 

accountability and motivate providers, but some said that contract benchmarks should be 

more reasonable and attainable. Generally, grantees felt the performance-based contracts made 

SSPs accountable for their work with participants and served to motivate their staff to quickly place 

participants in employment. However, site visit interviews suggest that initial goals were not always 

realistic or attainable for many SSPs. As a result, some SSPs experienced significant cash flow 

problems as well as sanctions by grantees for poor performance. Administrators at two grantees 

felt, in hindsight, that they should have verified the financial status of organizations that applied to 

be SSPs to ensure their ability to cover initial program costs given that payments might be delayed. 

Grantees and SSPs also felt that expectations surrounding performance and contracts should have 

been more clear and reasonable at the start of the demonstration. 

Over time, grantees standardized contracts, redefined benchmarks, and eased 

documentation requirements to facilitate payments to SSPs. At the time of the first site visit, 

many SSPs reported that they were unlikely to cover their operating costs for serving Beneficiary 

Choice participants given the limited payments made under their contracts. By the time of the 

second site visit, this had changed, and most believed they would break even. This resulted from 

both contract changes initiated by grantees after receiving feedback from SSPs and the increased 

level of experience that occurred naturally as the demonstration progressed. 

The total amounts paid to SSPs were lower than expected due to challenges in meeting 

key job placement and retention benchmarks. By fall 2009, SSPs were paid an average of $1,455 

per participant, compared to the $2,667 initially designated in the grants. Most SSP payments were 

made for initial services such as enrollment, assessment, and work readiness training. Fewer 

payments were made for meeting key benchmarks such as job placement that had higher payment 
VII. Successes, Challenges, and Lessons Learned Mathematica Policy Research

79

levels. Grantees made efforts throughout the demonstration to help SSPs build their capacity for 

job placement services as well as data reporting. However, many SSPs still struggled. Although SSP 

payments per participant may have continued to increase over time as enrolled participants met 

additional benchmarks, the average is unlikely to have reached the level expected at the start of the 

demonstration. Although the low levels of payments may adversely affect SSPs’ finances as they 

continue to work with this hard-to-serve population, they enabled the demonstration to serve a 

larger pool of ex-offenders than envisioned.

F. Policy Considerations and Next Steps for Research

The evaluation of Beneficiary Choice provided a detailed picture of how this unique program 

model was implemented in the field and how participants fared shortly after program participation.

Overall, the program offered relatively light-touch services over a short duration. Emphasizing job 

placement as a key component of successful reentry, it provided workforce services to about 2,400 

ex-offenders who grantees reported would have gone largely unserved in the absence of the 

program.

The combination of participant choice and performance-based contracting created some 

challenges and resulted in conflicting influences as local organizations implemented the model. The 

participants’ needs for income combined with the performance-based contracting structure provided 

incentives for SSPs to emphasize rapid employment and, inadvertently, discouraged diversity of 

services. In the end, this may have limited participants’ options for services, decreasing the

meaningfulness of SSP choice. In addition, SSPs found it difficult to manage their budgets given the 

uncertainty about the number of participants who would select their program and achieve contract 

benchmarks that would allow them to receive payment for services.

Some programs were more successful than others in placing participants in employment. The 

descriptive analysis suggests that service receipt may have contributed to higher rates of job 

placement, although the unobservable characteristics of participants could have influenced these 

results. It is unclear what kind of influence a program of this nature could have on participants’ 

long-term outcomes and reentry success. Nonetheless, policymakers and practitioners can use the 

lessons learned from this descriptive study to shape future programs aimed at improving the 

employment and earnings outcomes of ex-offenders.

References Mathematica Policy Research

81

REFERENCES

Bellotti, Jeanne, and Michelle Derr. “Evaluation of the Faith-Based Beneficiary Choice Program: 

Draft Design Report.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, October 4, 2007.

Bellotti, Jeanne M., Michelle Derr, and Nora Paxton. “Giving Ex-Offenders a Choice in Life: First 

Findings from the Beneficiary Choice Demonstration.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy 

Research, December 2008.

Bushway, Shawn, and Peter Reuter. “Labor Markets and Crime.” In Public Policies for Crime Control, 

edited by James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia. San Francisco: ICS Press, 2002, pp. 191–224.

Byrne, James, Faye S. Taxman, and Douglas Young. “Offender’s Views of Reentry: Implications for 

Processes, Programs and Services.” College Park, MD: Bureau of Governmental Research, 

2002. Retrieved October 27, 2008, from www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/publications/

reentry.html.

Clear, Todd R., and George F. Cole. American Corrections. 5th edition. Palo Alto, CA: Wadsworth, 

2000.

Farley, Chelsea, and Wendy S. McClanahan. “Update on Outcomes: Reentry May Be Critical for 

States, Cities.” Ready4Work In Brief, Issue 6. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures, May 2007. 

Retrieved October 27, 2008, from http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/

216_publication.pdf.

Holl, Douglas B., Lisa Kolovich, Jeanne M. Bellotti, Mary Grady, Amy Coffey, and Nora Paxton. 

“Evaluation of the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative: Final Report.” Bethesda, MD: Coffey 

Consulting, LLC, January 2009.

Holzer, Harry J., Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll. “Employer Demand for Ex-Offenders: Recent 

Evidence from Los Angeles.” Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, March 2003. Retrieved from

http://www.urban.org/publications/410779.html.

Jenks, Stephen S., Lois MacGillivray, and Karen Needels. “Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

Evaluation Final Report: Volume One.” Washington, DC: McNeil Technologies, June 2006.

LaLonde, Robert. “Employment and Training Programs.” In Means Tested Transfer Programs in the 

U.S., edited by M. Feldstein and R. Moffitt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the 

National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003.

Langan, Patrick A., and David Levin. “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002.

Lattimore, Pamela K., Susan Brumbaugh, Christy Visher, Christine Lindquist, Laura Winterfield, 

Meghan Salas, and Janine Zweig. “National Portrait of SVORI: Serious and Violent Offender 

Reentry Initiative.” Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, July 2004.

Lattimore, Pamela K., and Christy Visher. “The Multi-Site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent 

Offender Reentry Initiative.” Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, December 2009.
References Mathematica Policy Research

82

Nelson, Marta, Perry Deese, and Charlotte Allen. “The First Month Out: Post-Incarceration 

Experiences in New York City.” New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 1999.

Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 108, no. 5, 

March 2003, pp. 937–975.

Petersilia, Joan. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford University 

Press, 2003.

Redcross, Cindy, Dan Bloom, Gilda Azurdia, Janine Zweig, and Nancy Pindus. “ Transitional Jobs 

for Ex-Prisoners Implementation, Two-Year Impacts, and Costs of the Center for Employment 

Opportunities (CEO) Prisoner Reentry Program.” New York: MDRC, August 2009.

Rose, Dina, Todd Clear, and Kristen Scully. “Coercive Mobility and Crime: Incarceration and Social 

Disorganization.” Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, 1999.

Steurer, Stephen, Linda Smith, and Alice Tracy. “Three State Recidivism Study.” Lanham, MD: 

Correctional Educational Association, 2002.

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), Employment and Training Administration. “Equal Treatment 

in Department of Labor Programs for Faith-Based and Community Organizations; Protection 

of Religious Liberty of Department of Labor Social Service Providers and Beneficiaries.” Federal 

Register, vol. 69, no. 132, July 2004, p. 41882-41990.
APPENDIX A

DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS METHODS

Appendix A. Data Sources and Analysis Methods Mathematica Policy Research

A.3

A.1. Management Information System Data

The evaluation used data collected by grantees and entered into the demonstration management 

information system (MIS) to examine participant characteristics, patterns of service use, and both 

employment and criminal justice outcomes. This section describes the data that grantees entered 

into the MIS and discusses possible limitations of the data.

1. Sources of MIS Data

Grantees were required to collect data on participants at the time of enrollment, throughout 

service provision, and during the follow-up period. These data were then entered into a web-based 

MIS designed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The system contains three categories of 

data: baseline data, service receipt, and short-term outcomes. 

• Baseline data. The Beneficiary Choice MIS data offers a wealth of information on the 

characteristics of participants. The baseline characteristics data were collected either at 

the time of enrollment or shortly thereafter and contained information about the 

participants’ demographic characteristics, housing status, substance abuse status and 

history, criminal and employment histories, and educational background. Most grantees

and specialized service providers (SSPs) collected these data through participants’ selfreports, although some used data from referring parole or probation agencies.

• Service receipt. Grantees and SSPs were also required to record information about 

participants’ service receipt in the MIS. As mentioned in Chapter II, SSPs were required 

to offer participants three core services: (1) work readiness, (2) career counseling, and (3) 

post-employment follow-up. In addition, the MIS allowed each SSP to enter data on the

unique combination of supplemental services it provides to help meet the needs of its

clientele.

• Short-term outcomes. SSPs and grantees were also asked to collect data on 

participants’ employment and earnings, recidivism, educational attainment, substance 

abuse and illegal drug use, and housing.

2. Analysis Methods and Limitations

The heart of the MIS analysis was descriptive, including frequencies and means. It described 

the characteristics of participants and the services they used. It also analyzed average outcomes 

among the entire Beneficiary Choice population as well as differences in average outcomes across 

grantees and participant subgroups. When feasible, the analysis also included t-tests and regressions 

that provide insights into the relationships among characteristics of participants, their services use, 

and their outcomes.

Although the MIS provides a wide range of data, some issues limit the conclusions that can be 

drawn from the data. For the following four reasons, any conclusions on participant characteristics,

as well as the receipt of services and outcomes, should be interpreted with caution.

1. Many baseline data elements were self-reported. In some cases, data could be 

obtained only through self-report because the faith-based and community organizations 

(FBCOs) did not have authority to request official documentation for a number of data 

elements. Local staff reported that participants sometimes had difficulty remembering 
Appendix A. Data Sources and Analysis Methods Mathematica Policy Research

A.4

information or were not honest about their backgrounds. This was especially true for 

substance abuse.

2. Grantees were not required to record service intensity. The MIS included the start 

and end dates of each service, but not the hours of service received. 

3. Service receipt was recorded differently across and within sites. In many 

instances, grantees and even staff members within grantees recorded the same service in 

different ways. For example, a one-week work readiness class that consisted of five 

three-hour workshops, or a total of 15 hours of service, could be entered as a single 

service or five separate services.

4. Some data elements were missing for large proportions of clients. DOL designed 

the system to include data elements that grantees were required to collect, as well as 

optional data elements that grantees could choose to collect if they were relevant and 

useful for program management. Although reporting provided fairly complete data for 

most of the required elements, grantees varied in how often they reported the optional 

elements. Tables A.1.1 and A.1.2 provide information on required and optional MIS 

data elements as well as the proportion of missing data for each element, based on the 

final MIS extract on June 8, 2010. 

Table A.1.1. Prevalence of Missing Data Across Baseline Characteristics

Required or 

Optional

Proportion of 

Participants with 

Missing Data

Enrollment

Date of enrollment Required 0

Date of exit Required 6

Demographics

Birth date Required 0

Gender Required 0

Race—any category marked Required 14

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Required 0

Highest school grade completed Required 4

Limited English proficiency Required 4

Marital status Required 2

Number of children Required 8

Number of children living with participant Required 13

Veteran status Required 1

Disability status Required 0

Citizenship Optional 5

Significant health issues at enrollment Required 4

Ever admitted for mental health treatment or prescribed psychiatric 

medication Optional 93

Child support obligations at enrollment: number of children Optional 40

Child support obligations at enrollment: amounta Optional 4

Work History

Employment status at incarceration Required 21

Most recent job before incarceration—job code Optional 35

Most recent job before incarceration—hours worked Optional 8

Most recent job before incarceration—number of weeks worked Optional 6

Most recent job before incarceration—hourly wage Optional 5

Longest-held full-time job before incarceration—job code Optional 39

Longest-held full-time job before incarceration—hourly wage Optional 4

Longest-held full-time job before incarceration—number of weeks 

worked Optional 1
Appendix A. Data Sources and Analysis Methods Mathematica Policy Research

A.5

Required or 

Optional

Proportion of 

Participants with 

Missing Data

Employment status at enrollment Required 0

Job at enrollment—job codea Required 14

Job at enrollment—number of hours worked per weeka Required 12

Job at enrollment—hourly wagea Required 8

Job at enrollment—start datea Required 12

Primary income source before incarcerationb Optional 15

Housing Status

Housing status at enrollment Required 1

Alcohol Abuse and Drug Use

Alcohol abuse and drug use at enrollment Required 1

Criminal History and Related Elements

Probation/parole status at enrollment Required 1

Participation in BC mandated by criminal justice agency Required 10

Date of most recent incarceration Required 8

Date of release from most recent incarceration Required 0

Type of institution where incarcerated Required 9

Type of crime for which most recently incarcerated Required 1

Total time incarcerated in lifetime Required 1

Number of arrests in lifetime—total and felony (optional) Optional 16

Number of convictions in lifetime—total and felony (optional) Optional 16

Services received while incarcerated—types Optional 1

Services received while incarcerated—GED receipt Optional 16

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

a

Includes only those for whom the data element is applicable according to skip logic.

b

Includes participants who are missing data and participants for whom this element is not applicable.

BC = Beneficiary Choice; GED = general equivalency diploma.

Table A.1.2. Prevalence of Missing Data Across Outcome Data Elements

Required or 

Optional

Proportion of 

Participants with 

Missing Data

Employment Outcomes Throughout Beneficiary Choice Participation

Date of initial placement Required Unknown

Hourly wagea Required 0

Number of hours worked in first full weeka Required 0

Occupation codea Optional 0

Education Outcomes Throughout Beneficiary Choice Participation

Attained diploma, GED, postsecondary degree, or certificate Required Unknown

Date attaineda Required 0

Type of diploma, GED, postsecondary degree, or certificatea Required 6

Assessment At 6 Months After Enrollment

Housing status at 6 months after enrollmentb Required 25

Alcohol abuse/drug use at 6 months after enrollmentb Required 25

Arrest Outcomes In First Year After Release

Re-arrested/re-incarceratedb Required 1

Date re-arrested/re-incarcerateda Required 0

Most serious charge for new crimea Optional 32

Convicted of new crimea Optional 27

Incarcerated for a new crimea Optional 40

Table A.1.1 (continued)
Appendix A. Data Sources and Analysis Methods Mathematica Policy Research

A.6

Required or 

Optional

Proportion of 

Participants with 

Missing Data

Follow-Up For Three Quarters After Beneficiary Choice Program Exit

Employed in first quarter after exitb Required 32

Employed in second quarter after exitb Required 42

Hours worked during first week in second quarter after exita Required 5

Hourly wages in second quarter after exita Required 5

Employed in third quarter after exitb Required 46

Hours worked during first week in third quarter after exita Required 4

Hourly wages in second quarter after exita Required 4

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Unknown refers to those variables for which grantees were asked to enter data for those 

participants who achieved an outcome. It is not possible to distinguish between those who did not 

achieve these outcomes and those for whom the grantee simply did not enter data.

a

Includes only those for whom the data element is applicable according to skip logic.

b

Includes the proportion of participants for whom a record is missing as well as the proportion for whom a 

record exists but a value for the data element is missing.

GED = general educational development.

Table A.1.2 (continued)
Appendix A. Data Sources and Analysis Methods Mathematica Policy Research

A.7

A.2. State Criminal Justice Data

1. Sources of State Criminal Justice Data

The analysis of criminal justice data began with a feasibility assessment of collecting data from 

all five Beneficiary Choice grantee states. The states varied on the accessibility of their data, the 

completeness of the reporting, and the cost of retrieving the information. Based on this 

information, we requested records from Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa. Within these four 

sites, we attempted to match all Beneficiary Choice participants who had enrolled by June 30, 2009. 

A description of the data collection process and available data for each state follows.

• Arizona. Given the time line of data collection, we were unable to use criminal justice 

data from Arizona. Arizona restricts access to the state criminal justice data repository 

and accessing these records requires approval from a series of individuals, including the 

state attorney general. Even if access was granted, any data received would be stripped 

of identifiers before it was delivered. With the de-identified data, the analysis could 

report the percentage of the sample that was re-arrested, but not examine associations 

between re-arrests and participants’ characteristics, service receipt, and employment 

outcomes. All publications including analysis of state data also must be reviewed and 

approved by the Arizona Department of Public Safety before publication. As a result, 

the evaluation did not collect data on Arizona participants.

• Colorado. The Colorado records were obtained from the Colorado Bureau of 

Investigation. Individual records are publicly available and included background and 

demographic information, any aliases, arrest dates, arrest charges, the arresting agency, 

dispositions, and sentencing information (including probation requirements and length 

of probation, incarceration, community service, if/when paroled, and so on). Colorado 

criminal justice records included all state arrests supported by fingerprint evidence and 

provided information about subsequent dispositions. Warrant information, sealed 

records, and juvenile records were not included. Although arrests were usually entered 

into the system within 24 to 48 hours of the arrest, the disposition data was not updated 

regularly and was less complete.

• Illinois. The Illinois records were requested from the Illinois Criminal Justice 

Information Authority, which is responsible for research-related requests and requires 

documentation of approval from an institutional review board. In Illinois, an 

individual’s record results contained background and demographic information, any 

aliases, arrest charge and category, arrest dates, the agency submitting the arrest 

information, and the state statute contravened by the accused. Individuals were matched 

by fingerprint data and assigned a unique state ID. Each arrest, regardless of the number 

and category of charges, was allocated a unique document control number to enable 

tracking of a specific arrest. 

The repository included information on all arrests for felonies, Class A and B 

misdemeanors, violations of the Illinois vehicle code regarding auto theft, aggravated 

fleeing or eluding a police officer, and driving under the influence. The extract for this 

analysis did not include technical violations of parole or probation. Arrests for Class C 

misdemeanors and local ordinance offenses might also have been reported to the 

repository. In our analysis of new arrests, violations of the Illinois traffic code and local 

ordinances were excluded. Common local ordinance violations included smoking in a 

public place. These ordinance violations were punishable by a fine.
Appendix A. Data Sources and Analysis Methods Mathematica Policy Research

A.8

• Indiana. The Indiana records were requested from Open Portal Solutions after 

receiving permission from the Indiana State Police to access these records for research 

purposes. The database included charges for any felony arrests and Class A 

misdemeanors. The reporting of arrests was complete, and jurisdictions such as 

Indianapolis reported arrests on a daily basis. In addition to arrests and dispositions, the 

repository included records of all incarcerations.

• Iowa. Iowa criminal justice records were obtained from the Iowa Department of 

Investigation. Individual records were publicly available and included background and 

demographic information, any aliases, arrest dates, arrest charges, the arresting agency, 

dispositions, and sentencing information (including probation requirements and length 

of probation, incarceration, community service, if/when paroled, and so on). Arrests 

listed in the Iowa reports included arrests with dispositions and arrests with outstanding 

dispositions. If a disposition form was not provided to the state within four years, the 

arrest information was purged from the system. Also, if an arrest charge was dismissed 

in court, the record was purged from the system. If the individual did not provide 

consent through a signed waiver, the record was purged of arrest information that was 

more than 18 months old if there was no disposition for the charge.

2. Analysis Methods and Limitations

To conduct this analysis, the criminal justice data received from the four states first had to be 

matched to the appropriate participant in the MIS. Because the amount and type of information in 

these reports varied by state, we made decisions about what information to keep from individual 

records.

• Matching Records. Criminal justice records, or “rap sheets,” were matched based on 

participants’ personally identifiable information, as provided by grantees. Records were 

initially matched using first name, last name, birth date, and gender. Next, we used other 

details in the MIS system to find corroborating information, including a criminal justice 

ID, the date of the most recent release before program enrollment, and the name or type 

of the most recent prison facility.

• Information Recorded. When a participant was confirmed to have a matched record, 

any arrest information that occurred after program enrollment was incorporated into the 

analysis file. Relevant arrest information included arrest date for a new arrest, arrest 

charge, technical violation information, disposition information (whether the participant 

had a disposition for that particular arrest and the date it was issued), and sentencing 

information for that arrest. An arrest for an attempted offense was coded the same as 

the offense; for example, attempted robbery was coded as robbery. Technical violations 

were coded for explicit indications of technical violations, other violations (for example, 

parole violations), and instances of re-incarcerations without new dispositions

(Table A.2.1).
Appendix A. Data Sources and Analysis Methods Mathematica Policy Research

A.9

Table A.2.1. Categories for Arrest and Conviction Charges

Arrest/Conviction Categories Description

Murder/Assault Murder, manslaughter, (involuntary) homicide, 

simple/aggravated assault, domestic violence, willful 

injury

Robbery Armed or simple

Theft/Burglary/Fraud Shoplifting, pick-pocketing, trespassing with intent to 

burglarize, larceny, embezzlement, forgery, false 

identity

Drugs Use, possession, sale, unspecified

Property Arson, stolen property, vandalism, contraband, pawn 

broking-related

Personal Disorderly conduct, family-related, liquor-related, 

prostitution, sex-related, traffic-related, weapons, 

harassment, kidnapping, rioting, terrorist threats

Miscellaneous Court-related, probation/parole violation, immigration 

law violation, criminal assistance, other/unspecified

Despite the wide range of information available from criminal justice records, there were four 

notable limitations to the analysis of criminal justice data. 

1. Data were not collected for participants in Arizona. As discussed earlier, we were 

unable to conduct any analysis for participants in Arizona because we were unable to 

obtain data. As a result, we could not compare recidivism rates in that site with others, 

and totals across grantees are not representative of all participants in the demonstration.

2. Data does not include arrests for Federal crimes or arrests in other states. The 

state administrative data likely understates the full extent of criminal involvement 

because it does not include Federal offenses or arrests in other states.

3. States vary on which arrests are recorded in a repository. As discussed earlier, 

Illinois required localities to report felonies and Class A and B misdemeanors, but some 

localities could choose to report Class C misdemeanors, traffic violations, and local 

ordinance violations. We aimed to create consistency across the states, but variations 

might remain.

4. States vary on their enforcement and punishment of technical violations. 

Observed differences across grantees in the rate of re-incarcerations might be more 

reflective of state criminal justice policy than the behavior of program participants.
Appendix A. Data Sources and Analysis Methods Mathematica Policy Research

A.10

A.3. Cost Data

To study program costs, we first had to gather the best available data across the different 

organizations and determine the best methods to analyze that data. This section examines the 

different sources of cost data and the methods used for analysis. Finally, although we are confident 

this analysis provides meaningful information about program costs, this section also includes a 

discussion about the limitations of this analysis.

1. Sources of Cost Data

Three different sources of data were used for the cost analysis. Combined, these data sources 

obtained from the grantees, service coordinators, and specialized service providers (SSPs) provide a 

detailed account of total program costs. Specifically, the data sources for this analysis, which cover 

the period between July 1, 2007, and September 30, 2009, include the following:

• In-depth expenditure data. Each grantee provided in-depth expenditure data that 

included a detailed breakdown of all expenditures for the grantee and service coordinator 

as well as total SSP payments during the cost period. Within these reports, expenditures 

for grantees and service coordinators were broken down into labor, fringe, and direct 

and indirect costs. 

• SSP payments by benchmark. In addition to total SSP payments, grantees provided a 

breakdown of payments made to each SSP by benchmark or payment point. 

• In-person interviews. During the fall of 2009, Mathematica conducted in-person 

interviews with each grantee and service coordinator and selected SSPs at each site. 

These interviews were conducted with key staff within the grantee, service coordinator,

and SSP, including project directors, managers, case managers and other front-line staff, 

and participants. Cost data were collected during these on-site interviews as well as 

qualitative information about leveraged and donated resources and other information 

about the program that helped to provide context to the analysis. 

2. Analysis Methods and Limitations

The cost analysis included three steps. First, each grantee and SSP provided cost data in 

different formats that had to be standardized across all organizations. This included total costs for 

grantees and service coordinators as well as SSP payments by consistent benchmarks. Second, the 

analysis included basic descriptive statistics on the total amount spent by organizational type and 

subcategory of expense. Third, participation numbers were extracted from the MIS for the period 

covered by the cost analysis and used to calculate the average cost per participant.

Although the analysis aimed to use the most complete data to answer the key research questions

thoroughly, there are four notable limitations. 

1. This analysis did not include direct expenditure data from the SSPs. We were 

able to collect payments made by grantees to SSPs but did not gather expenditure data 

from the SSPs themselves. Without direct expenditures, the estimated cost based on

payments made to SSPs as they reached payment points likely underestimates the true 

total costs to the SSPs for serving participants. 
Appendix A. Data Sources and Analysis Methods Mathematica Policy Research

A.11

2. Qualitative data on costs was collected from only a subset of SSPs. Ten SSPs 

were chosen for in-depth interviews during the second site visits. This represents only 

about one-fifth of all SSPs that participated in the Beneficiary Choice program. 

Although the SSPs were chosen to provide a reasonable subset of programs, they are 

not representative of all SSPs. 

3. There could be a significant time lag between program enrollment and final 

payments for participants. Based on the performance-based contract structure, it 

could take six months or more for SSPs to receive full payments for a participant. Due 

to this significant lag, some payments associated with participants who enrolled toward 

the end of the data collection period might not be reflected in the analysis. The 

evaluation’s estimated cost per participant might therefore understate the actual costs 

per participant.

4. Grantees, service coordinators, and SSPs did not always maintain and provide 

the same amount or level of data. Due to variations in cost reporting, some detailed 

analyses were not possible across all sites.

APPENDIX B

COMPLETE PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS

Appendix B. Complete Participant Characteristics Mathematica Policy Research

B.3

Table B.1. Demographic Characteristics (Percentages Unless Otherwise Indicated)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Gender

Male 88.3 76.4 92.2 93.6 92.0 86.5

Female 11.7 23.6 7.8 6.4 8.0 13.5

Age at Enrollment

18 through 22 26.4 20.6 23.8 33.3 29.0 24.7

23 through 25 30.9 32.2 28.5 26.1 33.3 34.0

26 through 29 42.7 47.3 47.7 40.6 37.7 41.3

30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Average (in years) 25.1 25.5 25.6 24.7 24.8 25.1

Race

White 34.7 58.9 51.9 2.9 22.2 53.8

Black 58.6 28.9 39.2 87.0 75.6 42.8

Asian 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 1.1

American Indian or 

Alaskan native 4.2 10.4 5.3 6.2 0.9 1.4

Hawaiian native or other 

Pacific Islander 0.9 0.4 0.3 3.5 0.9

Multiracial 1.2 1.4 3.0 0.4 0.0 0.9

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino origin 16.8 39.2 32.6 8.9 1.1 4.9

Non-Hispanic 73.3 58.2 64.4 73.5 81.0 88.1

Not specified 10.0 2.6 3.0 17.6 17.8 7.1

Eligible Veteran Status

Served more than 180 

days 1.6 0.7 4.2 1.5 0.8 1.1

Other eligible person 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Individuals with a Disability 1.5 0.9 2.8 1.3 0.0 2.7

U.S. Citizen 99.2 97.6 99.3 99.5 99.6 99.8

Authorized to Work in the 

U.S. 99.4 98.2 99.7 99.8 99.6 99.8

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
Appendix B. Complete Participant Characteristics Mathematica Policy Research

B.4

Table B.2. Family Characteristics and Child Support Obligations at Enrollment (Percentages)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Number of Children

None 75.5 72.7 70.7 83.7 77.4 77.1

One 12.8 11.4 17.7 10.2 15.2 9.9

Two 6.6 8.3 8.2 3.6 6.1 4.8

Three or more 5.1 7.6 3.5 2.4 1.4 8.2

Average 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5

Number of Children Living 

with Participant

None 83.5 86.4 85.2 67.8 82.5 94.5

One 7.7 4.6 8.1 17.3 7.6 1.8

Two 5.2 5.0 4.7 8.9 6.0 1.6

Three or more 3.6 4.0 2.0 6.1 3.9 2.1

Average 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.1

Marital Status

Married 5.8 2.9 13.4 4.5 4.4 3.8

Single 90.1 93.9 77.0 94.0 91.6 94.0

Divorced or widowed 2.4 2.6 4.2 0.7 3.0 1.3

Separated 1.8 0.7 5.5 0.9 1.0 0.9

Has Child Support 

Obligation 24.6 27.3 29.3 16.3 22.6 23.5

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
Appendix B. Complete Participant Characteristics Mathematica Policy Research

B.5

Table B.3. Housing, Substance Abuse, and Health Status at Enrollment (Percentages)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Housing Status at 

Enrollment

Own or rent apartment, 

room or house 7.4 1.3 10.2 15.7 6.3 3.1

Stable living situation 

staying at someone’s 

apartment, room, or 

house 46.8 74.4 34.8 19.1 62.3 42.4

Halfway house or 

transitional house 29.0 22.8 38.4 6.2 25.9 52.8

Unstable living situation 

staying at someone’s 

apartment, room, or 

house 13.4 0.7 4.5 57.1 4.0 0.9

Residential treatment 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.9

Homeless 2.9 0.4 11.9 1.5 0.8 0.0

Self Reported Alcohol 

Abuse or Drug Use

In three months prior to 

enrollment 2.8 5.5 2.6 3.2 2.1 0.4

In three months prior to 

incarceration 52.5 80.7 57.9 24.2 36.7 66.2

Both 2.1 0.2 3.9 1.7 4.2 0.0

None 42.7 13.6 35.6 70.9 57.0 33.3

Significant Health Issues at 

Enrollment 3.9 3.3 5.9 1.1 6.6 2.2

Ever Received Mental Health 

Treatment Prior to 

Enrollment 7.1 4.2 12.1 2.6 5.0 12.1

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
Appendix B. Complete Participant Characteristics Mathematica Policy Research

B.6

Table B.4. Educational Attainment at Enrollment (Percentages)

High School Grade 

Completed

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Less than high school 

diploma 42.4 24.6 22.3 74.5 58.7 29.2

GED or high school diploma 51.2 72.8 68.3 20.2 33.1 63.5

Some college or vocational 

school 6.6 2.6 9.3 5.4 8.3 7.3

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
Appendix B. Complete Participant Characteristics Mathematica Policy Research

B.7

Table B.5. Employment Prior to Incarceration (Percentages)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Primary Income Over 6 

Months Prior to 

Incarceration

Formal employment 43.2 42.7 67.7 18.7 36.7 50.1

Informal employment 5.6 5.6 3.0 8.1 5.3 6.0

Public benefits 1.9 1.8 0.8 3.5 1.2 2.3

Illegal activities 32.1 32.4 10.4 36.0 43.5 36.1

Friends and family 13.8 14.6 14.0 27.6 11.2 3.7

Other 3.4 2.9 4.1 6.2 2.2 1.8

Employment Status at 

Incarceration

Employed full-time 27.7 27.8 38.7 9.1 12.6 53.6

Employed part-time 5.7 8.5 8.2 2.3 4.3 5.3

Not employed 45.4 59.5 24.6 64.1 47.2 30.7

Missing 21.2 4.2 28.5 24.4 35.9 10.4

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
Appendix B. Complete Participant Characteristics Mathematica Policy Research

B.8

Table B.6. Employee Status at Enrollment (Percentages)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Employment Status at 

Enrollment

Employed 4 6 8 0 2 3

Not employed 96 94 92 100 98 97

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
Appendix B. Complete Participant Characteristics Mathematica Policy Research

B.9

Table B.7. Characteristics of Prior Jobs (Percentages Unless Otherwise Indicated)

Longest Held Full-Time Job

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Months Worked

Fewer than 6 months 31.8 33.2 26.5 14.5 28.7 37.3

6 to 11 months 20.2 12.9 29.3 14.5 22.4 21.4

12 months 13.0 14.1 9.1 17.3 12.6 13.3

More than 12 months 35.0 39.9 35.1 14.1 36.2 27.9

Average (months) 16.4 17.2 14.7 18.9 17.9 14.7

Occupation

Food preparation and 

serving related 24.1 21.7 22.3 24.6 30.2 23.4

Sales and Related 14.9 24.1 14.6 9.4 11.9 9.4

Construction and 

Extraction 16.7 10.3 29.6 6.5 16.0 18.7

Production 15.1 10.8 4.6 29.7 14.9 21.6

Transportation and 

material moving 6.2 8.1 6.5 5.8 8.2 2.6

Building and grounds 

cleaning and 

maintenance 6.1 7.6 6.9 1.5 4.1 7.0

Installation, 

maintenance, and 

repair 7.6 6.9 6.2 9.4 7.1 8.8

Other 9.3 10.5 9.3 13.1 7.6 8.5

Hourly Wage 

Less than $7.50 24.0 29.6 14.5 26.3 26.2 22.7

$7.50 to $8.49 16.8 16.5 14.5 33.3 18.0 15.5

$8.50 to $9.99 19.4 18.0 17.3 14.0 22.7 20.7

$10.00 11.2 9.6 14.1 5.3 9.8 12.7

$10.01 to $14.99 19.7 16.8 27.7 14.0 16.8 20.2

$15.00 or more 8.9 9.4 12.1 7.0 6.6 8.3

Average (in dollars) $10.04 $9.73 $10.95 $9.54 $9.43 $10.25

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
Appendix B. Complete Participant Characteristics Mathematica Policy Research

B.10

Table B.8. Criminal History Prior to Enrollment (Percentages Unless Otherwise Indicated)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Total Number of Arrests

1 12.5 8.5 10.4 13.9 13.0 16.9

2 to 3 28.2 22.9 22.3 33.4 27.8 34.3

4 to 5 19.2 17.4 23.9 17.1 15.6 21.2

6 to 10 25.0 33.4 25.6 21.5 24.8 19.2

11 or more 15.1 17.8 17.8 14.1 18.9 8.5

Average 6.7 8.0 7.6 6.6 6.8 4.7

Total Number of Felony 

Arrests

0 3.1 1.6 2.7 0.7 7.9 4.0

1 30.5 25.3 25.9 26.3 34.8 41.0

2 to 3 45.9 48.2 50.8 47.9 43.1 39.0

4 to 5 12.5 14.7 13.9 15.6 8.6 8.7

6 or more 8.0 10.2 6.7 9.5 5.5 7.2

Average 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.4

Total Number of 

Convictions

1 26.2 28.6 23.0 31.8 32.5 17.8

2 to 3 45.7 53.0 42.9 48.0 48.9 36.9

4 to 5 15.9 13.0 17.9 13.6 10.6 22.5

6 or more 12.2 5.4 16.2 6.6 8.0 22.9

Average 3.1 2.6 3.5 2.5 2.6 4.1

Total Time Incarcerated 

During Lifetime

Less than 6 months 11.9 9.6 2.2 21.1 13.1 13.5

6 months to 1 year 16.4 16.0 9.7 22.3 14.8 19.2

1 to 2 years 24.2 22.1 19.7 22.1 27.1 29.6

2 to 3 years 16.9 22.8 18.0 13.0 13.5 17.7

3 to 5 years 16.6 16.9 28.1 12.3 14.0 11.9

5 or more years 14.1 12.7 22.3 9.2 17.5 8.2

Average (years) 2.5 2.5 3.4 1.9 2.4 2.0

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
Appendix B. Complete Participant Characteristics Mathematica Policy Research

B.11

Table B.9. Characteristics of Most Recent Incarceration (Percentages Unless Otherwise Indicated)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Non-violent Offender 67.4 67.6 63.9 54.6 79.0 70.2

Length of Most Recent 

Incarceration 

Less than 1 year 39.10 33.55 28.88 49.46 50.25 33.33

1 up to 2 years 26.05 26.10 28.64 21.26 24.75 29.75

2 up to 3 years 14.56 17.11 16.50 10.85 10.78 17.45

3 or more years 20.28 23.25 25.97 18.44 14.22 19.46

Average (years) 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.7 1.5 2.0

Types of Offenses

Drug crimes 37.5 30.4 34.2 46.0 36.1 41.6

Property crimes 33.6 53.1 38.3 15.0 31.0 30.7

Violent crimes 24.6 27.1 22.4 33.6 25.6 14.2

Public order offenses 6.4 7.3 7.6 3.8 5.1 8.2

Other offenses 9.8 8.2 19.6 5.3 10.1 5.6

If Had a Property Crime 

Arrest, Type:

Burglary 40.5 25.3 38.1 56.7 50.6 50.0

Motor vehicle theft 13.5 15.8 20.5 20.9 9.6 1.5

Receiving stolen property 7.5 5.0 8.5 1.5 18.1 0.7

Larceny 19.8 26.1 11.9 17.9 9.6 31.9

Forgery 9.5 16.2 3.4 3.0 6.0 13.0

Trespassing 4.4 5.4 10.8 0.0 1.8 0.0

Other property crime 4.8 6.2 6.8 0.0 4.2 2.9

If Had a Drug Crime Arrest, 

Type:

Possession of a 

controlled substance 57.6 27.5 67.5 74.9 51.8 58.3

Criminal sale of a 

controlled substance 14.0 43.5 13.4 12.6 8.3 0.0

Possession of drug 

paraphernalia 5.6 21.7 3.8 0.0 4.7 2.1

Trafficking a controlled 

substance 10.3 7.3 5.1 1.5 5.7 31.6

Other drug crime 12.6 0.0 10.2 11.1 29.53 8.0

If Had a Violent Crime 

Arrest, Type:

Assault and battery 32.9 49.6 35.0 15.2 29.9 45.3

Weapons charges 27.0 25.2 24.3 35.8 19.7 29.7

Armed or aggravated 

robbery 15.4 17.1 5.8 25.2 17.5 0.0

Robbery 11.6 5.7 13.6 9.3 14.6 18.8

Sexual offenses 7.6 0.0 14.6 0.7 17.5 0.0

Murder and 

Manslaughter 5.5 2.4 6.8 13.9 0.7 0.0

If Had a Public Order 

Offense Arrest, Type:

Driving while intoxicated 73.2 63.6 68.57 70.6 59.3 97.3

Commercial vice 2.0 3.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.7

Gambling 2.0 0.0 2.9 5.9 3.7 0.0

Animal cruelty 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other public order 

offense 22.8 33.3 25.7 23.5 37.0 0.0

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
Appendix B. Complete Participant Characteristics Mathematica Policy Research

B.12

Table B.10. Type of Institution During Most Recent Incarceration (Percentages)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Federal Prison 3.4 1.8 5.1 3.5 1.6 4.9

State Prison 91.4 98.0 93.2 95.4 75.1 95.1

County or City Jail 5.3 0.2 1.8 1.1 23.4 0.0

Sample Size 2,382 457 463 471 538 453

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
APPENDIX C

ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

Appendix C. Additional Analysis Mathematica Policy Research

C.3

To supplement the core analysis presented in the report, the evaluation team conducted three 

sets of additional analyses. First, Table C.1 presents differences in service receipt between key 

participant subgroups. This subgroup analysis provides a useful indication of the patterns that are 

likely to emerge if the program continues serving these types of ex-offenders. Participant subgroups 

included gender, age, race, ethnicity and education level. 

Second, Tables C.2 and C.3 presents regression results that explore the relationship between the 

receipt of BC services and employment outcomes and recidivism outcomes, respectively. 

Importantly, relationships identified through these analyses do not imply causal relationships. For 

example, individuals who chose to participate in various services were likely to be systematically 

different from the participants who did not participate in the service.

Third, Table C.4 presents regressions that explore the relationship between job placement and 

recidivism. Again, these relationships are not causal and must also be interpreted with caution. It 

may be that those who chose to participate in BC were more likely to find a job or less likely to 

recidivate, regardless of their participation. Likewise, individuals who found employment may have 

been systematically more motivated than other participants.

The fact that participants have complex needs and many factors influence their eventual success 

suggests that these simple analyses have only minimal predictive power of participant outcomes. In 

addition, grantees had much greater success tracking and recording outcomes for those participants 

who continued to be involved in the program than those who dropped out. Only an experimental 

design can disentangle these relationships. 

Table C.1. Service Receipt by Demographic Subgroup

Work 

Prep

Education/

Training Supportive Health

Community 

Service Mentoring

All Participants 95.7 20.1 83.9 14.1 1.8 19.9

Gender

Male 96.1 20.9 83.9 12.8 1.9 20.5

Female 92.8 14.4 83.5 23.7 1.1 15.1

Age at Enrollment

Younger than 22 97.0 20.9 80.7 7.6 1.3 16.5

22 -24 96.1 18.6 89.6 24.8 2.3 24.4

25 or older 95.5 19.6 86.4 14.8 2.1 19.9

Race

White 95.2 15.8 84.4 19.2 2.0 23.8

Black 95.4 21.7 79.8 7.2 1.3 16.4

American Indian or 

Alaskan Native 94.2 22.1 91.9 25.6 2.3 19.8

Other 100 17.6 78.4 9.8 2.0 25.5

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino origin 97.5 24.3 94.0 22.8 2.5 24.5

Non-Hispanic 95.2 19.9 82.5 12.8 1.7 19.4

Education

High school dropout 97.0 20.9 80.7 7.6 1.3 16.5

GED 96.1 18.6 89.6 24.8 2.3 24.4

High school graduate 95.5 19.6 86.4 14.8 2.1 19.9

Sample Size 2,382 2,382 2,382 2,382 2,382 2,382

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
Appendix C. Additional Analysis Mathematica Policy Research

C.4

Table C.2. Service Receipt and Employment Outcome Regressions

Placed in 

Employment

Weeks to First 

Placement

Hourly Wage in 

Initial Placement

Hours Worked in 

Initial Placement

Any Work Preparation 0.22*

(0.05)

0.45

(1.69)

0.10

(0.42)

0.01

(1.15)

Any Education/Training 0.03

(0.02)

3.88*

(0.74)

0.38*

(0.18)

-0.30

(0.50)

Any Mentoring 0.07*

(0.03)

-1.15

(0.72)

-0.17

(0.18)

-1.93*

(0.49)

Barriers to Employment

Young -0.05*

(0.02)

0.17

(0.55)

-0.12

(0.14)

-0.28

(0.37)

High school dropout -0.13*

(0.02)

1.26*

(0.59)

-0.23

(0.15)

-0.09

(0.40)

Black -0.07*

(0.02)

1.24*

(0.62)

-0.18

(0.15)

-1.54*

(0.42)

Violent offender -0.001

(0.019)

-0.13

(0.58)

-0.13

(0.15)

0.75

(0.40)

Sample Size 2,382 2,382 2,382 2,382

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Notes: Percentages based participants with non-missing data. All models were estimated using OLS 

and include grantee fixed effects.

*Statistically different from zero at the 0.05 percent level, using a two-tailed test.

Table C.3. Service Receipt and Criminal Justice Outcome Regressions

New Arrest Within 6 

Months of Release

New Arrest Within 12 

Months of Release

Re-Incarcerated Within 

12 Months of Release

Any Work Preparation -0.04

(0.06)

-0.01

(0.07)

-0.03

(0.06)

Any Education/Training -0.03

(0.03)

-0.07*

(0.03)

-0.07*

(0.03)

Any Mentoring -0.04

(0.03)

-0.03

(0.03)

-0.01

(0.03)

Barriers to Employment

Young 0.06*

(0.02)

0.04

(0.03)

0.02

(0.02)

High school dropout -0.02

(0.02)

-0.03

(0.03)

-0.00

(0.02)

Black 0.04

(0.02)

0.09*

(0.03)

0.02

(0.02)

Violent offender -0.06*

(0.02)

-0.04

(0.03)

0.01

(0.02)

Sample Size 1,374 1,374 1,374

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010 and state criminal 

justice administrative data from CO, IL, IN, and IA (see Appendix A.3 for more details).

Note: Only includes participants enrolled by June 30, 2009, who had a valid match in the administrative 

data. All models were estimated using OLS and include grantee fixed effects.

*Statistically different from zero at the 0.05 percent level, using a two-tailed test
Appendix C. Additional Analysis Mathematica Policy Research

C.5

Table C.4. Job Placement and Criminal Justice Outcome Regressions

New Arrest Within 

6 Months of 

Release

New Arrest Within 

12 Months of 

Release

Re-Incarcerated 

Within 12 Months 

of Release

Placed in Employment -0.12*

(0.03)

-0.10*

(0.03)

-0.10*

(0.02)

Barriers to Employment

Young 0.05*

(0.02)

0.03

(0.03)

0.02

(0.02)

High school dropout -0.04

(0.02)

-0.05

(0.03)

-0.02

(0.02)

Black 0.02

(0.02)

0.08*

(0.03)

0.01

(0.02)

Violent offender -0.06*

(0.02)

-0.04*

(0.03)

0.01

(0.02)

Sample Size 1,374 1,374 1,374

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010 and state 

criminal justice administrative data from CO, IL, IN, and IA (see Appendix A.3 for more 

details).

Note: Only includes participants enrolled by June 30, 2009, who had a valid match in the 

administrative data. All models were estimated using OLS and include grantee fixed effects.

*Statistically different from zero at the 0.05 percent level, using a two-tailed test.
C.6
APPENDIX D

MIS DATA ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOMES

D.3 

Table D.1. Criminal Justice Outcomes Reported in the MIS, by Site (Percentages)

All 

Participants

Phoenix, 

AZ

Denver, 

CO

Chicago, 

IL

Indianapolis, 

IN

Des Moines,

IA

Re-arrested for a new crime 

in 12 months since release 8.1 15.5 5.2 1.4 11.3 7.9

Ever re-incarcerated for a 

violation of probation or 

parole in 12 months since 

release 5.4 1.5 14.3 0.6 7.6 0.0

Sample Size 1,831 343 440 353 380 315

Source: Beneficiary Choice Management Information System extract dated June 8, 2010.

Note: Percentages based participants with non-missing data.
Improving public well-being by conducting high-quality, objective research and surveys

Princeton, NJ ■ Ann Arbor, MI ■ Cambridge, MA ■ Chicago, IL ■ Oakland, CA ■ Washington, DC

Mathematica® is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research

www.mathematica-mpr.com