AF plus IPS gave veterans who were formerly incarcerated a space to discuss their career goals and challenges, and worked to help them find and keep jobs. This evaluation directly compared AF plus IPS to a separate intervention, AF only, to understand which of the two interventions might be more effective; a distinctive feature of AF plus IPS was its rapid, individualized job searching assistance.

AF plus IPS gave veterans who were formerly incarcerated a space to discuss their career goals and challenges, and worked to help them find and keep jobs. This evaluation directly compared AF plus IPS to a separate intervention, AF only, to understand which of the two interventions might be more effective; a distinctive feature of AF plus IPS was its rapid, individualized job searching assistance.

AF was a small-group, one-week program in which participants (veterans with felony histories) described their work aspirations, drafted resumes, and discussed employment challenges. After AF, participants moved into IPS, a program founded on a set of core principles—including small caseloads and rapid job searches—with the intention of helping people find and keep jobs. During IPS, supported employment specialists (SESs) provided individual job search services and worked with local employers to find positions for participants. IPS lasted until the participant found a job, but participants could choose to receive ongoing support from the SESs after they were employed. The target population for this intervention included veterans who were formally incarcerated and: (1) had at least one felony conviction; (2) had been diagnosed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs with a substance use disorder, mental illness, or both; (3) expressed a desire for competitive employment; and (4) provided consent. AF plus IPS was implemented in Dallas, TX.

The effectiveness of AF plus IPS when compared to AF only indicates the effect of being referred to a set of services that includes those unique to AF plus IPS, or how much better the offer of AF plus IPS met participants’ needs than the offer of AF only. Individuals in AF only participated in the one-week AF program and did not receive the additional services associated with IPS.

Year evaluation began: 2011
Populations and employment barriers: Former incarceration, Military veteran
Intervention services: Case management, Employment retention services, Substance use disorder treatment and mental health services, Individual Placement and Support, Work readiness activities, Job search assistance, Job development/job placement
Setting(s):

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

Back to top
View table help Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below? View the "Table help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $6,735 per year 0.322 84
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 2% (in percentage points) 0.042 84
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support

Effects over time by outcome domain

6
View graph help Need more insight into the visualization? View the "Graph help".

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the graph

Size and direction of effects
Services were delivered for 6 months
Moderate-to-large favorable effect Small favorable effect
No effect
Small unfavorable effect Moderate-to-large unfavorable effect
Hollow data points indicate average effects that may be due to chance.

Services were delivered for 6 months

Years since the start of service delivery Size of the effect on earnings Size of the effect on employment
0.00
0.25
0.50 Moderate-to-large favorable effect 0.32 Small favorable effect 0.04
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00

Participant race and ethnicity
Black or African American
68%
White, not Hispanic
31%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
4%
More than one race
1%

Studies of this intervention

Back to top
Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1