Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 355–382 | Cite as

An Experimental Evaluation of a Comprehensive Employment-Oriented Prisoner Re-entry Program

  • Philip J. CookEmail author
  • Songman Kang
  • Anthony A. Braga
  • Jens Ludwig
  • Mallory E. O’Brien
Original Paper



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.


Recidivism Experiment Employment Prisoners Gang 


  1. Angrist JD, Pischke J-S (2009) Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB (1996) Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 91(434):444–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apel R, Sweeten G (2010) The impact of incarceration on employment during the transition to adulthood. Soc Probl 57(3):448–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck JS (2011) Cognitive therapy: basics and beyond, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker Gary S (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Political Econ 76(2):175–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berk R, Pitkin E, Brown L, Bua A, George E, Zhao L (2013) Covariance adjustments for the analysis of randomized field experiments. Eval Rev 37(3/4):170–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Bushway SD, Apel R (2012) A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming. Criminol Public Policy 11(1):21–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00786.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. Cook PJ (1975) The correctional carrot: the prospect of reducing recidivism through improved job opportunities. Policy Anal 1(1):11Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Cook PJ, O’Brien M, Braga AA, Ludwig J (2012) Lessons from a partially controlled field trial. J Exp Criminol 8(3):271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.
  15. Duwe G (2013) An evaluation of the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP) pilot project: final report. Minnesota department of corrections.
  16. 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
  17. Hammer TJ (2002) The long and arduous journey to truth-in-sentencing in Wisconsin. Fed Sentencing Report 15(1):15–18. doi: 10.1525/fsr.2002.15.1.15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harding DJ, Wyse JJB, Dobson C, Morenoff JD (2014) Making ends meet after prison. J Policy Anal Manag 33(2):440–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heller SB, Pollack HA, Ander R, Ludwig J (2013) “Preventing youth violence and dropout: a randomized field experiment.” NBER Working Paper 19014, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Lattimore P, Steffey DM, Visher C (2010) Prisoner reentry in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Vict Offenders 5(3):253–267. doi: 10.1080/15564886.2010.485907 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lipsey M (1990) Design sensitivity: statistical power for experimental research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  23. Mallar CD, Thornton CVD (1978) Transitional aid for released prisoners: evidence from the LIFE experiment. J Hum Resour 13(2):208–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manning WG, Duan N, Rogers WH (1987) Monte Carlo evidence on the choice between sample selection and two-part models. J Econom 35:59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (1980) Summary and findings of the National Supported Work Demonstration. Ballinger Publishing Company, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Petersilia J (2003) When prisoners come home: parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Rossi PH, Berk RA, Lenihan KJ (1980) Money, work, and crime: experimental evidence. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Travis Jeremy (2005) But they all come back: facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Urban Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Uggen C (2000) Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: a duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. Am Sociol Rev 65(4):529–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Uggen C, Staff J (2001) Work as a turning point for criminal offenders. Correct Manag Q 5:1–16Google Scholar
  36. Visher Christy, Travis Jeremy (2011) Life on the outside: returning home after incarceration. Prison J 91(Supp. to 3):102S–119SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1977) Work release and recidivism: an empirical evaluation of a social policy. Eval Q 1(1):87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weisburd D, Gill C (2014) Block randomized trials at places: rethinking the limitations of small N experiments. J Quant Criminol 30:97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Winterfield L, Lindquist C (2005) Characteristics of prisoner reentry programs reentry research in action. US Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WIDOC) (2012) Recidivism after release from prison. Office of the secretary, research and policy unit, performance measurement seriesGoogle Scholar
  41. Zweig J, Yahner J, Redcross C (2011) For whom does a transitional jobs program work? Examining the recidivism effects of the center for employment opportunities program on former prisoners at high, medium, and low risk of reoffending. Criminol Public Policy 10(4):945–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip J. Cook
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Songman Kang
    • 3
  • Anthony A. Braga
    • 4
  • Jens Ludwig
    • 5
    • 2
  • Mallory E. O’Brien
    • 6
  1. 1.Sanford School of Public PolicyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.NBERCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.College of Economics and FinanceHanyang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Center for Law and Justice, School of Criminal JusticeRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA
  5. 5.Harris School of Public PolicyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  6. 6.Marquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations