Which prisoner reentry programs work? replicating and extending analyses of three rcts
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Doleac et al. (2020) review three RCTs of external reentry programs and find at best mixed evidence of their effectiveness.
“Doleac et al. (2020) review three randomized controlled trials of external reentry programs and find, at best, mixed evidence of their effectiveness.”
From Prison Rehabilitation Programs: Efficiency and Targeting (2021) · cites this paper as Doleac et al. (2020)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 23
- Authors
- Doleac, J. L., Temple, C., Pritchard, D., & Roberts, A.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Doleac, Jennifer L.
- ORCID
- Pritchard, David
- Venue
- International Review of Law and Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 62
- Pages
- 105902
- ISSN
- 0144-8188 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3008444312
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 4.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Review of Law and Economics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- prisoner reentry, recidivism, randomized controlled trials, replication, omitted variable bias, selection bias, causal effects, treatment effects, reentry programs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
