An Experimental Evaluation of a Comprehensive Employment-Oriented Prisoner Re-entry Program
- 3k Downloads
While the economic model of crime suggests that improving post-prison labor market prospects should reduce recidivism, evaluations of previous employment-oriented re-entry programs have mixed results, possibly due to the multi-faceted challenges facing prisoners at the time of their release. We present an evaluation of an experiment that combines enhanced employment opportunities with wrap around services before and after release.
This paper presents what we believe is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a re-entry program that combines post-release subsidized work with “reach-in” social services provided prior to release. The sample was 236 high-risk offenders in Milwaukee with a history of violence or gang involvement.
We observe increased employment rates and earnings during the period when ex-offenders are eligible for subsidized jobs, and these gains persist throughout the year. The intervention has significant effects (p < 0.01) in reducing the likelihood of rearrest. The likelihood that the treatment group is re-imprisoned during the first year after release is lower than for controls (22 vs. 26 %) but the difference is not statistically significantly different from zero.
The results of our RCT suggest that “reach-in” services to help improve human capital of inmates prior to release, together with wrap around services following release, boosts employment and earnings, although whether there is sufficient impact on recidivism for the intervention to pass a benefit-cost test is more uncertain. Average earnings for both treatment and control groups were very low; legal work simply does not seem that important in the economic lives of released prisoners.
KeywordsRecidivism Experiment Employment Prisoners Gang
- Angrist JD, Pischke J-S (2009) Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press, NJGoogle Scholar
- Beck JS (2011) Cognitive therapy: basics and beyond, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Bloom D, Redcross C, Zweig J, Azurdia G (2007) Transitional jobs for ex-prisoners: early impacts from a random assignment evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) prisoner reentry program. MDRC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) (2014) Investing in what works: “Pay for Success” in New York state increasing employment and improving public safety detailed project summary. https://www.budget.ny.gov/contract/ICPFS/PFSProjectSummary_0314.pdf
- Cook PJ (1975) The correctional carrot: the prospect of reducing recidivism through improved job opportunities. Policy Anal 1(1):11Google Scholar
- Cook PJ (1980) Research in criminal deterrence: laying the groundwork for the second decade. In: Morris Norval, Tonry Michael (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 211–268Google Scholar
- Cook PJ, Dodge K, Farkas G, Fryer RG Jr, Guryan J, Ludwig J, Mayer S, Pollack H, Steinberg L (2014) The (surprising) efficacy of academic and behavioral intervention with disadvantaged youth: results from a randomized experiment in Chicago. NBER Working Paper 19862, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Durose M, Cooper A, Snyder H (2014) Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: patterns from 2005 to 2010. Special report. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf
- Duwe G (2013) An evaluation of the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP) pilot project: final report. Minnesota department of corrections. http://www.doc.state.mn.us/pages/files/8913/8142/3580/MCORP_Evaluation_Final_DOC_Website.pdf
- Farrabee D, Sheldon XZ, Wright B (2014) An experimental evaluation of a nationally recognized employment-focused offender reentry program. J Exp Criminol (on line 2/28)Google Scholar
- Heller SB, Pollack HA, Ander R, Ludwig J (2013) “Preventing youth violence and dropout: a randomized field experiment.” NBER Working Paper 19014, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Lattimore P, Brumbaugh S, Visher C, Lindquist C, Winterfield L, Salas M, Zweig J (2004) National portrait of SVORI: Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. US Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Lipsey M (1990) Design sensitivity: statistical power for experimental research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (1980) Summary and findings of the National Supported Work Demonstration. Ballinger Publishing Company, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Petersilia J (2003) When prisoners come home: parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Redcross C, Bloom D, Jacobs E, Manno M, Muller-Ravett S, Seefeldt K, Zweig J (2010) Work after prison: one-year findings from the transitional jobs reentry demonstration. MDRC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Redcross C, Millenky M, Rudd T, Levshin V (2012) More than a job: Final results from the evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) transitional jobs program OPRE Report 2011–18. Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Rossi PH, Berk RA, Lenihan KJ (1980) Money, work, and crime: experimental evidence. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Taxman F, Young D, Byrne J, Hoslinger A, Anspach D, Thanner M, Silverman R (2001) The eight reentry partnership initiatives: plans, early results, and conceptual framework. University of Maryland, Bureau of Governmental Research, College ParkGoogle Scholar
- Taxman F, Young D, Byrne JM, Holsinger A, Anspach D (2002) From prison safety to public safety: innovations in offender reentry. University of Maryland, College Park, College ParkGoogle Scholar
- Travis Jeremy (2005) But they all come back: facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Urban Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Travis J, Western B, Redburn S (2014) The growth of incarceration in the United States: exploring causes and consequences. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Uggen C, Staff J (2001) Work as a turning point for criminal offenders. Correct Manag Q 5:1–16Google Scholar
- Winterfield L, Lindquist C (2005) Characteristics of prisoner reentry programs reentry research in action. US Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WIDOC) (2012) Recidivism after release from prison. Office of the secretary, research and policy unit, performance measurement seriesGoogle Scholar