Reduce Violence and CrimePhase 1/2NCT01947452
The Effects of Summer Employment on Disadvantaged Youth: Experimental Evidence
A Phase 1/2 study testing Employment and Social-Emotional Learning in people with Reduce Violence and Crime and Increase School Engagement, run by University of Chicago at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Chicago's Department of Family and Support Services will be providing summer employment and social-emotional skill training to youth over the summer of 2012. The investigators are partnering with them to evaluate the effects of the program. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 14 to 21 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Reduce Violence and Crime, Increase School Engagement, Increase Future Labor Market Outcomes
- What is being tested?
- Employment and Social-Emotional Learning
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,634 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Jun 2012to Dec 2018
- Phase
- Phase 1/2
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 14 to 21 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult
Who may be able to join
- Currently enrolled in one of 13 target high schools in Chicago, or
- Expecting to enroll in one of 13 target high schools for fall 2012
- Between ages 14 and 21 at program start
Who cannot join
- None
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Chicago's Department of Family and Support Services will be providing summer employment and social-emotional skill training to youth over the summer of 2012. The investigators are partnering with them to evaluate the effects of the program. The investigators will track applicants to the program through existing administrative databases to assess the short- and long-term effects of the government's program. The investigators hypothesize that the program will decrease violence involvement and criminal activity, increase schooling engagement, and increase future employment outcomes.
Read the detailed description
The unemployment rates facing American youth are bleak. Youth employment over the summer, when teenagers are most likely to work, is at a 60 year low. The last decade has shown a dramatic drop: 44.1 percent of teens were employed in July 2000, but only 25.6 percent were working in July 2010. The situation for minority and low-income youth is even worse: the 2010 employment rate for low-income black teens in Illinois was less than one-fourth the rate for higher-income white teens (9 vs. 39 percent).
There are good reasons to think that this level of teen unemployment will create significant social costs as well as life-long consequences for youth. Teen employment has been shown to significantly increase employment outcomes later in life; one study from the late 1990s finds that working 20 hours a week as a high school senior increases earnings by 22 percent and wages by 10 percent 6-9 years later. Increasing wages for teens - both immediately through the provision of a job itself and later through increased earning potential - may also have a substantial impact on their crime rates. There is evidence that the higher the wage rate available to an individual, the less likely he is to commit a violent or property crime. Increasing income more generally (through income transfers, housing vouchers, tax credits, etc.) has also been convincingly shown to reduce crime, as has investing in individuals' skill development. Since the provision of a summer job is likely to perform all three functions - increase the available wage, provide additional income, and improve individuals' skills (not to mention keep youth busy during the summer months when crime usually spikes) - it is reasonable to expect that it would also decrease criminal behavior.
Surprisingly, there is almost no direct evidence on the effects of providing teens with summer jobs. Some early evaluations of programs in the 70s and 80s showed promising but mixed results, yet the research designs were too weak to draw strong conclusions. In addition, none of those evaluations looked at criminal behavior or violence involvement as outcomes, which seem likely to be one of the key effects of such programs. Less direct evidence shows that intensive residential job training programs have created substantial decreases in arrests, convictions, and incarceration for participants, and that job placement programs can reduce crime among parolees and increase incomes among welfare recipients. Taken together, the evidence suggests that using employment as a crime reduction strategy is quite promising, if not yet proven. But for summer jobs programs in particular, there is a startling lack of evidence.
Despite the dearth of research, policymakers already seem convinced that summer employment support is a good idea. The federal government dedicated $1.2 billion of the 2009 stimulus to employment for disadvantaged youth, with an emphasis on summer jobs programs. These spending levels are not new. Summer jobs for disadvantaged youth have been federally funded since 1964; from 1998 to the present, they have been part of the annual appropriation for Youth Activities of about $1 billion. The President proposed another $1.5 billion specifically for youth summer jobs last fall; when Congress did not pass his proposal, he committed the Department of Labor to arranging for 250,000 youth summer opportunities regardless.
Given the amount of resources spent on youth summer jobs programs over the past half century, the lack of evidence on such programs' effects is startling. Because of the way Chicago's jobs program for disadvantaged youth - One Summer +PLUS - is structured, the program will produce some of the only rigorous evidence to date on the effects of summer jobs programs. It will also measure the incremental effectiveness of adding a social-cognitive skill development component. Similar social-cognitive programming has been shown to reduce violent crime and increase school engagement in a recent randomized control trial. The evaluation will also assess the cost effectiveness of both treatment arms.
- Conditions
- Reduce Violence and Crime, Increase School Engagement, Increase Future Labor Market Outcomes
- Being tested
- Employment, Social-Emotional Learning
- Keywords
- Youth violence reduction, Youth crime reduction, School engagement, Employment, Social-emotional learning
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
EmploymentBehavioural
Community organizations will place youth in summer jobs based on youth interests and the availability of positions. Jobs will be part-time in non-profit and government organizations. Youth will be paid the IL minimum wage of $8.25 per hour. The community organizations will provide job mentors to assist youth with barriers to work like transportation or clothing, and to provide supervision at the job site.
Social-Emotional LearningBehavioural
Community organizations will provide 2 hours of social-emotional learning programming for 5 hours a day. The programming is based on cognitive behavioral therapy principles designed to help youth learn to understand and manage their emotions and behavior. It seeks to teach: self awareness (recognizing one's emotions and values as well as one's strengths and limitations), self management (managing emotions and behaviors to achieve one's goals), social awareness (showing understanding and empathy for others), relationship skills (forming positive relationships, working in teams, and dealing effectively with conflict), and responsible decision-making (making ethical, constructive choices about personal and social behavior).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Jobs Only | Experimental | Youth will be offered a 5-hour per day, 5-day per week employment opportunity over 7 weeks. They will be paid the Illinois minimum wage of $8.25 per hour. Receives: Behavioral: Employment |
| Jobs plus Social-Emotional Learning | Experimental | Youth will be offered a 3-hour per day, 5-day per week employment opportunity over 7 weeks. They will also be offered 2-hour per day, 5-day per week social-emotional learning programming, for which they will be paid the same hourly wage as their job ($8.25/hour). Receives: Behavioral: Employment; Behavioral: Social-Emotional Learning |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Criminal activity
The number of each of four subtypes of arrests (violent, property, drug, and other) will be measured using individual-level administrative data on juvenile and adult arrests from the Chicago Policy Department.
Measured: Program start through end of program (8 weeks)
Criminal activity
The number of each of four subtypes of arrests (violent, property, drug, and other) will be measured using individual-level administrative data on juvenile and adult arrests from the Chicago Policy Department.
Measured: 6 months post-program
Criminal activity
The number of each of four subtypes of arrests (violent, property, drug, and other) will be measured using individual-level administrative data on juvenile and adult arrests from the Chicago Policy Department.
Measured: 1 year post-program
Criminal activity
The number of each of four subtypes of arrests (violent, property, drug, and other) will be measured using individual-level administrative data on juvenile and adult arrests from the Chicago Policy Department.
Measured: 18 months post-program
Criminal activity
The number of each of four subtypes of arrests (violent, property, drug, and other) will be measured using individual-level administrative data on juvenile and adult arrests from the Chicago Policy Department.
Measured: 2 years post-program
Secondary outcomes (13)
School engagement
Schooling outcomes will be measured using student-level administrative data from the Chicago Public Schools. Engagement will be assessed using data on attendance, grades, course-taking, disciplinary incidents, test scores, graduation, school switching, and enrollment in schools within juvenile justice facilities.
Measured: 6 months after program start (Dec 2013)
School engagement
Schooling outcomes will be measured using student-level administrative data from the Chicago Public Schools. Engagement will be assessed using data on attendance, grades, course-taking, disciplinary incidents, test scores, graduation, school switching, and enrollment in schools within juvenile justice facilities.
Measured: 1 year post-program start (June 2014)
School engagement
Schooling outcomes will be measured using student-level administrative data from the Chicago Public Schools. Engagement will be assessed using data on attendance, grades, course-taking, disciplinary incidents, test scores, graduation, school switching, and enrollment in schools within juvenile justice facilities.
Measured: 18 months post-program start (Dec 2014)
School engagement
Schooling outcomes will be measured using student-level administrative data from the Chicago Public Schools. Engagement will be assessed using data on attendance, grades, course-taking, disciplinary incidents, test scores, graduation, school switching, and enrollment in schools within juvenile justice facilities.
Measured: 2 years post-program start (June 2014)
Employment
Employment and wages will be measured using individual-level quarterly earnings records from Unemployment Insurance, provided by the Illinois Department of Employment Security.
Measured: 6 months post-program start
Employment
Employment and wages will be measured using individual-level quarterly earnings records from Unemployment Insurance, provided by the Illinois Department of Employment Security.
Measured: 12 months post-program start
Employment
Employment and wages will be measured using individual-level quarterly earnings records from Unemployment Insurance, provided by the Illinois Department of Employment Security.
Measured: 18 months post-program start
Employment
Employment and wages will be measured using individual-level quarterly earnings records from Unemployment Insurance, provided by the Illinois Department of Employment Security.
Measured: 24 months post-program start
Victimization
Number of victimization/incident reports in the Chicago Police Department victimization records (reports made to police by victims).
Measured: Program start through end of program (8 weeks)
Victimization
Number of victimization/incident reports in the Chicago Police Department victimization records (reports made to police by victims).
Measured: 6 months post-program
Victimization
Number of victimization/incident reports in the Chicago Police Department victimization records (reports made to police by victims).
Measured: 12 months post-program
Victimization
Number of victimization/incident reports in the Chicago Police Department victimization records (reports made to police by victims).
Measured: 18 months post-program
Victimization
Number of victimization/incident reports in the Chicago Police Department victimization records (reports made to police by victims).
Measured: 24 months post-program
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Sep 2013 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2012
- Primary completionJun 2016
- Study completionDec 2018 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (13)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Reduce Violence and CrimeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of ChicagoThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 1/2
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 1,634 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Chicago
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- City of Chicago Department of Family and Support Services, Cook County Office of the President, Walmart
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Harold Pollack, PhD, Principal investigator, University of ChicagoSara Heller, MPP, Study director, University of Chicago
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01947452
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB12-1112
- Status last verified
- Aug 2016
- First submitted
- 17 Aug 2012
- Last updated
- 26 Oct 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Bellotti J, Rosenberg L, Sattar S, Esposito AM, Ziegler J. Reinvesting in America's Youth: Lessons from the 2009 Recovery Act Summer Youth Employment Initiative. Mathematica Policy Research. Washington, D.C., 2010.
Bloom D, Gardenire-Crooks A, Mandsager C. Reengaging high school dropouts: Early results of the National Guard ChalleNGe Program evaluation. MDRC report, 2009.
Center for Labor Market Studies. The Depression in the Teen Labor Market in Illinois in Recent Years. Report, 2012.
Fernandes-Alcantara, AL. Vulnerable Youth: Federal Funding for Summer Job Training and Employment. Congressional Research Service Report, 2011.
Gould, ED, Weinberg BA, Mustard DB. Crime rates and local labor market opportunities in the United States: 1979-1997. The Review of Economics and Statistics 84(1): 45-61, 2002.
Grogger, J. Market Wages and Youth Crime. Journal of Labor Economics 16(4), 756-791, 1998.
Hamilton, G. Moving People from Welfare to Work: Lessons from the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies. MDRC Report, 2002.
Heller S, Jacob BA, Ludwig J. Family Income, Neighborhood Poverty, and Crime. In Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs, Eds. Philip J. Cook, Jens Ludwig and Justin McCrary. National Bureau of Economic Conference Report, University of Chicago Press, 2011.
Hill, PL, Roberts BW, Grogger JT, Guryan J, Sixkiller K. Decreasing Delinquency, Criminal Behavior, and Recidivism by Intervening on Psychological Factors Other Than Cognitive Ability: A Review of the Intervention Literature. In Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs,Eds. Philip J. Cook, Jens Ludwig and Justin McCrary. National Bureau of Economic Conference Report, University of Chicago Press: 367-406, 2011.
Redcross C, Bloom D, Azurdia G, Zweig J, Pindus N. Implementation, Two-Year Impacts, and Costs of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Prisoner Reentry Program. MDRC Report, 2009.
Ruhm, C. Is High School Employment Consumption or Investment? Journal of Labor Economics 15(4): 735-776, 1997.
Schochet P, Burghardt J, McConnel S. Does Job Corps work? Impact findings from the National Job Corps Study. American Economic Review 98(5): 1864-86, 2008.
Heller S, Pollack H, Ander R, Ludwig J. Improving Social-Cognitive Skills among Disadvantaged Youth: A Randomized Field Experiment. University of Chicago Working Paper, 2011.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Oct 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Effects of Summer Employment on Disadvantaged Youth: Experimental Evidence
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01947452
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB12-1112
- Conditions
- Reduce Violence and Crime, Increase School Engagement, Increase Future Labor Market Outcomes
- Keywords
- Youth violence reduction, Youth crime reduction, School engagement, Employment, Social-emotional learning
- Phase
- Phase 1/2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 1,634 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of ChicagoUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- City of Chicago Department of Family and Support Services, Cook County Office of the President, Walmart
- Study start
- Jun 2012
- Primary completion
- Jun 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2018 (estimated)
- First posted
- 20 Sep 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Chicago's Department of Family and Support Services will be providing summer employment and social-emotional skill training to youth over the summer of 2012. The investigators are partnering with them to evaluate the effects of the program. The investigators will track applicants to the program through existing administrative databases to assess the short- and long-term effects of the government's program. The investigators hypothesize that the program will decrease violence involvement and criminal activity, increase schooling engagement, and increase future employment outcomes.
Detailed description
The unemployment rates facing American youth are bleak. Youth employment over the summer, when teenagers are most likely to work, is at a 60 year low. The last decade has shown a dramatic drop: 44.1 percent of teens were employed in July 2000, but only 25.6 percent were working in July 2010. The situation for minority and low-income youth is even worse: the 2010 employment rate for low-income black teens in Illinois was less than one-fourth the rate for higher-income white teens (9 vs. 39 percent).
There are good reasons to think that this level of teen unemployment will create significant social costs as well as life-long consequences for youth. Teen employment has been shown to significantly increase employment outcomes later in life; one study from the late 1990s finds that working 20 hours a week as a high school senior increases earnings by 22 percent and wages by 10 percent 6-9 years later. Increasing wages for teens - both immediately through the provision of a job itself and later through increased earning potential - may also have a substantial impact on their crime rates. There is evidence that the higher the wage rate available to an individual, the less likely he is to commit a violent or property crime. Increasing income more generally (through income transfers, housing vouchers, tax credits, etc.) has also been convincingly shown to reduce crime, as has investing in individuals' skill development. Since the provision of a summer job is likely to perform all three functions - increase the available wage, provide additional income, and improve individuals' skills (not to mention keep youth busy during the summer months when crime usually spikes) - it is reasonable to expect that it would also decrease criminal behavior.
Surprisingly, there is almost no direct evidence on the effects of providing teens with summer jobs. Some early evaluations of programs in the 70s and 80s showed promising but mixed results, yet the research designs were too weak to draw strong conclusions. In addition, none of those evaluations looked at criminal behavior or violence involvement as outcomes, which seem likely to be one of the key effects of such programs. Less direct evidence shows that intensive residential job training programs have created substantial decreases in arrests, convictions, and incarceration for participants, and that job placement programs can reduce crime among parolees and increase incomes among welfare recipients. Taken together, the evidence suggests that using employment as a crime reduction strategy is quite promising, if not yet proven. But for summer jobs programs in particular, there is a startling lack of evidence.
Despite the dearth of research, policymakers already seem convinced that summer employment support is a good idea. The federal government dedicated $1.2 billion of the 2009 stimulus to employment for disadvantaged youth, with an emphasis on summer jobs programs. These spending levels are not new. Summer jobs for disadvantaged youth have been federally funded since 1964; from 1998 to the present, they have been part of the annual appropriation for Youth Activities of about $1 billion. The President proposed another $1.5 billion specifically for youth summer jobs last fall; when Congress did not pass his proposal, he committed the Department of Labor to arranging for 250,000 youth summer opportunities regardless.
Given the amount of resources spent on youth summer jobs programs over the past half century, the lack of evidence on such programs' effects is startling. Because of the way Chicago's jobs program for disadvantaged youth - One Summer +PLUS - is structured, the program will produce some of the only rigorous evidence to date on the effects of summer jobs programs. It will also measure the incremental effectiveness of adding a social-cognitive skill development component. Similar social-cognitive programming has been shown to reduce violent crime and increase school engagement in a recent randomized control trial. The evaluation will also assess the cost effectiveness of both treatment arms.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Jobs Only | Experimental | Behavioral: EmploymentYouth will be offered a 5-hour per day, 5-day per week employment opportunity over 7 weeks. They will be paid the Illinois minimum wage of $8.25 per hour. |
| Jobs plus Social-Emotional Learning | Experimental | Behavioral: Employment, Behavioral: Social-Emotional LearningYouth will be offered a 3-hour per day, 5-day per week employment opportunity over 7 weeks. They will also be offered 2-hour per day, 5-day per week social-emotional learning programming, for which they will be paid the same hourly wage as their job ($8.25/hour). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 14 to 21 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Currently enrolled in one of 13 target high schools in Chicago, or
- Expecting to enroll in one of 13 target high schools for fall 2012
- Between ages 14 and 21 at program start
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| EmploymentCommunity organizations will place youth in summer jobs based on youth interests and the availability of positions. Jobs will be part-time in non-profit and government organizations. Youth will be paid the IL minimum wage of $8.25 per hour. The community organizations will provide job mentors to assist youth with barriers to work like transportation or clothing, and to provide supervision at the job site. | Behavioural | Jobs Only, Jobs plus Social-Emotional Learning |
| Social-Emotional LearningCommunity organizations will provide 2 hours of social-emotional learning programming for 5 hours a day. The programming is based on cognitive behavioral therapy principles designed to help youth learn to understand and manage their emotions and behavior. It seeks to teach: self awareness (recognizing one's emotions and values as well as one's strengths and limitations), self management (managing emotions and behaviors to achieve one's goals), social awareness (showing understanding and empathy for others), relationship skills (forming positive relationships, working in teams, and dealing effectively with conflict), and responsible decision-making (making ethical, constructive choices about personal and social behavior). | Behavioural | Jobs plus Social-Emotional Learning |
Primary outcome
Criminal activity
Time frame: Program start through end of program (8 weeks)
The number of each of four subtypes of arrests (violent, property, drug, and other) will be measured using individual-level administrative data on juvenile and adult arrests from the Chicago Policy Department.
Criminal activity
Time frame: 6 months post-program
The number of each of four subtypes of arrests (violent, property, drug, and other) will be measured using individual-level administrative data on juvenile and adult arrests from the Chicago Policy Department.
Criminal activity
Time frame: 1 year post-program
The number of each of four subtypes of arrests (violent, property, drug, and other) will be measured using individual-level administrative data on juvenile and adult arrests from the Chicago Policy Department.
Criminal activity
Time frame: 18 months post-program
The number of each of four subtypes of arrests (violent, property, drug, and other) will be measured using individual-level administrative data on juvenile and adult arrests from the Chicago Policy Department.
Criminal activity
Time frame: 2 years post-program
The number of each of four subtypes of arrests (violent, property, drug, and other) will be measured using individual-level administrative data on juvenile and adult arrests from the Chicago Policy Department.
13 secondary outcomes
School engagement
Time frame: 6 months after program start (Dec 2013)
School engagement
Time frame: 1 year post-program start (June 2014)
School engagement
Time frame: 18 months post-program start (Dec 2014)
School engagement
Time frame: 2 years post-program start (June 2014)
Employment
Time frame: 6 months post-program start
Employment
Time frame: 12 months post-program start
Employment
Time frame: 18 months post-program start
Employment
Time frame: 24 months post-program start
Victimization
Time frame: Program start through end of program (8 weeks)
Victimization
Time frame: 6 months post-program
Victimization
Time frame: 12 months post-program
Victimization
Time frame: 18 months post-program
Victimization
Time frame: 24 months post-program
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Oct 2017.
- BackgroundBellotti J, Rosenberg L, Sattar S, Esposito AM, Ziegler J. Reinvesting in America's Youth: Lessons from the 2009 Recovery Act Summer Youth Employment Initiative. Mathematica Policy Research. Washington, D.C., 2010.
- BackgroundBloom D, Gardenire-Crooks A, Mandsager C. Reengaging high school dropouts: Early results of the National Guard ChalleNGe Program evaluation. MDRC report, 2009.
- BackgroundCenter for Labor Market Studies. The Depression in the Teen Labor Market in Illinois in Recent Years. Report, 2012.
- BackgroundFernandes-Alcantara, AL. Vulnerable Youth: Federal Funding for Summer Job Training and Employment. Congressional Research Service Report, 2011.
- BackgroundGould, ED, Weinberg BA, Mustard DB. Crime rates and local labor market opportunities in the United States: 1979-1997. The Review of Economics and Statistics 84(1): 45-61, 2002.
- BackgroundGrogger, J. Market Wages and Youth Crime. Journal of Labor Economics 16(4), 756-791, 1998.
- BackgroundHamilton, G. Moving People from Welfare to Work: Lessons from the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies. MDRC Report, 2002.
- BackgroundHeller S, Jacob BA, Ludwig J. Family Income, Neighborhood Poverty, and Crime. In Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs, Eds. Philip J. Cook, Jens Ludwig and Justin McCrary. National Bureau of Economic Conference Report, University of Chicago Press, 2011.
- BackgroundHill, PL, Roberts BW, Grogger JT, Guryan J, Sixkiller K. Decreasing Delinquency, Criminal Behavior, and Recidivism by Intervening on Psychological Factors Other Than Cognitive Ability: A Review of the Intervention Literature. In Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs,Eds. Philip J. Cook, Jens Ludwig and Justin McCrary. National Bureau of Economic Conference Report, University of Chicago Press: 367-406, 2011.
- BackgroundRedcross C, Bloom D, Azurdia G, Zweig J, Pindus N. Implementation, Two-Year Impacts, and Costs of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Prisoner Reentry Program. MDRC Report, 2009.
- BackgroundRuhm, C. Is High School Employment Consumption or Investment? Journal of Labor Economics 15(4): 735-776, 1997.
- BackgroundSchochet P, Burghardt J, McConnel S. Does Job Corps work? Impact findings from the National Job Corps Study. American Economic Review 98(5): 1864-86, 2008.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Harold Pollack, PhD principal investigator
University of Chicago
Sara Heller, MPP study director
University of Chicago
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 1/2 study testing Employment and Social-Emotional Learning in people with Reduce Violence and Crime and Increase School Engagement, run by University of Chicago at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Oct 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this combined phase mean?
Phase 1 studies test a treatment in a small group of people for the first time or in a new way, mainly to check safety and find the right dose.
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Criminal activity (time frame: Program start through end of program (8 weeks)). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01947452, which also lists 13 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Oct 2017.