Conventional wisdom states that finding a job is one of the most important elements for a person to successfully transition from incarceration back into the community. In fact, individuals returning home from prison often identify employment as the most important factor that helped them stay crime free. While studies have shown that employment can help decrease the likelihood than an individual will reoffend and recidivate, in general research on the relationship between participation in employment programs and recidivism has yielded mixed results.

This section provides an overview and examination of key evaluative research investigating the relationship between reentry employment programs and recidivism reduction. Below, we highlight the results and conclusions of research that met our criteria for methodological rigor and provide a basis for comparing and discussing effective employment programs emerging in the reentry field.
… (more)

Conventional wisdom states that finding a job is one of the most important elements for a person to successfully transition from incarceration back into the community. In fact, individuals returning home from prison often identify employment as the most important factor that helped them stay crime free. While studies have shown that employment can help decrease the likelihood than an individual will reoffend and recidivate, in general research on the relationship between participation in employment programs and recidivism has yielded mixed results.

This section provides an overview and examination of key evaluative research investigating the relationship between reentry employment programs and recidivism reduction. Below, we highlight the results and conclusions of research that met our criteria for methodological rigor and provide a basis for comparing and discussing effective employment programs emerging in the reentry field.

From our review of the literature, we identified 19 studies meeting our eligibility criteria. These studies either fell into one of three broad categories of employment interventions – work release, prison industries, or institutional work – or were considered unique programs that did not fit into one of these categories. Five such unique employment-focused programs were identified. (Please note that vocational training interventions are not included in the Clearinghouse at this time but will be added in the future.)

What the Research Says about Employment Programs

The five unique programs included the Specialized Training and Employment Project (STEP), which provides job training and work assignment within the institution and post-release employment assistance in the community; the Kintock Group, Inc., Employment Resource Center, which offers community-based job retention, employment readiness training, and job placement services; the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO), which provides transitional jobs and other employment services; the Affordable Homes Program (AHP), which places inmates in construction work crews; and the National Supported Work Demonstration Project, which places participants in community-based work crews. Neither STEP nor the Kintock Group Employment Resource Center were found to have a significant effect on reducing recidivism or helping people find or retain jobs. Of the two work crew programs, only the National Supported Work Demonstration Project was found to have significant effects on recidivism; AHP showed no impact on recidivism, although the researchers did find that participants experienced a significant, positive effect for employment outcomes – particularly in finding and retaining construction jobs, which were the focus of the intervention. Conversely, a study of CEO found modest evidence that the program lowered recidivism rates, but the study did not find a program impact on employment. Clearly, the relationship between employment and recidivism is complex.

We identified several studies on both prison industry programs and work release programs; however, results for both types of interventions were mixed. In total, six work release studies meeting our criteria were identified, which were evenly split in terms of both recidivism and employment findings (i.e., half of the studies that examined each outcome found an effect, while the other half did not). Similarly, of the seven prison industry studies identified, four found evidence that the programs reduced recidivism, while the remaining three found no evidence of an effect. Finally, one study examined the effects of jobs associated with the operation of correctional facilities (e.g., laundry, cooking) on reentry outcomes, finding no effect on recidivism or employment.

Future Areas of Research

Although several studies of both work release and prison industries programs were identified, and some were rated at a high level of methodological rigor, none of the evaluations were able to utilize a true randomized experiment. Furthermore, findings for both types of interventions were highly mixed. Clearly, more research is needed to examine why these programs do or do not work, and what factors contribute to their effectiveness or ineffectiveness. In addition, researchers have yet to adequately address the question of whether work release enhances employment outcomes for participants. We found only two studies that included this measure, and the findings were conflicting. Moreover, it’s important to note that only one study evaluating each of the five unique employment programs was identified. Therefore, more research is needed on each of these programs, and we recommend exercising caution when interpreting the efficacy of these interventions. (less)