Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 309–322 | Cite as

An experimental evaluation of a nationally recognized employment-focused offender reentry program

  • David Farabee
  • Sheldon X. Zhang
  • Benjamin Wright
Article

Abstract

Objectives

The need for re-entry assistance is widely acknowledged, but specifics about what services actually lead to reduced recidivism are hard to find—at least among rigorous studies. This is a critical issue: at a time when there appears to be unprecedented support for expanding rehabilitative programs for offenders, there is a dearth of rigorously vetted program options from which to choose.

Methods

Collaborating with a nationally known employment-focused reentry program in Southern California, the authors compared employment, housing, and recidivism outcomes of reentering offenders (n = 217) who were either randomized into the program or simply provided with a list of community resources. This approach was possible because the number of applicants at the time exceeded program capacity. Outcomes were based on self-report interviews conducted 1-year post-randomization and arrest records reflecting a 2-year follow-up period. The follow-up rate for interviews was 87 %.

Results

No significant differences were found for any of the between-group comparisons on any of the major intervention outcomes.

Conclusions

Findings from the study suggest a greater need to apply randomized designs to more carefully evaluate current reentry efforts. Methodological challenges of field experiments are also discussed.

Keywords

Experiment Ex-offender Reentry Employment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Smith Richardson Foundation (Grant No: 2008: 7752).

References

  1. Archibald, R. C. (2010, March 24). California, in financial crisis, opens prison doors. New York Times, A14.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, M. T., & Huebner, B. M. (2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: an examination of social ties, employment and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28(2), 382–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). Prisoners in 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice [NCJ 236096].Google Scholar
  4. Bushway, S. D., & Apel, R. (2012a). A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(1), 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bushway, S. D., & Apel, R. (2012b). Overview of: ‘a signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming: training completion as a desistance signal’. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(1), 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duwe, G. (2012). Evaluating the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP): results from a randomized experiment. Justice Quarterly, 29(3), 347–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farabee, D., & Zhang, S. (2012). Effect-size inflation of post-hoc versus intent-to treat analyses of experimental offender interventions. Presented at the Stockholm Criminology Symposium, June 13, 2012. Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  8. Farabee, D., Zhang, S. X., & Wright, B. (2012b). Managing an on-the-spot lottery in re-entry services. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: what have we learned in the past two decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacobs, E., & Western, B. (2007). Report on the evaluation of the ComALERT prisoner reentry program. Brooklyn: Kings County District Attorney’s Office.Google Scholar
  11. Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  12. Lattimore, P., & Visher, C. A. (2009). The multisite evaluation of SCORI: Summary and synthesis. Research Triangle Park: RTI International.Google Scholar
  13. Lattimore, P., Steffey, D. M., & Christy, C. A. (2010). Prisoner reentry in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Victims & Offenders, 5(3), 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., Cowell, A. J., Dawes, D., Steffey, D. M., Tueller, S. J., et al. (2012). Prisoner reentry services: What worked for SVORI evaluation participants? Prepared for National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, H. V., & Miller, J. M. (2010). Community in-reach through jail reentry: findings from a quasi-experimental design. Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 893–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morani, N. M., Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D. M., & Bratton, S. (2011). A description of the self-identified social outcomes of participants of a prisoner-reentry program. The Prison Journal, 91, 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Brien, P., & Leem, N. (2007). Moving from needs to self efficacy: a holistic system for women in transition from prison. Women and Therapy, 29, 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parsons, M. L., & Warner-Robbins, C. (2002). Factors that support women’s successful transition to the community following jai/prison. Health Care for Women International, 23, 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Petersilia, J. (2006). Understanding California corrections. Irvine: California Policy Research Center, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  20. Redcross, C., Bloom, D., Jacobs, E., Manno, M., Muller-Ravett, S., Seefeldt, K., et al. (2010). Work after prison: One-year findings from the transitional jobs reentry demonstration. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  21. 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. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_451.pdf.Google Scholar
  22. Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1997). A life course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. Advances in Criminological Theory, 7, 133–161.Google Scholar
  23. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  24. Taxman, F. (2011). The cattle call of reentry. Criminology and Public Policy, 10(4), 925–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  26. Visher, C. A. (2013). Incarcerated fathers: pathways from prison to home. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2005). Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: a meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wright, B. J., Zhang, S. X., Farabee, D., & Braatz, R. (2013). Prisoner reentry research from 2000 to 2010: results of a narrative review. Criminal Justice Review. doi: 10.1177/0734016813501192.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Farabee
    • 1
  • Sheldon X. Zhang
    • 2
  • Benjamin Wright
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral SciencesUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations