Texas’Project RIO

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEP

ARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OF

FIC

E OF JUSTICE PROGR

AM

S

BJA

N

IJOJJ DP BJS

OV

C

P r o g r a m F o c u s

National Institute of JusticeNational Institute of CorrectionsOffice of Correctional Education

(Re-Integrationof Offenders)

2 National Institute of Justice

PROGRAM FOCUS

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ),the National Institute of Corrections(NIC), and the U.S. Department ofEducation’s Office of Correctional Edu-cation (OCE) have cooperated on a num-ber of projects. These continuing effortsare described below.

This Program Focus, Texas’ Project RIO(Re-Integration of Offenders), is one in aseries of publications sponsored by NIJ,NIC, and OCE that focus on variousapproaches to offender job training,placement, and retention.

More than 3 years ago, in response to acall from policymakers and correctionsprofessionals, the three agencies embarkedupon a collaborative effort to documentthese approaches. As “vendors” of theinformation developed, the agencies havebeen overwhelmed by the “consumer”demand for descriptive program informa-tion and by requests for training and tech-nical assistance in these areas.

NIJ, a component of the Office of JusticePrograms, is the research and develop-ment arm of the U.S. Department of Jus-tice. NIJ is authorized to support research,evaluation, demonstration programs, andtechnology development. NIJ has greatlyexpanded its initiatives—largely as a re-sult of the Violent Crime Control andLaw Enforcement Act of 1994 (the CrimeAct)—and its partnerships with other Fed-eral agencies and private foundations.Often with partners, the Institute spon-sors special projects and research anddevelopment programs designed to im-prove and strengthen the criminal justicesystem and reduce or prevent crime; con-ducts national demonstration projects em-ploying innovative and promising ap-proaches for improving criminal justice;develops new technologies for use bycriminal justice practitioners; evaluatesthe effectiveness of criminal justice pro-grams; identifies programs that promise

to be successful if continued or repeated;and indicates actions that can be taken byFederal, State, and local governments aswell as by private organizations to im-prove criminal justice.

NIC’s Office of Correctional Job Trainingand Placement (OCJTP) was formed 2 yearsago as a result of the Crime Act to supportjob training and placement programs foroffenders and ex-offenders. In fiscal year1997, OCJTP offered two 1-week trainingsessions for offender employment special-ists at NIC’s training academy inLongmont, Colorado. Due to the over-whelming demand, in fiscal year 1998 threemore training sessions have been sched-uled at the Longmont Training Academy.NIC and the National Occupational Informa-tion Coordinating Committee (NOICC) arecurrently developing a curriculum for a newoffender vocational counselors training se-ries to be offered during fiscal year 1999through NIC’s training academy. In addi-tion, OCJTP is planning a national forum ofadministrators to supervise offender job train-ing and placement programs nationally.

OCE awarded a number of grants under itsLife Skills for State and Local PrisonersProgram in September 1997. Grantsawarded to correctional agencies rangedfrom $300,000 to $450,000, and programimplementation has begun at the selectedsites. Work on the development of OCE’sMarketing Guide for Offender Skills andthe Consumer’s Guide to Life Skills Cur-ricula has been completed.

Other agencies and committees have come onboard, too. The recently created Inmate Place-ment Program Branch (IPPB) within the Fed-eral Bureau of Prisons has developed a strate-gic action plan to enhance employment op-portunities for Federal prisoners. FederalPrison Industries (FPI) has demonstrated itscommitment to IPPB’s mission and has an-nounced its intention to contract with compa-nies that agree to make provisions to employ

NIJ–NIC–OCE Collaborate on Offender Education andTraining Programs

ex-offenders. NOICC works closely withall of the agencies involved in expandingemployment opportunities for ex-offend-ers. Currently, NOICC staff are exploringthe possibility of importing the U.S. Depart-ment of Labor’s America’s Training Net-work into Federal correctional institutions.

Finally, the agencies point to collectiveefforts to assist correctional institutionsin replicating the mock job fair concept asa tremendous success. A number of cor-rectional administrators have sponsoredmock job fairs in Federal correctionalinstitutions. The Safer Foundation hasnow incorporated mock job fairs into itsoverall operation and the Maryland Divi-sion of Correction sponsors mock jobfairs on a quarterly basis. A number ofother States have sought training andassistance to implement similar programs.

As long as the demand for information onoffender job training, placement, and re-tention grows, NIJ, NIC, and OCE willcontinue to share available resources tofulfill this need. Be assured that the re-sponse to this expressed need will con-tinue to be consumer driven. Those onthe front lines are encouraged to contactagency staff and share knowledge andexperience about promising practices.Your assistance is requested in identify-ing new approaches to job training, place-ment, and retention efforts. You are en-couraged to be an active partner in thecollaborative process.

Jeremy TravisDirectorNational Institute of Justice

Morris ThigpenDirectorNational Institute of Corrections

Richard SmithDirectorOffice of Correctional Education

Program Focus 3

PROGRAM FOCUS

Texas’ Project RIO(Re-Integration of Offenders)by Peter Finn

orry it’s taken so long to write, but I do have a good excuse. I’m working 7days a week, 14 hours a day, driving for an appliance store. I deliver appliancesfor $15 a trip, and I try to do as much as possible each day. I average about $100 aday, saving every cent for a new truck.

got one job [with the second com-pany]. But, the first company I appliedwith has already called me for a sec-ond interview and [also] wants to hireme. It starts out at less money, butwithin a year I’ll be making about$35,000 a year, working 5 days aweek, 8 hours a day. Once I getenough money together to buy a newtruck I may switch jobs.—Excerpts from a letter from a ProjectRIO participant to a friend still in prison

When I went for my job interview I toldthe interviewer up front that I was onparole, but it made no difference at all tohim. And for anyone who is interested,Project RIO works. Not only does it helpyou find a job, they call and talk to thecompany before you have your inter-view. Get involved with Project RIO.

When I went to the employment officeunder Project RIO, it made finding ajob easy. I went for two interviews and

HighlightsFrom its beginnings as a two-city pilot pro-gram in 1985, Texas’ Project RIO (Re-Integration of Offenders) has become one ofthe most ambitious State government pro-grams devoted to placing parolees in jobs inthe Nation. Operating through the TexasWorkforce Commission (the State’s em-ployment agency), RIO has more than 100staff members in 62 offices who provide jobplacement services to nearly 16,000 parol-ees each year in every county in the State. Inaddition to its statewide coverage, ProjectRIO is unusual in the following respects:

■ The program provides job preparationservices to inmates while they are stillincarcerated in State prisons so that theyhave a head start in postrelease job hunting.At the same time, RIO’s prison presencespreads the word to inmates that the pro-gram is waiting to help them find work theday they are released.

■ Project RIO represents the close collabo-ration of two State agencies—the TexasWorkforce Commission, where the programis housed, and the Texas Department of Crimi-nal Justice, whose RIO-funded assessmentspecialists help prepare inmates for employ-ment and whose parole officers refer re-leased inmates to the program.

■ Piggybacking on the good reputation mostlocal Texas Workforce Commission officeshave in the business community, ProjectRIO has developed a pool of more than12,000 employers who have hired paroleesreferred by the program.

A 1992 independent evaluation documentedthat 69 percent of RIO participants foundemployment, compared with 36 percent of amatched group of non-RIO parolees. In addi-tion, 1 year after release, participants hadworked at some time during more 3-month

intervals than comparison group members.During the year after release, only 23 per-cent of high-risk RIO participants returnedto prison, compared with 38 percent of acomparable group of non-RIO parolees.

In 1996, Texas had the second-largest prisonpopulation in the country (behind Califor-nia)—132,000 inmates. As a result, publicpressure and positive evaluation resultsmotivated the Texas legislature to increaseRIO’s budget to nearly $8 million. Whilethis was a major increase in RIO’s budget,the independent evaluation estimated thatthe program continually saved the Statemoney—more than $15 million in 1990alone—by helping to reduce the number ofparolees who would otherwise have beenrearrested and sent back to prison.

SI n December 1996, the Texas

prison system—housing the secondlargest prison population in the

Nation after California—was bulgingwith more than 132,000 inmates.1 Notsurprisingly, public officials and theState’s citizens alike felt it was essen-tial to reduce the number of prisoninmates in order to control skyrocketingcorrections costs. One way to reduceinmate populations is to reduce recidi-vism. Project RIO (Re-Integration of

4 National Institute of Justice

PROGRAM FOCUS

Offenders) is one major initiative theState has undertaken to help keep ex-offenders from going back to prison.The program began as a two-city pilotprogram in 1985. (See “How RIO Be-gan: Reducing Recidivism.”)

As with similar programs across thecountry, Project RIO is based on thetheory—supported by considerablehard evidence—that if inmates can finda decent job as soon as possible afterrelease, they are less likely to return toa life of crime and to prison. (See “TheEmployment-Recidivism Link.”)Project RIO puts theory into practice,not only by helping ex-offenders inevery corner of the State find jobs butalso by beginning the placement pro-cess while clients are still in prison,long before their release date.

Funded entirely by State general rev-enues, Project RIO represents an un-usual collaboration between two Stateagencies: The program is jointly oper-ated by the Texas Workforce Commis-sion (the State’s employment agency)and the Texas Department of CriminalJustice (Institutional and Parole Divi-sions). Exhibit 1 (page 6) illustratesthe relationships between these agen-cies, as well as the program’s staffingarrangement.

Project RIO has been able to work withthousands of incarcerated clients everyyear and continues to serve most ofthem after their release. Data show thatProject RIO succeeds in placing offend-ers in jobs (due in part to the State’sabundance of employment opportuni-ties) and that it is probably effective inreducing recidivism (since employed,ex-offenders are less likely to reoffend).

In 1984, politicians, prison officials, andthe general public in Texas regarded thecriminal justice system as a revolvingdoor—38 percent of parolees were return-ing to prison within 3 years. The head of theParole Division and the chief of job serviceoperations at the Texas Workforce Com-mission (TWC) met with the Governor’sstaff to propose using a portion of theGovernor’s discretionary funds to providespecialized employment services to ex-offenders in order to attack the recidivismrate. Parolees were targeted because aslong as they were under supervision, theywere the most manageable offender popu-lation, they were the population that wasreturning to prison most frequently, andtheir ranks were smaller than those of pro-bationers.

At the same time, because the Parole Divi-sion was having difficulty finding employ-ment for these men and women, it was feltthat the Workforce Commission would bemore successful. In fact, on its own initia-tive one local parole office was alreadycollaborating successfully with a localWorkforce Commission office to find jobsfor parolees. It seemed natural topolicymakers to extend this informal col-

How RIO Began: Reducing Recidivismlaboration systemwide. As a result, theGovernor agreed to fund collaborative ex-periments in Dallas and Houston, whichwere selected because they accounted for40 percent of parolees in the State. TheTexas Workforce Commission began op-erating the pilot sites in 1985 using FederalWagner-Peyser Act funds channeledthrough the Governor. Under the Act, theU.S. Department of Labor provides fundsto State Employment Security departments,10 percent of which governors may use tofund private projects targeting services tospecial populations (like ex-offenders).

An independent evaluation and a study byparole staff conducted in 1987 both sug-gested that the experimental program—even-tually dubbed Project RIO—was reducingrecidivism. As a result, when the Federaldemonstration funds were exhausted, theprincipals from the Parole Division andWorkforce Commission used the findingsto persuade the Texas legislature to fund theprogram from general revenues. In fact, thelegislature voted to provide increased fund-ing to serve Texas’ five other largest cities.In 1991, the legislature increased RIO fund-ing further to include not only parolees in therest of the State but also inmates.

Project RIO OperatesStatewideIn some small towns, where everyoneknows everyone else, ex-offendersdon’t have a hope of getting a jobwithout a RIO employment specialistplacing a call to stimulate hires.—Burt Ellison, Project RIO ProgramDirector

Blanketing the State, Project RIOmakes job placement services avail-able to every parolee in Texas. Morethan 100 program staff in 62 sitesserve 92 Texas cities and towns. Ex-hibit 2 (page 7) identifies each servicesite and the counties each site serves.

Project RIO operates three types ofoffices:

■ Full-service offices in each of theState’s seven largest cities offer clients aweeklong job search workshop, one-on-one assistance with job placement, use ofa resource room (including computerswith job listings, telephone books, andtelephones), and postplacement followup.

■ Balance of State offices are insmaller jurisdictions and consist of onepart-time to three full-time RIO staffmembers who work out of the localTexas Workforce Commission office.

■ Itinerant service providers travelperiodically from a Balance of State

Program Focus 5

PROGRAM FOCUS

A comprehensive review of availableevaluations of offender and ex-offenderprograms designed to reduce recidivismby means of training, education, and jobplacement concluded, “Even after 30 yearsof trying . . . no program—in-prison train-ing, transitional assistance (both in-kindand monetary assistance), or pretrial di-version—has consistently shown itself ca-pable (through a rigorous random assign-ment evaluation) of decreasing recidivismthrough labor market-oriented programs,inside or outside prison.”a An evaluationof the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)grantees that provided ex-offenders withremedial education, occupational skillstraining, job search assistance, or workexperience found no difference in em-ployment rates between the ex-offendersand a group of nonoffenders.b Shortcom-ings in the research methods used to evalu-ate other initiatives to bring offenders intothe labor market make it difficult to con-clude that the efforts improved employ-ment or reduced recidivism amongex-offenders.c

However, a study of the use of incomesupplementsd confirms previous findingse

that ex-offenders with jobs commit fewercrimes than ex-offenders without jobs andthat those with higher earnings commitfewer crimes than those with lower earn-ings. In view of the potential benefits ofhelping ex-offenders secure well-paid em-ployment, several job training and place-ment programs for inmates and ex-offend-ers have incorporated innovative or morecomprehensive features in an attempt toachieve greater success than previous ef-forts to reduce recidivism.

■ The Center for Employment Opportu-nities (CEO) in New York City places ex-offenders—most just released from bootcamp—in work crews that provide daylabor. In addition to daily income, the crewsprovide structure and help participants de-velop good work habits. Approximatelythree-fourths of the 70 program partici-pants who find full-time employment eachyear (with most jobs paying more than the

The Employment-Recidivism Linkminimum wage and providing fringe ben-efits) are still employed at the same job after1 month. Of these, 50 percent are stillworking after 6 months.f

■ Chicago’s Safer Foundation, like ProjectRIO, reaches many offenders while they arestill incarcerated by operating both a privateschool in the Cook County Jail in Chicagoand a work release center for the IllinoisDepartment of Corrections. The foundationuses a small-group, peer-based approach inits in-prison and postprison basic educationskills program, and it provides special casemanagers to help clients address transitionalproblems for up to a year after they havesecured employment. Of 72 participants (outof 84 who were initially enrolled) who com-pleted the course for 16- to 21-year-old ex-offenders, more than two-thirds enteredschool, vocational training, or employment.Fifty-eight percent maintained their place-ments after 6 months, and only one partici-pant was convicted of a new crime after 6months.g

■ The Orange County, Florida, CorrectionsDivision provides intensive educational andvocational programs to its jail inmates. Thedivision links programming with direct su-pervision in facilities that have been de-signed architecturally to allow maximumdirect contact between staff and inmates byremoving physical barriers. Inmates can earnvaluable privileges if they participate in pro-gramming and avoid misconduct. For as longas 18 months after release, inmates who werehoused 6 to 45 days in direct supervisionfacilities with programming were less likelyto reoffend than inmates who were housedthere less than 6 days.h

Project RIO is an especially ambitious andpromising venture in this ongoing history ofattempts to increase employment among ex-offenders and thereby reduce recidivism.

a. Bushway, S., and P. Reuter, “Labor Marketsand Crime Risk Factors,” in Preventing Crime:What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising,L.S. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J.

Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway, eds., Re-search Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. De-partment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, 1997, NCJ 165366.

b. Finn, M.A., and K.G. Willoughby, “Em-ployment Outcomes of Ex-Offender Job Train-ing Partnership Act (JTPA) Trainees,” Evalu-ation Review 20 (1996): 67–83. See also Bloom,H., L.O. Orr, G. Cave, S.H. Bell, F. Doolittle,and W. Lin, The National JTPA Study. Over-view: Impacts, Benefits and Costs of TitleII–A, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Abt Associ-ates Inc., 1994.

c. McDonald, D.C., D.T. Rodda, S.H. Bell,and D.E. Hunt, Transition Services and Super-vision for Released Prisoners: Implications ofResearch Findings for Program Development,draft report prepared for the U.S. Departmentof Justice, National Institute of Justice, Cam-bridge, Massachusetts: Abt Associates Inc.,1995.

d. Berk, R.A., K.J. Leinihan, and P.H. Rossi,“Crime and Poverty: Some Experimental Evi-dence from Ex-Offenders,” American Socio-logical Review 45 (1980): 766–786.

e. Harer, M.D., Recidivism Among FederalPrison Releasees in 1987: A Preliminary Re-port, unpublished paper, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Re-search and Evaluation, Federal Bureau of Pris-ons, 1994. Anderson, D.B., R.E. Schumacker,and S.L. Anderson, “Releasee Characteristicsand Parole,” Journal of Offender Rehabilita-tion 17 (1991): 133–145.

f. Finn, P., Successful Job Placement for Ex-Offenders: The Center for Employment Op-portunities, Program Focus, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, National Instituteof Justice, 1998, NCJ 168102.

g. Finn, P., Chicago’s Safer Foundation: ARoad Back for Ex-Offenders, Program Focus,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, National Institute of Justice, 1998,NCJ 167575.

h. Finn, P., The Orange County, Florida, JailEducation and Vocational Programs, ProgramFocus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice, 1998,NCJ 166820.

6 National Institute of Justice

PROGRAM FOCUS

office to spend 1 or 2 days a week incommunities where there are a sub-stantial number of parolees.

Project RIO’s first point of contact,however, is in the State’s 108 prisonfacilities.

Prison ProgramsSix months before release, Mr. Fulp [aRIO assessment specialist in one of theprisons] finds out about your workhistory, skills, and how you get alongwith people. He even sent informationabout me to a company that manufac-tures school buses, because I wentthrough mechanic training here. Sowhen I’m released, I’ll go to RIO toget an interview with the company.Mr. Fulp and RIO helped me realizethat the sooner I get a job, the lesslikely I’ll be to go back to a life ofcrime.—Prison inmate

Exhibit 1. Project RIO Organization Chart

Project RIO starts serving offenderswhile they are still in prison to helpthem develop the skills and attitudesthey will need to find and keep a joboutside prison and to give them a headstart in their search for employmentthe moment they hit the streets. Theprogram’s prison activities also servean important outreach function byspreading the word that RIO is waitingto help every inmate after release.Interested inmates formally enroll inRIO while still in prison.

Project RIO’s principal presence inprisons is through the Windham SchoolDistrict, which is a school operatingwithin the State’s prisons. Fundedby the Texas Education Agency,Windham provides education andtraining within Texas Department ofCriminal Justice facilities through amemorandum of understanding. TheTexas Department of Criminal Justiceoversees Windham’s performance in

terms of inmate participation in educa-tional programs.

Project RIO funds salaries for 74 TexasDepartment of Criminal Justice assess-ment specialists, 45 clerical staff mem-bers, and 1 administrator. In the prisonunits, these RIO staff members are underthe direct supervision of the Windhamprincipal, working in close collaborationwith Windham teachers, counselors, andother staff members. The Windham/Project RIO team provides inmates withthe following services:

■ Assessment and testing. Evaluat-ing each participant’s skills and workhistory, a RIO assessment specialistdevelops an employability develop-ment plan that reflects the availabilityof jobs and occupational demands inthe community where the inmate willbe released. The specialist also refersRIO participants to appropriate aca-demic or vocational programs withinthe facility.

■ Documentation. Assessment spe-cialists gather birth certificates, SocialSecurity cards, General Education Di-plomas (GEDs), and school transcripts,either by asking family members to getthem or by writing or telephoning forthe documents themselves.

■ Job readiness training. A special-ist meets with every RIO enrollee whois within 2 years of release; they meetevery 90 days thereafter to hone theinmate’s job interviewing skills.

■ Employability and life skillsworkbooks. Under a specialist’s su-pervision, inmates work at their ownpace, completing a series of sevenworkbooks, called PROD (Project RIOOccupational Direction).

Texas Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division

Inmates

Texas WorkforceCommission

Texas Department of Criminal JusticeParole Division

Project RIO Coordinator

3 RegionalRIO Coordinators

Project RIOProgram Director

3 ProgramCoordinators

Windham SchoolDistrict*

Prison Outreach

7 Full-Service Offices 55 Balance of State Offices 14 Itinerant ServiceLocations

83 Local Parole Offices

• Referrals to Project RIO• Job preparation and placement byBalance of State office employmentspecialists

• Job preparation course• Job placement

• Job preparation course• Job placement• Followup support

49 employment specialists14 instructors52 employment specialists

• Administrator for RIO• 74 assessment

specialists• 45 clericals

• 2 RIO information specialists

• Employer presentations• Release-day orientation

by RIO

* Funded by the Texas Education Agency but operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

Program Focus 7

PROGRAM FOCUS

■ Changes program. The WindhamSchool offers a 90- to 120-hour, 65-day life skills program to RIO partici-pants who are within 6 months ofrelease. Taught by Windham instruc-tors, the course consists of six modulesthat address the following: self-concept (including anger manage-ment), family relationships (includingparenting responsibilities and tech-niques), civic and legal responsibilities

(including paying taxes), victimawareness (including domestic vio-lence), personal health and hygiene(including signs of substance abuse),and job preparation (including jobsearch and interviewing skills). Thecourse is taught through lectures, dis-cussions, books, and newspapers. Ac-cording to one student, “Changes wasgood—it taught me things like how toget life insurance and start my own

business, and it taught me how to sur-vive in the normal world.”

Inmate exposureTexas inmates learn about Project RIOin a variety of ways:

■ A RIO assessment specialist distrib-utes RIO brochures to all new inmatesduring prison orientation.

Exhibit 2. Project RIO Service Locations

Region Boundary

Full Service Offices

Balance of State Offices

Itinerant Service Points

8 National Institute of Justice

PROGRAM FOCUS

Some EmployersSpend a Day in Prison“It’s very effective when inmates can hearfrom an employer who’s actually hiredinmates,” Project RIO’s Director, BurtEllison, reports. “RIO staff can go in andtalk all day to inmates about job opportuni-ties for ex-offenders, but most inmatesremain skeptical.” One employer talkedfor an hour with 5 different groups of morethan 40 inmates each. “I get personal satis-faction out of talking with inmates,” hesaid. “Everyone makes mistakes. So I letthem know there are opportunities out herefor work.” Inmates ask him most frequentlyabout his company’s wage level. Accord-ing to the employer, “The inmates wereamazed it was so high, especially withbonuses. They also ask whether I have astable workforce, because they want per-manent jobs when they get out.”

■ Inmates who enroll in Windham’svocational courses are also required toenroll in RIO.

■ RIO assessment specialists recruiteligible inmates to participate in theChanges program using a short video-tape that presents interviews withformer inmates whom RIO helpedfind well-paying, nonmenial jobs.

■ Project RIO’s two information spe-cialists—both former drug-involvedoffenders—periodically provide presen-tations about the program to inmates.

■ Some RIO employment specialistsvisit prisons accompanied by employ-ers who talk about both the RIO cli-ents already working for them andtheir interest in hiring other qualifiedex-offenders through RIO. (See “SomeEmployers Spend a Day in Prison.”)

■ On release day, a RIO staff membergives every group of inmates a 30-minute orientation to RIO, including acard with the RIO hotline that indi-viduals can call to learn about the RIOoffice nearest them. Joan Goodwin, aninformation specialist in the Austin

office, receives about 150 hotline callseach month.

About these outreach efforts, one ex-offender said, “You hear about RIO allthe time when you’re locked up. Peoplecome in and talk about it; you hear aboutit again when you’re released at Hunts-ville [the central release processingunit].” Word-of-mouth from other in-mates who are themselves RIO partici-pants is often the best outreach strategy.

Benefits to inmates andProject RIOIn 1996, 16,000 inmates participatedin RIO. Why? A major reason is thechance to improve their lives afterrelease. However, assessment special-ists send all inmates a letter when theyare within 5 years of release explain-ing that the parole board will lookmore favorably on them if they partici-pate actively in RIO.

In-prison RIO participation also ben-efits RIO employment specialists.According to Patricia Scott, a supervi-sor in RIO’s Houston office, “Clients

who have gone through RIO’s in-prison programs—especially theChanges class—are more familiar thanother clients with completing résumés,being interviewed for a job, and otherjob preparation skills. They also havetheir paperwork already prepared, sowe don’t have to take the time to se-cure it.” Cathy Boswell, an employ-ment specialist in RIO’s Austin office,says, “Parolees who have participatedin RIO in prison don’t mistrust me asmuch as other parolees, so it’s easierto work with them.”

Postprison ServicesI got out of prison April 22 [1996], afterbeing locked up for 10 years for robbinga bank at gunpoint. For 3 weeks, I justhung out, reacclimating to society. But Igot restless the fourth week and tried toget a job. But nobody called me back. Atthe same time, my parole officer keptasking me, ‘Have you gone to RIO yet?’I thought the program would get meonly menial jobs, like heavy cleanupwork, but finally I went just to appeasemy parole officer. [After I completedRIO’s 5-day job preparation course] . . .I got the first job I interviewed at, a salesagent at a hotel.—Project RIO participant

Outreach, recruitment,and intakeAlthough Project RIO’s first contactwith clients is usually while they arestill in prison, its primary mission is toplace participants in jobs after release.Project RIO enrolls parolees (represent-ing 85 percent of all Texas releasees)and inmates released from 2-year jailfacilities and serves them while theyare under supervision. However, the

A Project RIO assessment specialist in theTexas Hightower Prison helps an inmate geta head start in considering his postrelease joboptions and in choosing prison courses hecan take to fulfill his job interests.

Ph

oto

by

Pro

ject

RIO

.

Program Focus 9

PROGRAM FOCUS

program lacks the resources to alsoserve Texas’ 450,000 probationers.

While some ex-offenders go to RIOoffices on their own initiative, mostarrive after being referred by their pa-role officer. Indeed, many parolees gostraight from their parole officer to RIOon their release day. Except for activesubstance abusers and releasees withoutstanding warrants, Texas Depart-ment of Criminal Justice regulationsrequire parole officers to refer to RIOall unemployed, part-time employed, orunderemployed releasees during theirinitial parole visit and at any other timewhen unemployment problems de-velop. However, in practice paroleofficers exercise considerable discre-tion about whether to make a referral.

Project RIO Director Burt Ellisonestimates that, depending on the paroleand RIO offices, anywhere from 10 to55 percent of referred parolees actu-ally show up. What happens to unem-ployed parolees who refuse to go toRIO? According to Tony Lyro, for-merly the Parole Division’s liaisonwith RIO, “While some of these cli-ents get jobs on their own, most ofthem are incorrigible releasees fromthe git-go—they won’t take courses,go to substance abuse treatment, orfind work. So sooner or later theyviolate the conditions of release andare returned to court.”

Job preparationAs soon as I walked in the front door,I was guided through a clear process.First I took RIO’s weeklong job prepa-ration course, where I knew some of theinformation but learned some newthings, especially how to handle beingan ex-offender during the job interview.

I landed a job at a rehabilitation centerbecause I learned from RIO that Ishould look the interviewer in the eye,how to answer the question, “Whyshould we hire you?,” and how to ex-plain my past. Then the firm went bank-rupt. In the past I would have turned todrugs, but instead I came back to RIOto practice my interviewing techniquesagain. Two months later, a friend toldme to interview at her law firm; I usedthe techniques I had learned at RIOand landed that job, too.—Project RIO participant

Project RIO prepares participants forjob interviews through the in-prisonChanges program and, when needed,through a weeklong, all-day life skillsand job search course given at theseven full-service offices that serve thevast majority of Texas parolees.

Job placementI always thought RIO made you attenda lot of classes and schooling beforethey would find you a job. But I wassurprised—they got me a job in 3 days.

My parole officer sent me here,I interviewed the same day I walkedinto RIO, and 2 days later I was hired.And you can go back for a part-timejob any time; I just did, and I was givensome applications that the employmentspecialist found on the computer whileI was sitting in her office. Now, when Igo to meetings at the parole office, theother guys ask me, ‘How’d you get ajob at XYZ?’ I tell them, ‘RIO got me ajob in 3 days. You should go, too.’—Employed Project RIO participant

Project RIO employment specialistsmatch specific clients with specific jobopenings on the basis of skills andtemperament. While they place somecold calls to employers to pitch RIOclients, the specialists can usually getone of the 12,000 companies that havehired RIO participants in the past—and have been satisfied with the re-sults—to interview new candidates.Program employment specialists alsohave immediate access to the TexasWorkforce Commission’s entire data-base of job openings on their office

Project RIO participants in the Houston office’s resource room use the program’s computers tolook up current job listings. After identifying promising listings, they can use the room’s bank oftelephones (not shown) to call for an interview.

Ph

oto

by P

roje

ct RIO

.

10 National Institute of Justice

PROGRAM FOCUS

computers. All RIO full-service of-fices also provide clients with a re-source room equipped with computersthat have job listings, telephone books,and telephones.

According to Burt Ellison, “The big-gest incentive [for companies to hireRIO clients] is that employers knowwhat they’re getting through us. WhenJohn Q. Public walks in, they don’thave a clue.” Employers also valuedependability; as one reported, “RIO’sreferrals seem to stay longer than

Kay Lee Cox owns a wholesale and retaillighting fixture supply store in Austin whose30 sales and warehouse staff members havebeen serving homeowners and homebuilderssince 1972. Looking for employees in 1995,Cox called the Texas Workforce Commissionfor leads because “the temporaries I had beenusing just seemed to come and go.” Tipped offby the commission, Cathy Boswell, an em-ployment specialist in RIO’s Austin office,telephoned Cox and arranged to send over anapplicant. Cox says, “I was very impressed byGreg. I grilled him pretty thoroughly. He toldme he had been in prison for 10 years but hadbeen in sales before. Greg’s been on the salesfloor for nearly 5 months now and has per-formed very well.” Greg started at $6.50 anhour but within 2 months Cox increased this to$7.50 with fringe benefits and a sales commis-sion—one month sooner than the typical 90-day probationary period Cox normally uses—because he was working out so well. “Depend-ability is important to me,” Cox says, “and itseems like ex-offenders are ready to settledown. Besides, temporary agencies are get-ting expensive; RIO is a free human resourceservice for me.” But Greg offers the last word:“Of all the good things RIO does, what makesthe program work is companies like this one.”

Ralph is the human resources coordinatorfor two manufacturing plants owned by aFortune 500 company with more than 15,000employees nationwide. While a line worker,Ralph had worked without problem side byside with ex-offenders RIO had placed withthe company. As a result, when Sue Hatcher,

Three Satisfied RIO EmployersRIO’s local employment specialist, called toask if he would interview some of her clients,he said yes. “I’ve had real success with them,”he reports. “One who’s been here a year is nowa group leader in charge of a department. Hebegan at $6.25 an hour and is now making$9.39 plus a weekly bonus of between $175and $202—almost $30,000 a year. After 60days, he received all fringe benefits. I hiredanother RIO applicant 8 months ago who hadtaken a trade course in prison. Anytime I askhim to do something, he does it right away—he never begs off. He even comes to me askingfor more things to do. He’s been so reliable Imade him my test man; I trust him not to falsifyhis test results, even though everyone’s underthe gun to get their achievement bonus andreporting a problem slows up the work.” Thecompany’s local plants currently employ morethan a dozen RIO clients. Most stay with thecompany for at least a year; one has remainedfor 7 years. “I like RIO because it screenspeople well and sends good applicants,” Ralphconcludes. “So I’m more likely to hire RIOreferrals than other applicants. The result isthat I waste less time than I would have todealing with people through advertisements.”

Wayne Hardin is the personnel manager ofa company in Houston that manufacturesand installs traffic signs, highway striping, andhighway barricades. With 130 full-time em-ployees, Hardin has hired more than 30 ProjectRIO participants; about 15 were working at theplant in late 1996. Hardin says that originallya Project RIO employment specialist calledhim out of the blue, explained the program,

and asked if he would consider interviewingsome clients. Hardin reports, “I was initiallyapprehensive, but I asked a lot of questions,thought it over for 2 weeks, and then decidedto test the waters. I needed qualified andcommitted applicants, and the RIO caller saidshe screened her referrals carefully.” Hardinadds that he also wanted to do his part to helpex-offenders reintegrate into the community.Mike, one of Hardin’s current RIO employ-ees, started out as a general laborer in 1992working on one assignment exclusively, butthen got involved with other parts of the manu-facturing process. In 1995, a foreman left thecompany for another position. Hardin startedlooking around the area for a replacement—and then caught himself and said, “Hey, wehave a good person right here.” He promotedMike to the position. Hardin went one stepfurther, agreeing to the RIO employmentspecialist’s request to spend a day in prisontalking to inmates about the availability ofwork for parolees and the type of work andwages he offered. Hardin has since made visitsto two other prisons.a

a. Wayne Hardin’s feeling that he is doing hispart to help offenders reintegrate into the commu-nity reflects a number of recent justice initia-tives—such as community policing, neighbor-hood prosecution, and restorative justice—thatcall for local communities to recognize and beresponsible for collaborating with the criminaljustice system. To the extent that a RIO-typeprogram fosters this kind of attitude and activityamong employers, the initiative contributes to thebuilding of community.

people I hire off the street.” (See“Three Satisfied RIO Employers.”)

FollowupMany RIO clients have serious socialneeds, ranging from medical care toshelter, that could interfere with theirability to find or retain a job if leftunresolved. Employment specialistsprovide all enrollees with an up-to-date directory of local social and com-munity services, from medical servicesfor indigent persons to food, clothing,

and housing resources. Some RIOemployment specialists take a moreactive role in addressing these needs.Cathy Boswell says, “If they need aGED, I make the appointment to getthem enrolled; if they need clothes, Icall or write a letter to the SalvationArmy.” For a client whose broken jawwas wired because of a volleyballaccident just before he left prison,Boswell secured free cans of a liquiddiet supplement from a local charitableagency, clothing from the St. VincentDePaul Society, medical care from a

Program Focus 11

PROGRAM FOCUS

hospital (which referred him to an oralsurgeon for free removal of the wires),and eyeglasses from the Foundationfor the Homeless.

Employment specialists telephone em-ployers at 30-, 60-, and 90-day intervalsto find out whether there have been anyproblems with placed participants, andthey encourage employers to call RIOto address any difficulties. When par-ticipants lose their jobs due to layoffsor other factors beyond their control,RIO’s employment specialists helpthem find another job. If an employeerelapses into drug or alcohol abuse, thespecialist works with the parole officerto send the person for 90-day treatment,after which placement services resume.

InteragencyCollaborationProject RIO involves close collabora-tion between the Texas WorkforceCommission and two divisions of theTexas Department of Criminal Jus-tice—the Institutional Division(prisons) and the Parole Division.Although these entities have very dif-ferent missions—safety and employ-ment—they have a single goal forProject RIO: placing offenders in jobsto save the State money by reducingrecidivism. Historically, the closest

collaboration has occurred betweenProject RIO and the Parole Division.

According to Burt Ellison, “Paroleadministrators have collaborated withus from day 1 because RIO helps themin their supervision—we reduce theirworkload by taking the burden offthem for employment and supportservices.” Nevertheless, as with anyeffort of this magnitude, initial con-flicts between parole officers and RIOdid occur.

The most serious problem was thatmany parole officers would not referclients to RIO because they doubtedthat the program’s employment spe-cialists could really find jobs for ex-offenders—a population the TexasWorkforce Commission had neversuccessfully served. In addition, theParole Division would not share itsemployment development plans withRIO offices, claiming that doing sowould violate client confidentiality.

CommunicationThe two agencies took several steps toresolve their initial differences. First,legal counsel was sought and reportedthat the two agencies working togetherdid not constitute a breach of privacybecause any exchange of informationwas made only with each client’s writ-ten consent. Then, in 1989, the execu-tive directors of the Texas WorkforceCommission and the Texas Depart-ment of Criminal Justice signed amemorandum of understanding thatdetailed each agency’s responsibilities,with a major focus on communication.Pursuant to the understanding, theParole Division appointed Tony Lyroas full-time RIO coordinator—fundedby RIO—to handle problems both

within the Parole Division and withRIO. Lyro met with every parole of-fice manager, instructing them to stoptelling RIO staff members how tooperate. He also educated them aboutwhat RIO could and could not do. Forexample, some parole officers resentedthe fact that RIO would receive creditfor placements if clients got jobs ontheir own after RIO counseling. Lyrotold them, “What you don’t see is thatthe parolee received counseling firstfrom RIO in prison and again at a RIOoffice. But if the guy loses his job andreturns to RIO for another placement,RIO doesn’t get any additional credit.”At the same time, Burt Ellison pro-vided similar directives and informa-tion to RIO office managers.

Two other considerations also pro-moted collaboration between RIO andthe Parole Division. First, according toEllison, “There was strong buy-infrom the top because the heads of theTexas Employment Commission andDepartment of Criminal Justice kneweach other personally, got along welltogether before RIO was established,and were unusually forward-thinkingpeople who realized the importance oftackling the recidivism problem.” Sec-ond, Ellison says, “Parole’s missionused to be only supervision, but, be-cause of the high costs of maintainingour prisons, the legislature redefinedParole’s mission to help clients avoidgoing back to prison. We help themachieve that new mission.”

Degrees of collaborationAccording to John Ownby, one ofthree RIO program coordinators in thecentral office who share responsibilityfor monitoring RIO staff members

During a break between customers, GregoryGarett, a former Project Rio participant,checks a catalog at the lighting supply storewhere he has worked steadily as a salespersonsince his release from prison in 1995.

Ph

oto

by

Pro

ject

RIO

.

12 National Institute of Justice

PROGRAM FOCUS

across the State, “The degree of col-laboration between Project RIO andthe Parole Division varies among localRIO and parole offices; a lot of RIO’ssuccess is based on relationships builtbetween our staff and parole officers.”For example, clients sometimes com-plain to their RIO employment spe-cialists that their parole officers arerequiring appointments at times thatconflict with the ex-offenders’ workhours. RIO employment specialistswho are on good terms with paroleofficers can quickly work out a satis-factory solution. To develop rapportwith parole officers in her jurisdiction,Cathy Boswell has arranged luncheswith them, gone to their softball gamesand baby showers, and faxed invita-tions to a happy hour she sponsored,which was attended by 15 officers.

According to Tony Lyro, “In thosesites with good communication andcoordination between local RIO of-fices and parole officers, the collabo-ration is great: Parole officers do nothave to find parolees jobs, allowingthem to concentrate their efforts onother supervision responsibilities. Butwhen communication is poor, officersmay continue to take responsibility forfinding their clients employment be-cause they are not confident that RIOcan do the job.”

Lyro adds, “In some rural areas, ex-offenders can almost always find jobsbecause people take care of their ownand unemployment is low. That,coupled with the fact that the nearestRIO employment specialist may be 30miles away, leads some parole officersto help their clients get jobs.” How-ever, most parole officers, especiallyin cities, will not try to find work for

parolees who refuse to go to RIO be-cause Project RIO is already the ex-offenders’ best possible resource forhelp in finding a job.

When communication and trust arehigh, local RIO offices and paroleofficers work very closely.

■ Some parole offices invite ProjectRIO staff members to orient new pa-role officers to the program as partof the officers’ standard preservicetraining.

■ In some smaller jurisdictions whereparole officers must travel to serveparolees, if there is a Balance of Stateoffice in the town, the RIO staff per-son furnishes the officer with a deskand telephone at no cost to the ParoleDivision.

■ One day, an employed RIO partici-pant complained desperately to hisAustin-area employer that, because hisparole office was going to move himto another county, he would have tostart his job search all over again. Theemployer called the worker’s employ-ment specialist, who told the AustinRIO site manager. The manager ar-ranged with the client’s parole officesupervisor to have the move rescinded.

A little distance between the two agen-cies may be beneficial, however, ac-cording to Ellison. “We prefer notbeing colocated with Parole Divisionoffices because we have more inde-pendence when we’re physically sepa-rated. We also avoid being seen as acriminal justice agency—we can bethe people wearing the white hats.And while we lose some clients be-cause they won’t travel from the

parole office to a RIO office, forcingthem to make the trip helps us screenthem for motivation.”

Project RIO also works closely withthe Texas Department of CriminalJustice’s Institutional Division. Onceagain, a productive, collaborative rela-tionship developed.

■ The Institutional Division allowsRIO’s two information specialists—both ex-offenders—to talk with in-mates in prison even though Statepolicy normally prevents former in-mates from going back into a prison.

■ The Institutional Division integratesRIO’s 30-minute presentation on theprogram, given to inmates the daythey are released from prison, into themorning’s prerelease activities, ratherthan forcing RIO staff to offer it at theend of the session when inmates are soexcited about leaving that they cannotconcentrate on anything except gettingout the door.

Monitoring andEvaluationA program operating in 62 offices inan area as large as Texas and requiringclose working relations with anotherlarge bureaucracy (the parole system)cannot be effective without a system-atic approach to oversight.

Performance monitoringProject RIO has an automated dataprocessing and tracking system at theindividual office and statewide levelsthat tracks releasee referrals and status.Data for each client include offenseand parole information, referrals for

Program Focus 13

PROGRAM FOCUS

education and training, test scores,certificates and degrees received,PROD (Project RIO Occupational Di-rection) booklets completed, familycontacts, military service, birth certifi-cate, and other information pertinent tothe employability of the client. EveryRIO employment specialist can accessthe information online and update it asneeded during a counseling session.Other data in the system include infor-mation on each site’s number of enroll-ees and percentage of placements.

Three RIO project coordinators basedin Austin—each responsible for one-third of the State—use this information,along with site visits, to monitor everyoffice’s performance. For example,coordinators may spot a slippage inthe number of parolee referrals or jobplacements at a site. They first suggestremedial action, such as spending moretime at the local parole office to resolveproblems. A coordinator visits the site90 days later to see if the deficiencieshave been remedied. If no improvementhas occurred, the coordinator workswith the Parole Division RIO liaison orlocal Workforce Commission managerto solve the problem. In addition tothese troubleshooting site visits, thecoordinators visit every office in theirjurisdiction annually for quality controlchecks.

Although RIO has written operatingstandards that site offices are expectedto follow, the coordinators allow indi-vidual sites considerable autonomy inhow they operate. According to JohnOwnby, a coordinator, “No one in theState RIO office has all the answers;we’ve found local staff doing thingsdifferently than they were supposedto—but better.” The following ex-

amples illustrate how local officesadapted operational procedures tomeet their own needs:

■ Project RIO requires its staff tosend a form to a client’s parole officerif they remove the client from the pro-gram (for example, for repeatedlygoing to appointments under the influ-ence of drugs or alcohol, failing toattend two or three scheduled inter-views with employers, or stealing onthe job). Ownby learned that the Pasa-dena office modified the form to in-clude a checkoff section for paroleofficers to complete and return to theoffice indicating why a person wasnot participating—for example, “ab-sconded,” “employed,” or “moved outof State.” Ownby instituted the inno-vation programwide.

■ “Offices need to be given flexibilityto tailor their services to the local jobmarket,” Ownby says. For example,employment specialists in the El Pasooffice may need to tell clients to comein twice a week because quick turn-over in the local labor market createsconstant work opportunities, while in asmall town with only two viable em-ployers, the employment specialistmay have to tell clients seeking workto call in only once a month.

While the coordinators make sure thatthe basic RIO framework is in place inevery site, they do not check for rigidadherence to program operating proce-dures. The most frequent local “frame-work” problem that coordinators findis staff neglecting to visit parole offic-ers on a routine basis. Sometimes theproblem reflects the attitudes of localRIO office managers who discouragethese contacts because they feel that

an employment specialist who is not athis or her desk is not making place-ments. As a result, coordinators haveto remind the managers and employ-ment specialists that visiting and es-tablishing personal relationships withparole officers is critical to RIO’ssuccess.

The Parole Division’s RIO coordinatormonitors the work quality of his staff.During his tenure, Tony Lyro closelychecked monthly referrals to RIO. “Ifthe rate dropped, that was a red flag tosee what was going on. Once I noticedzero referrals for 3 months from onesmaller office in central Texas. I calledthe office’s RIO coordinator and askedwhat the problem was. The answerwas that parole officers didn’t haveconfidence in the half-time RIO em-ployment specialist. ‘She showed nointerest in helping us,’ they said, andparolees were reporting that she didn’thelp them either. So I drove to theparole office and met with the fiveparole officers to hear firsthand aboutthe problem.” Lyro then called theRIO regional coordinator at the time,Burt Ellison, and said, “We have aproblem.” So Ellison also drove to thesite and, he reports, “I found—as is thesource of 90 percent of these prob-lems—that the Workforce Commis-sion office manager was saddling theRIO staff person with other work,such as Women, Infants and Children(WIC) responsibilities, leaving her notime to handle parole referrals.” AfterEllison asked the manager to relievethe part-time specialist of these otherresponsibilities, he and Lyro wentback to the parole office together andasked the officers to start makingreferrals again, with a promise ofbetter results.

14 National Institute of Justice

PROGRAM FOCUS

tation from Social Security with-holding records that an ex-offenderworked at least 1 day in each of fourquarters for 1 year after release. Onaverage, RIO participants workedduring 1.8 quarters, while non-RIOreleasees worked in 1.1 quarters.

❏ Minority ex-offenders. Minori-ties did especially well in RIO: 66percent of African-American partici-pants and 66 percent of Hispanic-American participants foundemployment, compared with only 30percent of African-Americans and 36percent of Hispanic-Americans whowere not enrolled in the program.3

But does Project RIO help preventrecidivism? According to the TexasA&M University study, the answer isyes. Ex-offenders who found jobsthrough RIO had lower recidivism ratesthan unemployed ex-offenders who didnot enroll in RIO, with demographicfactors and risk of recidivism taken intoaccount. In addition, during the yearafter release, when most recidivismoccurs,4 48 percent of RIO high-riskclients were rearrested compared with57 percent of non-RIO high-risk parol-ees; 23 percent were reincarcerated,compared with 38 percent of non-RIOparolees. (See exhibit 3.) These figuressuggest that employment and participa-tion in Project RIO have been of great-est benefit to ex-offenders whom prisonand parole personnel consider mostlikely to reoffend.

The evaluations of Project RIO haveseveral weaknesses. For instance, re-searchers were unable to determinewhether the parolees who were mostlikely to succeed on their own were theones who joined RIO. However, the

Texas A&M study found few objectivedifferences between RIO participantsand nonparticipants and believe thatthese differences were unlikely to haveinfluenced the positive findings.5 Fur-thermore, both Burt Ellison and TonyLyro believe that if parole officers arebeing selective in deciding which parol-ees to refer to RIO, they are probablysending over their worst clients, thoseleast likely to succeed on their own.According to Lyro, “Although paroleofficers are supposed to refer everyunemployed client to RIO, they typi-cally put the most pressure to enroll onhigh-risk ex-offenders because theseparolees need the most help.” Ellisonadds, “Parole officers are under pres-sure to come to some resolution witheach client, whether a positive or anegative outcome. So they keep urgingthe parolees who are not adhering toparole plans to go to RIO, so that eitherthese clients will end up finally gettinga job or the officers can use the parol-ees’ repeated refusal to enroll in RIO tobuild a case for applying sanctions.”

What does it cost to achieve theseresults? The 1995 Texas Legislatureprovided Project RIO with $15.8 mil-lion for 2 years. Of this, $4.69 millionper year is funneled to the TexasWorkforce Commission through aninteragency contract with the TexasDepartment of Criminal Justice. Thedepartment uses $2.9 million per yearfor its prison- and parole-relatedProject RIO activities. The programspent $361 in 1995 for every clientwho found a job.

The Texas A&M researchers exam-ined the records of 6,500 clients whoreceived services in 1990. Accordingto the researchers, nearly 20 percent of

EvaluationsProject RIO’s raw numbers are a mea-surement of the program’s success.

■ Service delivery. During fiscal year1995, RIO served 15,366 parolees,representing about 40 percent of allex-offenders (and 47 percent of allparolees) released from prison thatyear. Program staff consider a paroleeto be a client when a work applicationand employability development planhave been completed.

■ Placements. Project RIO hasplaced 69 percent of more than100,000 ex-offenders served since1985. Almost 74 percent of clients in1995—11,371 parolees—found em-ployment at an average wage of $5.15per hour (at a time when the minimumwage was $4.25 per hour).2

Project RIO clients appear to be muchmore likely to get jobs than ex-offenderswho do not participate in the program. A1992 study by Texas A&M Universityfound the following:

❏ Participation in RIO. Participa-tion was a statistically significantpredictor of postrelease employ-ment. Based on a 1-year followup,69 percent of program participantsfound employment compared with36 percent of non-RIO parolees,with both groups of ex-offendershaving similar demographic charac-teristics (age, race, ethnicity) andrisk of reoffending (previous of-fenses, prior incarcerations, aca-demic and vocational educationalachievement levels).

❏ Data on job retention. Avail-able data were limited to documen-

Program Focus 15

PROGRAM FOCUS

these avoided reincarceration partlybecause of their participation in RIO.6

The cost of incarcerating these indi-viduals would have amounted to about$20 million per year (about $16,000per inmate per year). Since ProjectRIO’s costs were about $4 million in1990, this represents potential savingsof more than $15 million for the Statethat year.

The researchers also observed thateach ex-offender who worked in 1990generated about $1,000 in State andlocal taxes, representing $1.2 millionin revenue to the State.

Keys to SuccessRIO is one of the few State programsreally doing something.—Texas State Senator

Government self-interestMany factors account for ProjectRIO’s achievements, but as a Stategovernment program, an essentialprecondition to its survival is satisfy-ing the legislature. Project RIO ap-pears to be in the self-interest of Texaspolicymakers. Legislators are underpressure to reduce crime and prisoncosts. By voting to fund Project RIO,lawmakers can tell constituents theyare attacking crime and saving tax-payer dollars. Furthermore, once keylegislators have agreed to fund a pro-gram, they develop a stake in helpingit succeed.

Because the entire criminal justicesystem is ultimately accountable to thelegislature, as well as subject to publicpressure, reducing recidivism andoffender costs becomes a prime con-cern for the prison system and ParoleDivision.

Of course, the best possible publicrelations tool is an independent evalu-ation that shows the program is work-ing—precisely what Texas A&Mprovided. As Burt Ellison says, “Gov-ernors and legislators wanted hardnumbers to be able to show taxpayersthat the program was saving money.”

Other strategiesProgram staff offer other suggestionsfor ensuring that a RIO-type programwill succeed.

■ “Avoid complicated policies andprocedures; for all parolees who havean employment problem, send them toRIO. Use a simple referral form.”

■ “Allow flexibility in day-to-dayoperations at the local office level.”The Parole Division gives local officesconsiderable flexibility in how theyhandle making referrals to RIO; ProjectRIO allows a large degree of opera-tional choice among its local offices.

■ “Make sure you have control overstaffing and then hire staff who willbe comfortable working with ex-offenders.” Project RIO must acceptthose employees the Texas WorkforceCommission has assigned to the pro-gram. Because these staff are not al-ways suitable or interested, this lack ofchoice has been, and continues to be, aproblem for RIO.

Can Other StatesSet Up SimilarPrograms?Project RIO has been assisted by cir-cumstances that may not exist in otherStates, including high employer

Exhibit 3. Rearrests and Reincarcerations by Risk of Recidivismand RIO Participation (n = 1,200)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

High

57

48

32 30

1916

38

23

11 8

1 1

Non-RIO RIO

Average

% rearrested % reincarcerated

Risk Level*

Low High Average Low

* Based on 23 factors, such as substance abuse history, living arrangements, correctional officers’ impression ofrisk, academic level, vocational skills, and employment history.

16 National Institute of Justice

PROGRAM FOCUS

demand for workers in Texas, lack ofopposition from organized labor be-cause of the State’s tight labor market,and pressure to address recidivismcreated by the second highest numberof prison inmates in the Nation. Inaddition, the Texas Workforce Com-mission has had offices around theState since 1935; because of theCommission’s generally good reputa-tion in local communities, the localRIO staff had a head start in receivingemployer cooperation.

Although Texas was well suited toinitiate Project RIO, other State depart-ments of employment security or cor-rections could implement a RIO-typeprogram. Hundreds of employers inmany other States that do not have suchlow unemployment rates, such a toler-ant organized labor movement, or asmany inmates have hired thousands ofex-offenders. The Georgia Board ofPardons and Parole is already imple-menting aspects of the RIO model. (See“Georgia Attempts to Replicate ProjectRIO.”) If using local employment secu-rity offices and staff to provide jobplacement services is not feasible,Washington State’s approach can beadopted—contracting with local com-munity-based organizations throughoutthe State to furnish job placement ser-vices to ex-offenders.

NonprofitImplementation ofthe RIO ModelWhile initially it may seem unlikely, anonprofit organization might be able toimplement a RIO-type program. Forexample, a government-funded pro-gram would have a level of stabilitythat a nonprofit cannot achieve, since

Ronnie Lane, Director of Parolee Trainingand Employment for the Georgia Board ofPardons and Parole, chairs a State taskforce charged with implementing the RIOmodel.

According to Lane, officials in Georgiawere becoming increasingly concernedabout the shrinking amount of money avail-able to incarcerate offenders and the esca-lating costs of incarceration. “Agency ad-ministrators began to realize that they hadto help one another if they hoped to haveany chance of saving money,” Lane says.“What attracted us to Project RIO wasprecisely its ability to get three differentagencies with different missions to worktogether on a mutual concern—getting in-mates ready for life after prison.”

Georgia has faced different challenges inestablishing collaboration than Texas be-cause Georgia’s Board of Pardons and Pa-role is completely independent of its De-partment of Corrections. As a result, whilethe task force has already negotiated anagreement between the Board of Pardonsand Parole and the Department of Labor,the Department of Corrections has yet tosign the agreement. In addition, the De-partment of Corrections has recently aban-doned its in-prison school system, dismiss-ing its teaching staff and privatizing theoperation. As a result, the task force mustnegotiate with contract teachers and ad-ministrators who are no longer prisonemployees.

Lane says the task force has establishedtwo main goals in replicating Project RIO.First, the Department of Corrections andthe Board of Pardons and Parole will worktogether to ensure that—as in Texas—in-mates come out of prison with officialpicture identifications, birth certificates,

Georgia Attempts to Replicate Project RIO

Social Security cards, résumés, and otherdocuments they and their parole officersmust have in hand to begin the search forwork immediately upon release. Accord-ing to Lane, “RIO woke us up to the realiza-tion that inmates may get academic andvocational education and may work inprison industries, but no one captures allthe essential employment-related documen-tation and provides it to parole officers touse in helping inmates to get jobs afterrelease.” As a result, some parolees beg offfinding a job, claiming they cannot look forwork because they lack the proper docu-ments. At the same time, idleness and lackof income predispose many of them to slipback into abusing alcohol and drugs andcommitting new crimes.

Georgia’s second goal is to install the StateDepartment of Labor’s job search programsoftware—the most up-to-date and com-prehensive source of information on jobopenings in the State—on every paroleoffice computer.

The task force is pilot testing the collabora-tion in 25 counties of northeast Georgia,where an unusually high percentage ofparolees are unemployed. Lane is testingwhether parolees who come out of prisonwith all the necessary documentation findjobs more quickly than parolees withouttheir paperwork in order. Additional initia-tives will determine whether Departmentof Labor county representatives can helpparolees find jobs.

Lane reports that very little money is beingused to set up the arrangement. While newfunds have been allocated for Lane and histwo-person staff to operate the collabora-tion, other State employees will participateas part of their existing job responsibilities.

Program Focus 17

PROGRAM FOCUS

NCJ 168637 June 1998

This document was written by Peter Finn, Senior Research Associate,Abt Associates Inc. Findings and conclusions of the research reportedhere are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the officialposition or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

On the cover: An instructor in the Houston Project RIO officeteaches program participants life skills they will need to find andretain a job.

About This StudyThe National Institute of Justice is a compo-nent of the Office of Justice Programs, whichalso includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance,the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,and the Office for Victims of Crime.

The National Institute of Corrections is acomponent of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

The Office of Correctional Education is adivision of the Office of Vocational and AdultEducation, U.S. Department of Education.

government-funded programs do nothave to devote resources to raising moneyand have access to computer networksand office facilities that nonprofits wouldhave to purchase. However, RIO staffmust pay considerable attention to secur-ing and maintaining legislative support,an issue nonprofits do not have to con-sider. Furthermore, as public officialschange and government funding dries up,State-financed programs are sometimescut despite their good work. Governmentbureaucratic processes can thwart col-laboration attempts. Clearly, nonprofitand government sponsorships can bothinvolve barriers, but Texas’ experiencedemonstrates that these barriers can beovercome with creatively applied col-laborative efforts.

Notes1 . Mumola, C.J., and A.J. Beck, Prisoners in1996, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 1997.

2 . Clients placed a second or third time byemployment specialists (for example, becausethey lost their job due to layoffs) are notcounted as new placements in RIO’s database;there are no duplicate counts.

3 . Menon, R., C. Blakely, D. Carmichael, andL. Silver, An Evaluation of Project RIO

Outcomes: An Evaluative Report, CollegeStation, Texas: Texas A&M University, PublicPolicy Resources Laboratory, 1992.

4 . Hoffman, P., and B. Meierhoefer, “Post-Release Experiences of Federal Prisoners: ASix-Year Follow-up,” Journal of CriminalJustice 7 (1979): 193–216; Beck, R.A., andB.E. Shipley, Recidivism of Prisoners Releasedin 1983, Special Report, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of JusticeStatistics, 1989.

5 . African-Americans comprised 44 percent ofboth groups; 21 percent of RIO participantswere Hispanic-American, compared with 17percent of the comparison group; and 35percent of participants were white, comparedwith 39 percent of the comparison group. Theaverage age of both groups was 31. Theprevious offense rates for both groups werealso very similar. RIO participants had slightlyhigher rates of violent crime (24 percent versus20 percent) and slightly lower rates of drugoffenses (22 percent versus 26 percent) thannonparticipants, but the two groups had almostthe same rates for larceny and other crimes.The groups’ average number of prior incarcera-tions was almost identical (0.8 versus 0.9).However, other unmeasured factors, such aschanges in marital status and family support,might have accounted for some of the programparticipants’ success. Also, the RIO evaluationdoes not indicate the duration of participants’continuous employment after finding a jobcompared with that of nonparticipants. Futureevaluations of ex-offender job placementprograms would be strengthened if they

collected these types of information. Theywould also be improved if ex-offenders wererandomly assigned to program participation andnonparticipation. (Of course, excluding someindividuals from program participation mightbe considered unethical, politically unaccept-able, or both.) Comprehensive evaluation is anessential component of good program develop-ment and implementation. In addition tocontracting with an outside evaluator, asProject RIO did, programs should make everyeffort to devise a comprehensive evaluationinstrument for in-house annual evaluation thatwould help program administrators gain insightinto the program’s results. Multiple sources ofevaluation should be used, including qualitativeand quantitative assessments of programeffectiveness using information from paroleofficers, project administrators, employmentspecialists, and participants. Project RIO’sevaluation was conducted in 1992; a morerecent study would help confirm and expandprevious findings. Despite these limitations, theassessments that Project RIO has conductedremain among the most thorough that are nowavailable in the field.

6 . Because the research design did not involverandom assignment of some ex-offenders toProject RIO and some to nonparticipation, theresearchers were reluctant to say unequivocallythat participation in RIO caused the participantsto find employment. For example, because it ispossible that RIO participants were moremotivated to succeed than ex-offenders whodid not enroll in the program, some might havefound work even without the program’sservices.

18 National Institute of Justice

PROGRAM FOCUS

For additional information about ProjectRIO , contact:

Burt EllisonProgram DirectorProject RIOTexas Workforce Commission101 East 15th StreetAustin, TX 78778–0001Telephone: 512–463–0834Fax: 512–305–9640

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) isthe research and development arm of theU.S. Department of Justice. For informa-tion about NIJ’s efforts in corrections, pro-gram development, and corporate partner-ship development, contact:

Marilyn MosesProgram ManagerNational Institute of Justice810 Seventh Street N.W.Room 7114Washington, DC 20531Telephone: 202–514–6205Fax: 202–307–6256URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

NIJ established the National CriminalJustice Reference Service (NCJRS) in1972 to serve as a national and interna-tional clearinghouse for the exchange ofcriminal justice information. For more in-formation about topical searches, bibliog-raphies, custom searches, and other avail-able services, contact:

Sources for More Information

NCJRSP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000Telephone: 800–851–3420 (8:30 a.m. to7 p.m. Eastern time, Monday–Friday)URL: http://www.ncjrs.org

For specific criminal justice questions orrequests via the Internet, send an e-mailmessage to askncjrs@ncjrs.org.

The National Institute of Corrections of-fers literature searches and free technicalassistance on inmate programming. Contact:

NIC Information CenterNational Institute of Corrections1860 Industrial Circle, Suite ALongmont, CO 80501Telephone: 800–877–1461

The National Institute of Corrections’ Officeof Correctional Job Training and Place-ment (OCJTP) was created in 1995 to:

■ Cooperate with and coordinate the effortsof other Federal agencies in the areas of jobtraining and placement.

■ Collect and disseminate information onoffender job training and placement pro-grams, accomplishments, and employmentoutcomes.

■ Provide training to develop staff compe-tencies in working with offenders and ex-offenders.

■ Provide technical assistance to State andlocal training and employment agencies.

For more information, contact:

John MooreCoordinatorOffice of Correctional Job Training andPlacementNational Institute of Corrections320 First Street N.W.Washington, DC 20534Telephone: 800–995–6423, Ext. 147

The Office of Correctional Education(OCE) within the U.S. Department of Edu-cation was created by Congress in 1991 toprovide technical assistance, grant fund-ing, and research data to the correctionsand correctional education fields. To speakwith a program specialist or to be placed onOCE’s mailing list to receive grant an-nouncements, OCE’s quarterly newsletter,and other publications, contact:

Richard SmithDirectorOffice of Correctional EducationOffice of Vocational and Adult EducationU.S. Department of Education600 Independence Avenue S.W.MES 4529Washington, DC 20202–7242Telephone: 202–205–5621Fax: 202–205–8793URL: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/OCE

Program Focus 19

PROGRAM FOCUS

For the most up-to-date program information,see the agency Web pages:

National Institute of Justice: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

National Institute of Corrections: http://www.bop.gov/nicpg/nicmain.html

Office of Correctional Education: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/AdultEd/OCE/

JUSTINFO — the online newsletter of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service

JUSTINFO

Important news from the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Office of JusticePrograms —National Institute of Justice • Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention• Office for Victims of Crime • Bureau of Justice Statistics • Bureau of Justice Assistance

★ Grants and solicitations— Where, when, and how to apply

★ Recent publications— Content summaries and ordering information

★ Upcoming conferences— Themes, speakers, andregistration information

★ Other information you need to do your job well— Distributed on the 1stand 15th of every month

Get the latest JUSTice

INFOrmationJUST when you need it!

★ Send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org.★ Leave the subject line blank.★ In the body of the message, type

subscribe justinfo your nameFor examplesubscribe justinfo Jane Smith

Subscribing is easy:Subscribing is easy:

No online access?Call 800-851-3420 to request thecurrent issue via Fax-on-Demand.

Or read JUSTINFO online athttp://www.ncjrs.org/justinfo/