Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Characteristics of the Study Participants
Table 1 presents baseline characteristics for the program group, the control group, and both groups combined. As expected in a random assignment design, there are very few significant differences in background characteristics between the two research groups. In addition, the characteristics of the CEO study sample are similar to the national population of former prisoners.
| Characteristic | Program Group | Control Group | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (%) | 18 to 24 years | 19.0 | 20.3 | 19.6 |
| 25 to 30 years | 23.8 | 23.7 | 23.8 | |
| 31 to 40 years | 31.4 | 30.3 | 30.9 | |
| 41 years or older | 25.7 | 25.7 | 25.7 | |
| Average age | 33.7 | 33.7 | 33.7 | |
| U.S. citizen (%) | 74.6 | 73.6 | 74.2 | |
| Race/Ethnicity (%) | White, non-Hispanic | 1.4 | 2.2 | 1.8 |
| Black, non-Hispanic | 64.3 | 64.5 | 64.4 | |
| Hispanic | 31.2 | 29.8 | 30.6 | |
| Other | 3.0 | 3.4 | 3.2 | |
| Male (%)** | 91.4 | 95.3 | 93.0 | |
| Has any children (%) | 58.1 | 56.2 | 57.3 | |
| Lives with any children under age 18 (%) | 16.3 | 15.2 | 15.8 | |
| Has a child support order (%) | 18.9 | 19.9 | 19.3 | |
| Education (%) | High school diploma | 9.5 | 11.4 | 10.3 |
| GED | 42.6 | 43.9 | 43.1 | |
| Beyond high school diploma | 4.8 | 3.5 | 4.3 | |
| None of the above | 43.1 | 41.2 | 42.3 | |
| Housing status (%) | Rents or owns home | 16.6 | 19.9 | 18.0 |
| Lives with friends or relatives | 59.1 | 55.1 | 57.4 | |
| Transitional housing | 12.4 | 11.2 | 11.9 | |
| Emergency housing/homeless | 3.7 | 5.4 | 4.4 | |
| Other | 8.1 | 8.4 | 8.3 | |
| Marital status (%) | Married, living with spouse | 8.1 | 9.3 | 8.6 |
| Married, living away from spouse | 7.4 | 7.7 | 7.5 | |
| Unmarried, living with partner | 21.8 | 20.1 | 21.1 | |
| Single | 62.6 | 63.0 | 62.8 | |
| Ever employed (%) | 81.1 | 81.2 | 81.2 | |
| Employed 6 consecutive months for one employer (%) | 59.9 | 62.7 | 61.1 | |
| UI covered employment in the quarter prior to random assignment (%) | 14.9 | 11.7 | 13.6 | |
| UI covered employment in year prior to random assignment (%) | 24.1 | 24.0 | 24.0 | |
| Sample size | 568 | 409 | 977 | |
| SOURCE: MDRC calculations using CEO Baseline Information Form data and Unemployment Insurance wage records from New York State. NOTES: Includes sample members randomly assigned between January 2004 and October 2005. Data in this table are unweighted, but the results for the statistical significance test are weighted by week of random assignment. In order to assess differences in characteristics across research groups, chi-square tests were used for categorical variables and t-test was used for continuous variables. Significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. The significance level indicates the probability that one would be making an error in concluding that there is a difference between research groups for the variable in question. |
The vast majority of sample members are male (93 percent).1 Almost all are black or Latino (in national samples nearly one-third are white, likely reflecting the difference between prison populations in New York City and those for the nation as a whole). Fifty-seven percent of the sample members are over 30 years old. This is similar to national-level information — the average age of prisoners being released in recent years has increased to 34 years.
Sixteen percent of the sample is married, with 9 percent living with their spouse. Another 21 percent are unmarried but live with a partner. Over half of the study sample (57 percent) has at least one child, although only 16 percent live with any of their children. Only 19 percent report having a formal child support order in place.
The process of obtaining affordable housing upon release is complicated for returning prisoners because most do not have income from employment and are not eligible for many other forms of public assistance. In addition, current federally subsidized housing programs give public housing authorities power to deny housing or to terminate the leases of individuals with a history of drug use or criminal behavior. Thus, many sample members live with friends or relatives (57 percent) or in some type of transitional housing (12 percent). Four percent report living in emergency housing or are homeless.
Just over half the sample has completed a high school diploma or a GED, and a very small proportion has a postsecondary degree (4 percent). Most have at least some employment history. More than 80 percent report that they have worked, and about 61 percent report that they have worked for a single employer for six consecutive months.
It is notable that 24 percent of the sample was employed in a UI-covered job in the year before study entry. This means that at least some study participants did not come to CEO immediately after release from prison, an issue that will be discussed further below.
Table 2 shows the criminal histories of study participants for both the program and control groups before random assignment and including the offense for which they were recently released from prison.2 Again, there are very few differences between the groups. As expected, all of the study participants have a history of arrest, conviction, and incarceration. The average lifetime total time spent in state prison for study participants is nearly five years.
Before random assignment, study participants had been arrested an average of eight times, similar to that of the 1994 national release cohort,3 with about five being felony arrests and three being misdemeanor arrests. Before random assignment, study participants had been convicted an average of seven times with about three being felony convictions. Nearly 70 percent of the sample members have had prior arrests for violent offenses with 51 percent being convicted of violent offenses. Nearly three-quarters of the sample had prior drug offense convictions.
Table 2 also shows the time between the last prison release and the date of random assignment. These data confirm that only 41 percent of the study sample came to CEO within three months after release. This is not typical of the full CEO population, about three-fourths of whom come to the program either immediately upon release or shortly thereafter.
As noted earlier, boot camp graduates and participants in some other special programs were excluded from the study for contractual reasons. Individuals in these special programs almost always come to CEO just after release. Those in the study sample came to CEO after referral by a parole officer not involved in special programs. These parole officers base their referral decisions on a wide variety of concerns and circumstances. Further analysis is needed to understand why many of the individuals referred by these parole officers came to CEO long after release (for fully one-third of the sample, more than nine months after release). For example, some parole officers may have referred parolees to CEO after they had worked for a time and then lost a job. Alternatively, data from the New York City jail system (which will be analyzed later) may show that some sample members spent time in jail between their release from prison and their date of random assignment. Others may have spent time in residential drug treatment programs.
Because the CEO model was designed to serve ex-prisoners just after release, and because most of CEO’s broader population fits this profile, the results presented later in this paper are examined separately for people who came to CEO soon after release and those who came later.
| Characteristic | Program Group | Control Group | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arrest history | Any prior arrests (%) | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| Average number of arrestsa | 7.4 | 7.7 | 7.5 | ||
| Number of prior felony arrests | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.6 | ||
| Number of prior misdemeanor arrests | 2.8 | 3.1 | 2.9 | ||
| Ever arrested for a violent crime (%)b | 67.4 | 67.5 | 67.4 | ||
| Number of prior arrests for a violent crime | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | ||
| Conviction history | Any prior conviction (%)c | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| Average number of prior convictionsd | 6.6 | 6.9 | 6.7 | ||
| Number of prior felony convictions | 2.7 | 2.5 | 2.6*** | ||
| Number of prior misdemeanor convictions | 3.6 | 4.1 | 3.8 | ||
| Convicted of a violent crime (%) | 51.6 | 50.6 | 51.2 | ||
| Convicted of a drug-related crime (%) | 73.1 | 74.2 | 73.6 | ||
| State prison history | Lifetime number of months in state prisone | 59.2 | 57.5 | 58.5 | |
| Months between latest state prison release and random assignment (%)f | 1-3 months | 41.4 | 39.5 | 40.6 | |
| 4-6 months | 14.7 | 13.5 | 14.2 | ||
| 7-9 months | 10.8 | 11.7 | 11.2 | ||
| More than 9 months | 33.0 | 35.2 | 33.9 | ||
| Sample size | 568 | 409 | 977 | ||
| SOURCE: MDRC calculations using data from the New York State (NYS) Division of Criminal Justice Services. NOTES: Includes sample members randomly assigned between January 2004 and October 2005. Data in this table are unweighted, but the results for the statistical significance test are weighted by week of random assignment. Significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. Due to missing data, seven sample members are missing prior criminal history data. Prior criminal history includes the arrest, conviction, and incarceration related to the offense they were on parole for at the time of random assignment (the current offense). a Each arrest date is only counted as a single event. If there are multiple crimes or charges on the same date, only one event per date is recorded in the analysis. A total of 19 sample members are missing arrest charges information. b Violent crime indicator as defined by Penal Law 70.02; also includes underlying offenses. c Conviction outcome excludes convictions where a final disposition was not found. A total of 24 sample members are missing a final disposition. d Each conviction date is only counted as a single event. If there are multiple convictions on the same date, only one event per date is recorded in the analysis. e "Lifetime" includes historical data as early as 1970. |
1 There is a small but statistically significant difference between groups in the percentage of sample members who are male. The impact calculations presented later are adjusted to account for this difference. Also, all results were examined for males separately, and the results are very similar to those presented. (back)
2 As noted earlier, these data include incarceration in state prison but not local jails. (back)
3 Langan and Levin (2002). (back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |