For Prisoners,“Work Works”: Qualitative Findings From an Israeli Program

Abstract

The study’s purpose was to assess the contribution of the Work Release Program of the Israel Prison Service (IPS) to the processes of prisoners’ rehabilitation. We interviewed 22 serving and released prisoners who participated in the program at two prisons in central Israel. Most respondents were positive toward the core components of the program, mainly the work outside the prison. Responses also indicated that the program eased their transition from prison life to life outside. However, some respondents criticized the way in which the program was operated. The article discusses the program’s strengths and weaknesses, and proposes some improvements.

Keywords

employment programs work release rehabilitation positive criminology legitimacy in corrections

Introduction

The lack of stable and normative employment is considered a significant risk factor for recidivism. Therefore, rehabilitation programs tend to place great emphasis on providing employment skills and professional training to prisoners to reduce recidivism by increasing their chances to obtain and maintain employment in the community after release from prison (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Solomon, Johnson, Travis, & McBride, 2004). The Work Release Program (or Group Rehabilitation Program, as the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) refers to it) involves only a small number of prisoners and is considered one of the IPS’s elite rehabilitation programs.

Most studies that have examined rehabilitation programs in prison, particularly the employment programs outside the prison, focus on indicators such as recidivism, cost–benefit ratio, and integrating into a workplace after release (e.g., Davidsko & Walk, 2011; Drake, 2007; Duwe, 2015b; Lamb & Goertzel, 1974; Maguire, 1996; Wilson, Gallagher, & MacKenzie, 2000; Witte, 1977). The contribution of work release programs to the reintegration process, from the perspective of the participating prisoners, has generally not been examined. This study attempts to fill the gap and enrich our knowledge on the subject.

Rehabilitation of Prisoners Through Employment Outside the Prison

There is a great variety of employment programs, some of which pertain to work during incarceration within prison facilities, while others facilitate work outside the prison during incarceration, as preparation for the prisoner’s release. In addition, there are employment programs for released prisoners in the community.

Employment programs during incarceration, such as Work Release, have been applied in the United States since the 1920s. These programs allow prisoners, often toward the end of their prison term, to work in the community and immediately afterward to return to prison or to stay in supervised residential housing in the community. This enables prisoners to earn and save money prior to their release. In addition, involvement in this type of work, which includes interaction with nonprisoners in “real” workplaces, is assumed to encourage positive noncriminal values (Drake, 2007; Duwe, 2015b). Over the years, such programs were reduced, however, mainly due to a lack of government funding often as a result of a punitive turn in correctional policy (Turner & Petersilia, 1996), sidelining the rehabilitative approach.

Despite the decreasing number of programs in recent decades, most U.S. states still continue some type of Work Release in prisons (Stephan, 2008). Yet surprisingly, we could identify only eight evaluation studies to date, six of which were conducted over 20 years ago. Out of these eight studies, two used random assignment, and the others were designed as quasi-experiments (Duwe, 2015b). Some evaluation studies found merely a modest or no effect on recidivism (Lamb & Goertzel, 1974; Waldo & Chiricos, 1977). Three of the six quasi-experimental studies found that employment programs significantly reduced recidivism (Drake, 2007; LeClair & Guarino-Ghezzi, 1991; Rudoff & Esselstyn, 1973), while the other three found employment programs to have no significant effects on recidivism. For example, Jeffrey and Woolpert (1974) reported that the program reduced recidivism among prisoners with a long criminal history, but had no effect on prisoners who were incarcerated for the first or second time. The other two studies showed promising findings not in relation to recidivism, but to finding a job and better pay among released prisoners who participated in Work Release programs compared with the control group (Lamb & Goertzel, 1974; Witte, 1977).

The two evaluation studies conducted in Washington also tried to evaluate the program’s influence on incarceration costs (Drake, 2007; Turner & Petersilia, 1996). However, while Turner and Petersilia (1996) found that the program did not decrease the costs of incarceration as a whole, Drake (2007) found that the employment program in Washington saved about US$1,700 per participant.

A retrospective quasi-experimental study examining a Work Release program in a prison in Minnesota (Duwe, 2015b), which was specifically designed to evaluate the program’s influence on recidivism, employment, and the cost–benefit ratio, produced encouraging findings. The study found lower recidivism among participants of the program in all tested parameters (rearrests, reconvictions, and reincarcerations for new felonies). In addition, it was found that the program significantly increased participants’ chances to find work during the first 2 years after their release from prison, increased their work hours and as a result increased their salaries (Duwe, 2015b).

Many studies emphasize the importance of continued treatment in the community for released prisoners who were treated in prison, to create a “therapeutic continuum” (e.g., Hall et al., 2003; Knight, Simpson, & Hiller, 1999; Martin, Butzin, Saum, & Inciardi, 1999). Thus, during recent years, many states developed follow-up treatment programs in the community for released prisoners, often called community-based transitional services. Typically, this process begins prior to a prisoner’s release to the community, as a condition for early release (Prendergast & Cartier, 2008). For example, Minnesota’s Employ Program offers a continuum of employment in prison and in the community by providing assistance to the participants in finding and integrating into workplaces in the community during the 60 to 90 days prior to their release. The program staff also helps the prisoners to locate “felon-friendly employers” and to acquire relevant skills (e.g., writing curriculum vitae, learning job search techniques, preparing for job interviews). The staff continues to assist the released prisoners for a year after their release from prison through maintaining regular contact (Duwe, 2015a).

To conclude, there are contradictory findings regarding the effectiveness of prison rehabilitation programs in reducing recidivism. Nonetheless, there are strong indications that such programs have additional benefits in improving the released prisoners’ employment chances in the community. Such potentially important positive outcomes of these programs are sometimes overlooked in traditional quantitative evaluations.

Legitimacy in Corrections

Prisoners’ satisfaction with their rehabilitation program relates also to the area of legitimacy of the criminal justice system, including correction facilities (Franke, Bierie, & MacKenzie, 2010). Legitimacy refers to the extent to which people are willing to obey the law and trust its representatives. According to Tyler (1990), people are less likely to support, cooperate with, and obey authorities who lack legitimacy in their eyes. Indeed, studies that examined the factors that affect police legitimacy found that the most influential variable that predicts police legitimacy is “procedural justice,” meaning the sense among citizens that they have been treated in a fair and unbiased way by the police (Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Jackson, Tyler, Hough, Bradford, & Mentovich, 2013; Jonathan-Zamir & Weisburd, 2013; National Research Council, 2004; Reisig, Bratton, & Gertz, 2007; Tyler, Schulhofer, & Huq, 2010).

The issue of legitimacy has not been examined in the context of correctional treatment programs, even though the exercise of authority of those who bring correctional treatment would seem to fit this model directly. Prisoners have ongoing contacts with the staff that rely on their legitimacy in the eyes of prisoners to exercise authority and encourage rehabilitation. Hence, it is important to evaluate their perceptions of the staff and to what extent they view their treatment in the prison as fair and unbiased. Furthermore, it is known that the experience of incarceration has lasting effects that continue long after the release from prison so that released inmates perceptions’ of their treatment might influence their criminal career and the reentry process (Laub & Sampson, 2003).

Moreover, despite the common perception that prisons often promote delinquency among inmates rather reduce it, recent studies have identified circumstances in which the prison regime can affect prisoners positively, when they collaborate with rehabilitation programs. The following factors were identified as having a positive effect on prisoners’ perceptions and responsiveness: fair, equal, and humane treatment; prison supportive environment; sense of security, and interactions with the staff and other inmates (Bottoms, 1999; Franke et al., 2010; Sparks & Bottoms, 1995). In other words, the experience of incarceration can be perceived by prisoners as formative, legitimate, and positive, when it is based on positive treatment that creates a conductive atmosphere and greater responsiveness.

The Work Release Program of the IPS

The Group Rehabilitation Program, which resembles the Work Release programs in the United States (hereinafter: the program), is considered a unique program in the IPS.¹ Currently, the program is run in four IPS prisons, including the only women’s prison facility in Israel. The standard is for 173 prisoners, but in practice, there are 134 prisoners participating in the program in all IPS prisons. The purpose of the program is to create a bridge between prison life and community life, by enhancing job skills, along with personal and social skills that may improve the prisoners’ self-esteem and increase their chances for successful reintegration after their release.

The prisoners participating in the program stay in a separated prison ward, known as the Group Rehabilitation ward. Usually, a participant stays 1 year in the program, although some prisoners stay longer. According to IPS regulations, about 3 months before the prisoner’s expected release and before the Parole Board discussion, the rehabilitation officers, along with the prisoner and a representative from the Prisoners’ Rehabilitation Authority (PRA),² draw up a community rehabilitation program to be presented to the Parole Board. Its aim is to create therapeutic continuity of care and follow-up in the community after release, under the supervision of the PRA.

The IPS officers in charge of the Group Rehabilitation wards are social workers by training. The program focuses on the employment aspect, reflected in the prisoners’ experience with organized and steady work outside prison, with the possibility for promotion and integration after their release. In addition, there are various activities in the ward, including personal conversations with the social worker; group sessions on various subjects with the social worker and/or rehabilitation officer (such as dealing with problems at work, preparing for release); lectures and workshops on different subjects provided by external volunteering professionals (such as business initiatives, parenting); and going out to plays, trips, and educational tours (once or twice a year).

The prisoners work at workplaces outside the prison, which was selected and approved by the IPS, and any such workplace employs at least two prisoners (“group”). The prisoners are taken to and from work via transportation arranged by the employer, and the prisoner is under the guidance and supervision of an inspector of the workplace. In addition, rehabilitation officers make surprise inspections at least once a month at the prisoners’ workplaces. There are no employee–employer relationships between the prisoner and his employer. The employer deposits the prisoner’s salary directly to a canteen account under the prisoner’s name registered at the Postal Bank (i.e., the prisoner does not manage an independent bank account). The work hours match the hours set according to Israeli law. The average wage per hour is NIS 13.70 (as determined by the IPS legal advisor). There are employers who pay more, based on seniority and position, but the monthly wage does not exceed the legal minimum wage that currently (January 2015) stands at NIS 4,300.

Main Criteria for Acceptance to the Program

In general, any prisoner can be accepted to the program, regardless of the offense for which he was convicted, as long he or she meets the following criteria as specified in the IPS directive: The prisoner has a remaining incarceration period of no less than 6 months and no more than 42 months; the prisoner is entitled to vacation leave; the prisoner has a record of good behavior in prison; the prisoner previously participated in a rehabilitation program in prison (e.g., education, employment, drug rehab); positive assessment of the social worker regarding his or her motivation and capacity to change; no drug use, no criminal involvement in prison; approval of the IPS Mental Health Center (for prisoners convicted of domestic violence, sex offenses, or incest); Jewish prisoners who lead a religious lifestyle require a positive assessment from the prison Rabbi; the prisoner needs to be in good health (physical and mental) and literate; an appropriate workplace is available; and a recommendation of the Rehabilitation Committee.

Method

Participants

The study included 22 male prisoners who participated in the Work Release Program at two prisons with medium security level that were located in the center of Israel. Out of the 22 respondents, 13 were serving prisoners who participated in the program at the time of the interviews, and nine were released prisoners who had participated in the program prior to their release. All respondents participated in the program during their recent incarceration. Study participants formed a relatively heterogeneous group in terms of age, ethnicity, marital status, type of offenses for which they were convicted, and their prison sentences. The following tables detail the personal characteristics of the participants, with separate reference to the serving prisoners and released prisoners.

Table 1 shows that the ages of the serving prisoners ranged from 25 to 58 years (M = 41). Seven of them are Jewish, four are Arab-Muslims, one is Christian, and two are Arab-Christians. Five of them were married, three divorced (most with children), three were single, and two were engaged. For most (n = 9), this was their first incarceration, while four served previous prison sentences (for property crimes, drugs and/or violence). As for their current incarceration, it was found that they were serving sentences for a variety of crimes (murder, manslaughter, robbery, fraud, property crimes, and trafficking in women). The prison terms to which they were sentenced ranged between life imprisonment for murder (which was later converted to 21-30 years) and 15 years for other crimes. The average duration they spent in the program (at the time of the interviews) was 10 months, ranging from 3 months to 2 years.

Table 1.

Personal Characteristics of Prisoners Interviewed While Participating in the Program (N = 13).

Pseudonym	Age	Religion	Marital status	Education (years)	Months of stay in the program (at the time of the interviews)
1. Rami	42	Jewish	Single	12	6
2. Mohammad	38	Arab-Muslim	Engaged	10	6
3. Josef	26	Christian	Engaged	10	6
4. Riyad	55	Arab-Christian	Married + 4	12	24
5. Efi	46	Jewish	Devorced + 4	12	3
6. Ahmed	51	Arab-Muslim	Divorced + 5	12	18
7. Hassan	48	Arab-Christian	Married	8	21
8. Gabi	35	Jewish	Married + 1	12	7
9. Dror	25	Jewish	Single	12	10
10. Michael	33	Jewish	Single	12	6
11. Moshe	58	Jewish	Married + 4	12	4
12. Avi	52	Jewish	Divorced + 4	12	16
13. Sallah	33	Arab-Muslim	Married + 1	10	4

Table 2 shows that the ages of the released prisoners ranged between 28 and 58 years (M = 42). Seven of them are Jewish, one Arab-Muslim, and one Druze. Six of them were married with children, two were single, and one was divorced. As for their criminal records, for seven of them it was the first incarceration, while the other two had served previous prison punishments (for property crimes, drugs, and/or fraud). Their recent incarceration ranged from life sentence for murder (later converted to 30 years) to 3 to 20 years for other crimes (drugs, property crimes, fraud, manslaughter, and group rape). The average time they had spent in the community after their release was 8 months (at the time of the interviews). In addition, most of them (n = 8) were released by parole after serving two thirds of their sentences, and were under the supervision of the PRA in the community for 1 to 2 years. Only one prisoner was released after serving his full sentence. The average time they were in the program was 19 months, ranging between 6 months and 3 years.

Table 2.

Personal Characteristics of Released Prisoners Who Participated in the Program (N = 9).

Pseudonym	Age	Religion	Marital status	Education (years)	Months since release (at the time of the interviews)
1. Nir	40	Jewish	Divorced+1	12	13
2. Alex	28	Jewish	Single	12	13
3. Ariel	53	Jewish	Married+2	10	14
4. Tal	58	Jewish	Married+3	12	12
5. David	32	Jewish	Married+1	10	7
6. Dani	42	Jewish	Single	15	6
7. Tariq	33	Druse	Married+1	12	3
8. Ziyad	53	Arab-Muslim	Married+6	10	4
9. Haim	44	Jewish	Married+4	12	1

Research Tool

The main research tool was semistructured in-depth interviews, based on an interview guide which referred to several topics derived from the study objectives, such as the interviewee’s general background, the day-to-day agenda at the Group Rehabilitation ward, the components of the program and its means of operation, the program’s strengths and weaknesses, and its contribution to their rehabilitation and reintegration process as perceived by the respondents.

Procedure

The interviews with the serving and released prisoners participating in the program were held during the months of August to December 2013. The serving prisoners were recruited with the help of the commanders of the Group Rehabilitation wards from two prisons in the central of Israel. The interviews were conducted face-to-face inside the prison ward, in a separate room where the researcher (the first author) stayed alone with the prisoner.

At the beginning of each interview, the researcher explained to the prisoner that the study aims at examining his views on the Work Release Program and its contribution to his rehabilitation process. All prisoners signed the “informed consent form,” in which they explicitly agreed to be interviewed for this study, while maintaining their anonymity. Each interview lasted about 2 hr and a half on average, with no particular problems.

The released prisoners were recruited with the help of the PRA representative who gave the researchers a list with names and phone numbers of released prisoners who had participated in the program and were currently under the PRA supervision in the community. Some of the interviews with the released prisoners were held in places chosen by the respondents (at the interviewee’s home, in a café, or in a park), and some were conducted by phone. The interviews lasted for about 2 hr, without any particular problems. However, it should be noted that it was somewhat difficult to recruit released prisoners for this study, due to technical problems (inactive or unavailable phone numbers) and especially to a lack of responsiveness on the part of the released prisoners, which led the researchers to settle for a relatively small number of such respondents.

Data Analysis

The coding process of the data was based on a qualitative content analysis, designed to identify patterns and meanings from texts, and organize them under general categories and specific themes (Bogdan & Taylor, 1975; Creswell, 1998). In this study, the researchers constructed categories through identifying the topics that arose from the interviews in accordance with the study objectives (e.g., significant rehabilitation components of the program and its contribution to their rehabilitation and reintegration process), and grouping them under common categories and specific themes.

Results

The “Results” section consists of three main categories. The first refers to the rehabilitative ingredients of the program, as perceived by the respondents; the second category refers to the respondents’ characteristics and their views on the program’s efficiency; and the third refers to the properties of the prison and the satisfaction with the program, according to the respondents. In each category, we identified several themes, as specified below. The presentation of the findings is accompanied by direct quotes from our interviewees (with fictitious names), for illustration and validation.

Rehabilitative Ingredients of the Program

In general, respondents mentioned positively a number of components that were perceived as contributing to and assisting their rehabilitation process. It is important to note in this context that it is difficult to separate the contribution of the program from those of other rehabilitation programs in prison, as all respondents reported of having previously participated in other rehabilitation programs (e.g., education, employment, addiction therapy). Yet they perceived the program’s central contribution to their rehabilitation process in their work outside the prison walls that allowed them to face the “real life” and thereby reduced the sense of “initial shock” resulting from the immediacy of the return to community life.

Additional rehabilitative components mentioned by the respondents, while individually attributing differential weight to them, were the sense of freedom in the rehabilitation ward that increased their sense of welfare and safety; the personal conversations with the social worker in the ward, which helped them deal with various problems in and outside the prison; and the group activities in the evening at the ward that aided them in acquiring knowledge and skills in relevant fields, as specified below.

The Labor Component in Constructing a Normative Identity

Most respondents—both prisoners and released prisoners—perceived work release as the main factor contributing to their rehabilitation process, as it allowed them actively to experience life outside the prison, to associate with normative citizens, and to cope with the various difficulties arising during work (through conversations with the social worker and other inmates on the ward). According to the respondents, work release increased their sense of preparedness for life in the community by developing a sense of responsibility, enhancing self-confidence, learning boundaries, work ethic, and acquiring problem-solving skills at work (e.g., accepting the boss’s authority, developing the ability to get along with different people):

Work outside really helps—it gives you confidence, just by being outside the prison walls. I see the sunrise in the morning . . . At first I was so excited about working outside the prison; it was like “woohoo!” for me. You feel like you’re in an advanced stage, feel like you’re on your way out. (Rami)

The thing that really helps me here is the connection with normative people outside the prison; it doesn’t happen anywhere else in the IPS. The daily contact and conversations with civilians at work really helps and teaches you to live like on the outside, to get used to the patterns of the outside life. It really helps for rehabilitation, the outside work with civilians. They accept us quite well, most of them treat me like any other person, and this is how I treat them. (Gabi)

Perceptions of the Prison Environment: Legitimacy

Many respondents also mentioned the positive atmosphere at the Group Rehabilitation ward, manifested in their living in an open zone with little supervision by wardens, thus allowing them a sense of freedom (the prisoners may walk freely in the ward and stay outside their cells until late at night). In this sense, the inmates saw themselves as fairly treated, and this increased their perceptions of legitimacy and trust of the program and the prison. According to the respondents, these properties of the ward promote their rehabilitation process as they imitate life outside and allow them to gradually adapt to freedom. Moreover, respondents positively noted the sense of security and solidarity among the inmates in the ward, who are undergoing similar rehabilitation processes and thus can support, strengthen and positively influence each other, reinforcing every inmate’s personal process of rehabilitation:

The group rehabilitation ward is different than other wards at the IPS—here we are working outside the prison and can stay outside our cells until late at night. The atmosphere is different, people are normative; we feel better here . . . The place is open, no guards monitoring you all the time, a more relaxed atmosphere. Even the inmates help each other here, we pray and play together, we talk to each other . . . It helps a lot. (Efi)

I know that many prisoners who were released from here, managed to rehabilitate. They are preparing us for the outside life, by letting us live as on outside. Also the atmosphere here is different—after my leave from Ayalon Prison, I was returning to a world of crime, of people who do not want to change. Here I feel like I’m coming home—people think and act differently. (Riyad)

Some respondents noted that living in a relatively free and open ward allowed them to develop a sense of security that increases their trust in others and their well-being, which also contributed to and promoted their rehabilitation process:

I think the most special thing here is the trust and freedom you get here. They don’t close the door behind you; you never hear a door slam. You can sit and drink a cup of coffee in the garden here; that’s something you don’t get in other wards. (Gabi)

The group rehabilitation ward is safe, there are no problematic people here . . . The relationships between the inmates here are very good; there is no cursing, no violence, because they know they’ll be thrown out immediately from here. People here helping each other, cook meals together . . . (Moshe)

The Therapeutic/Expressive Components—Conversations With the Ward Social Worker

Some respondents talked openly about adjustment difficulties they experienced in their workplace outside prison (e.g., difficulties in getting along with others, accepting their boss’s authority), as well as problems at home (e.g., financial problems, problems with children and/or spouse). These respondents, all from the same prison, noted that conversations with the ward social worker are helping them to cope with their problems, in and outside prison:

The work outside the prison really helped me to fit in with other people. At first I was afraid, and during the first months, I had many conversations about this with the ward social worker. I learned how to handle myself differently with people—in language, speech, attitude . . . It also affected my relationships with other inmates here—being more polite, asking for things instead of commanding like I used to do for 20 years . . . (Mohammad)

For me, the biggest help here is the social worker. She has a lot of patience to me; I consult with her before I do anything. I talk to her, and it is very helpful for me. She listens to me, gives me the feeling that I can talk to her about anything, even if she can’t always help me. (Rami)

Josef, as well as some other respondents from the same prison, praised the Group Rehabilitation ward there, noting that it is considered as the IPS “elite” ward, mainly due to the positive attitude and the comprehensive treatment the inmates get from the staff, especially the ward commander, who is also a social worker by training:

You can’t compare the Group Rehabilitation ward here to anywhere else in the IPS, and I actually was at other wards, where all you see is just concrete . . . Here you see grass, sand; I like it here a lot. All the prisoners want to come here. The Group Rehabilitation ward here is considered the best . . . The place is more intimate and the access to the social worker, who’s also the ward commander, is easy. (Josef)

Group Activities at the Ward

Several respondents—again, all from the same prison—positively noted the group activities during the evenings at the ward, especially the training courses and workshops run by external professionals in relevant fields, such as parenting (held by the Adler Institute), intimate partnership, and business initiative, which give them, as they testified, practical tools and knowledge. In addition, participants mentioned the importance of inmates’ group sessions with the ward commander, held once a week or every other, where various issues and problems can be raised and dealt with (e.g., disputes between inmates, disciplinary problems, and requests of inmates):

In general, the program mainly contributes to acquiring independence, responsibility, persistence—getting up in the morning, going to work outside the prison and working properly. Also the training courses in the ward are helping, especially [the one on] business initiative. It gives a lot of possibilities, including financial help to those who wish to be independent. I know that many released prisoners try to rehabilitate themselves outside as freelancers, so it’s a good thing. (Nir)

The group activities are very helpful. I participated here in a group of business initiative, it was excellent. You meet prestigious people—accountants, lawyers . . . It’s another thing that gives you the desire and strength to learn more, a role model. (Gabi)

Thanks to the group sessions we had here, I learned to listen to others, to understand the others. I became more sensitive to others. You hear other people’s problems; there is a greater connection between inmates here. Before that, you do not trust anyone . . . (Haim)

Reducing the “Transition Shock”

Furthermore, the interviewed released prisoners indicated that the program facilitated their transition from prison life to community life, which they perceived as its major contribution to their reintegration process. According to them, the program reduces the “initial shock” encountered by many released prisoners in the sudden transition from prison to community life, through their gradual preparation:

The program really helps, it helped me a lot. From my perspective, it’s hard for a person to go out at once after many years in prison, and the program gives him the opportunity to do it in stages . . . They go hand in hand with you and teach you many things. It helped me to integrate into the community in all aspect—at work, in everyday life, where to go, whom to call, where to find a job. (Alex)

The program helped me a lot. I’ve always felt fear and was ashamed meeting people, because of the offenses I did. The program helped me get over that. Without the program, I couldn’t function at work or get used to the outside life. I often hear about ex-cons who did not reach rehabilitation and “shut” themselves in their house as if afraid to go out. It gave me a kind of a normal adjustment to the outside life. (Tariq)

The program affected me very positively. It prepares you to go back to society through conversations we had about all kinds of problems that we may encounter outside—at work, with family, our kids . . . It also teaches you to be patient . . . Without it, things could have been worse. (Haim)

Length of Incarceration and the Program’s Efficiency

Several respondents noted that the program is essential especially for prisoners who have served long sentences, as they were detached from the community for a long time, and therefore need greater preparation prior to their release, to reduce their “transition shock” and to integrate properly into the community:

The program is very important and contributes to the integration into the community of ex-cons, because it gives them an opportunity to experience outside life, to decreases the initial “transition shock.” It is mostly relevant for prisoners who spent many years in prison, who are not familiar with the outside life. I think they should open more places like this, in all prisons. (Michael)

The program decreases the initial shock of sudden reentry into society; it really prepares us for to living outside. There are prisoners who spent their whole lives in prison, who don’t know what a post office or a grocery store is, and the program teaches them these basic things. (Riyad)

You can’t take a man who’s been outside of society for 20 years and release him just like that, without any preparation for what’s waiting for him outside. Without it, a man can get lost; it can also be dangerous . . . (Haim)

Similarly, some respondents characterized by a relatively normative background, who were sentenced to short prison terms (for economic offenses or manslaughter in traffic accidents), noted that the program did not contribute much to them, but it is essential for those sentenced to long prison terms:

I don’t think I underwent great big change in here. I came from a normative background with no criminal behavioral pattern, and I stayed that way here too. (Dror)

In my opinion, they should give priority to prisoners who were sentenced to many years in prison, as they need this process a lot more, need this preparation for the outside life, after many years of detachment. (Haim)

Prison Characteristics and Program Satisfaction: “A Two-Faced Hypocrite”

Prison properties (e.g., prison environment, staff attitude towards the inmates, sense of security…), may affect the way the rehabilitation programs are operated, and, hence, the participants’ satisfaction with the program as found in this study. In general, most of the serving and the released prisoners from the same prison reported a high level of satisfaction with the program and its positive contribution to their rehabilitation process.

In contrast, most of the serving and the released prisoners from the second prison reported dissatisfaction with the way the program was run and the negative attitude toward them, criticizing mainly the ward social workers who were not available to them, despite their repeated requests. They also complained about the meager number of group activities and training courses on the ward. According to them, the program’s main—and sometimes the only—contribution to their rehabilitation was the work outside the prison. Importantly, this suggests that while the prisoner atmosphere overall increased perceptions of legitimacy of the staff and program, many of the prisoners felt that they were not treated fairly. According to them, the focus of the programs was first and foremost on work, while neglecting other important issues such as group welfare activities and conversations with the ward social workers. Some respondents even claimed that they regret ever coming to this prison ward:

I regret I got here, as felt also other prisoners. I was in other prisons before I came here, and they didn’t treat us so humiliatingly. I’m very upset that prisoners who are on the program, who are considered the “elite” of the IPS, receive such humiliating treatment . . . There was no social worker we could talk to . . . They talk about rehabilitation, but it is not actually happening. (Tal)

There was nothing to do in the evenings, the former prison was better than this . . . To tell you the truth, I regret going there. In order to talk with a social worker there, you had to wait in line along with 60 other inmates. She was very difficult to reach. I was very disappointed with the program. The only thing that kept me there was the work outside the prison. In general, the staff’s attitude toward the inmates was very unpleasant . . . (David)

As for rehabilitation, the only thing that benefited me was having and practicing a normative lifestyle, but other than that we got nothing. The social workers were changing all the time and the only thing they cared about was that we go out for work and get back to prison. They didn’t care about other things, as if work could solve all the problems. Indeed, work was very important, but they should also address other problems of people there. (Dani)

Tariq, who stayed in the program for 3 years at the same prison, presented a wider perspective that explains the negative changes over the years, following the arrival of a new commander, along with the raise of the prison’s security level from minimum to medium. According to him, the negative attitude toward the prisoners led to discipline problems among the frustrated prisoners, which in turn led to a stricter approach by the prison management and staff:

At first it was good, but after a few months, things changed for the worse. The security level of the prison was increased, the evening group activities were reduced, and the social workers often replaced and hardly functioned . . . Many prisoners caused disciplinary problems, leading to their expulsion from the ward. In response, management lost faith in rehabilitation and imposed further sanctions on us. The attitude toward the prisoners was degrading; no one cared about us . . . We felt that although we are in the process of rehabilitation, the system does not really want to rehabilitate us. (Tariq)

Discussion

Most evaluation studies examining the effectiveness of employment programs in prison focus on the recidivism rate, the integration into the community in terms of finding employment and managing a normal social life (Duwe, 2015b; Hurry, Brazier, Parker, & Wilson, 2006; Seiter & Kadela, 2003; Turner & Petersilia, 1996), or evaluation of economic cost–benefit ratio (Drake, 2007; Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009). Few studies have attempted to understand the perspective of the prisoners who participated in the programs (for an important exception, see Turner & Petersilia, 1990).

In this study, we have focused on how serving and released prisoners, who participated in the IPS Work Release Program, perceived the program’s contribution to their rehabilitation process, and on their level of satisfaction with the program. The optimistic finding of this study is that most respondents perceived the main component of the program—work outside the prison (work release)—as a crucial and efficient factor in their rehabilitation process. In this sense, “work works” in easing reintegration and reducing negative outcomes in the community. According to the participants, work outside the prison walls prepared them for “real life” in the community and allowed them to face, in advance, various difficulties that arise during work (e.g., accepting the boss’s authority, the need to get along with other people, withstanding temptations). The released prisoners interviewed in this study also emphasized that working outside the prison lowered their “initial shock” level experienced after they were released. Thus, they said the program facilitated their transition from prison to community life. Note that most of them are parolees, and are therefore under the care and supervision of the PRA, which assist them with finding work and/or therapeutic frameworks in the community. It seems that the continued guidance and support in the community by the PRA creates a therapeutic continuum which is considered essential for the success of released prisoners’ reintegration into the community (Hall et al., 2003; Knight et al., 1999; Martin et al., 1999, 2003; Maruna, Immarigeon, & LeBel, 2004).

However, while most studies emphasize the instrumental/practical aspects of work integration, such as increasing the income capacity of released prisoners (e.g., Lamb & Goertzel, 1974; Witte, 1977), respondents of this study focused on the therapeutic/expressive aspects of the program, reflected in the trust and confidence inmates gain as a result of receiving a fair, dissent, and empathic treatment by the staff, which, in turn, increases their cooperation and satisfaction with the program. These findings reinforce the call for fair and humane treatment to increase the legitimacy of the correctional institution and its representatives in the eyes of the recipients, as noted by Tyler (1990, 2001) and others (Franke et al., 2010; Tyler et al., 2010).

The less optimistic findings—the negative views expressed by respondents from one of the two prisons—were included in this study regarding the way the program was implemented. According to these respondents, they were treated with a degrading and harsh attitude by the prison management and the staff, especially the social workers, who were responsible for their well-being. It seems that in light of the prisoners’ high expectations from the program, they were very disappointed, especially due to the huge gap between the rehabilitating intentions of the IPS and what actually happened. This negative attitude appears to be a regression to deterministic concepts that dominated the criminology discourse in the past, expressed in phrases as “nothing works” (Martinson, 1974) or “once a criminal, always a criminal.” Such perceptions harm the rehabilitation efforts of offenders who really want to rehabilitate. Specifically, they convey a pessimistic message of an a priori expected failure, while ignoring positive evidence regarding former criminals and ex-prisoners who managed to rehabilitate and reintegrate properly in society (Maruna, 2001; Maruna et al., 2004; McNeill, 2002; Sampson & Laub, 1993).

Such a negative approach contravenes the rehabilitation approaches and the positive criminology position, which emphasizes that processes of change and rehabilitation do not depend only on an individual’s efforts but also on exposure to positive encounters with the potential to inspire the person to adopt a prosocial lifestyle (Elisha, Idisis, & Ronel, 2012; Maruna, 2001; McNeill, 2002; Ronel & Elisha, 2011). In other words, when an individual offender is treated in a positive and empathic manner and receives positive messages regarding his ability to change and the positive potentials hidden within him, he can refer to himself this way as well. Unfortunately, in some prisons, the attitude of the staff toward prisoners was often not perceived as positive, and to a large degree, even contrary to official IPS statements in the matter, increasing the prisoners’ frustration. Although most of them managed to persist in their normative lifestyle after release, they doubted that this was due to the program itself and ascribed it instead to other factors, such as the assistance of the PRA and the support they receive from family and friends.

Furthermore, a negative attitude has a negative effect on the legitimacy of the corrections and rehabilitation programs, as noted in previous studies (e.g., Bottoms, 1999; Franke et al., 2010; Sparks & Bottoms, 1995). Similarly, our study findings indicated that prisoners, who received fair, warm, and empathic treatment, expressed a positive attitude toward the prison, the staff, and the program as a whole. In contrast, prisoners who received a hostile and negative attitude expressed negative views and also perceived their rehabilitation program as less effective.

In conclusion, it seems that most respondents perceived the program as efficient and contributing to their rehabilitation and reintegration process into the community. However, in the eyes of the respondents, the success of the program depends on a combination of the external component of work outside the prison, and the internal component of personal assistance and therapy. The interplay between these two components may vary from one prison facility to another and over time, which—as we have seen—leads to differences in the way the program is implemented in different IPS prisons, differences that affect prisoners’ perceptions regarding the program’s efficiency.

Another interesting point raised by some respondents refers to the particular effectiveness and importance of the program for prisoners who served long prison terms, due to their heightened need for a gradual preparation for the life outside after many years of detachment from society in many aspects—such as work, relationships, financial management, and so on. In light of this, we suggest IPS that prison officials consider prioritizing prisoners who have served long prison terms.

Before concluding, we want to note some specific limitations regarding our findings. First, the small number of the study participants does not allow us to apply statistical generalizations to our findings. In addition, it should be noted that most released prisoners, who tended to express harsh criticism over the way the program was implemented in their facility, were released at approximately the same time, which is why perhaps their positions were relatively similar. Therefore, we recommend conducting similar studies on larger samples, including (former) prisoners from other prisons as well, to broaden our knowledge on the subject.

Despite its limitations, this study is significant, both for being innovative in its focus and in reporting on an interesting program in a non-U.S. context. The study findings highlight the importance of fair, empathic, and humane treatment of the prisoners by the staff, which affects the prisoners’ perceptions and satisfaction with the program. Therefore, as indicated by Tyler (2010) and the positive criminology perspective (Ronel & Elisha, 2011), our recommendation to the correctional system is to develop policies that will create a teachable moment for prisoners, through a fair, equalitarian, and humane approach, to increase their cooperation and to promote positive rehabilitation and reintegration.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study is a part of a wider research project designed to examine the various rehabilitation programs operated by the Israel Prison Service (IPS), led by David Weisburd, Badi Hasisi, and Efrat Shoham. The project is based on the collaboration of the IPS, the Institute of Criminology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Department of Criminology at Ashkelon Academic College, Israel.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Ety Elisha, PhD, is a research and lecturer in the Department of Criminology, The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Israel. Her main research focuses on offenders’ rehabilitation, reintegration of released prisoners, and positive criminology.

Efrat Shoham, PhD, serves as a director of the Institute for Reintegration of Released Prisoners. He is also the deputy head of the Department of the Department of Criminology, Ashkelon Academic College, Israel.

Badi Hasisi, PhD, serves as chair of the Institute of Criminology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. His main research interests include policing, minorities and law enforcement. He is also the executive editor of the Journal of Quantitative Criminology.

David Weisburd is Walter E. Meyer professor of law and criminal justice, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, as well as distinguished professor of criminology, law, and society at George Mason University. He is the 2010 recipient of the Stockholm Prize in Criminology, the 2014 Sutherland Award, and the 2015 Israel Prize.

References

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Wormith

S. J.

(2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7-27.

Bogdan

Taylor

S. J.

(1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A phenomenological approach to the social sciences. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Bottoms

(1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. In Michael

Petersilia

(Eds.), Prisons, crime, and justice: An annual review (pp. 205-281). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Creswell

J. W.

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London, England: Sage.

Davidsko

Walk

(2011). Employment of prisoners as a rehabilitation tool (Research Unit of the IPS, Publication no. LR-01-2011). Research Unit, Israel Prison Service, Ramla (In Hebrew).

Drake

E. K.

(2007). Does participation in Washington’s work release facilities reduce recidivism? Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Drake

E. K.

Aos

Miller

M. G.

(2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims & Offenders, 4, 170-196.

Duwe

(2015a). The benefits of keeping idle hands busy: The impact of a prisoner reentry employment program on post-release employmbner and offender recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 61(4), 559-586.

Duwe

(2015b). An outcome evaluation of a work release program: Estimating its effects on recidivism, employment, and cost avoidance. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(6), 531-554.

10.

Elisha

Idisis

Ronel

(2012). Window of opportunity: Social acceptance and life transformation in the rehabilitation of imprisoned sex offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 323-332.

11.

Franke

Bierie

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2010). Legitimacy in corrections: A randomized experiment comparing a boot camp with a prison. Criminology & Public Policy, 91, 89-117.

12.

Hall

E. A.

Zuniga

Cartier

Anglin

M. D.

Danila

Ryan

Mantius

(2003). Staying in touch: A fieldwork manual of tracking procedures for locating substance abusers in follow-up studies. Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs.

13.

Hinds

Murphy

(2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27-42.

14.

Hurry

Brazier

Parker

Wilson

(2006). Rapid evidence assessment of interventions that promote employment for offenders. London, England: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy, Institute of Education.

15.

Jackson

Tyler

T. R.

Hough

Bradford

Mentovich

(2013). Compliance and legal authority. In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Elsevier. Available from www.researchgate.net

16.

Jeffrey

Woolpert

(1974). Work furlough as an alternative to incarceration: An assessment of its effects on recidivism and social cost. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 65, 404-415.

17.

Jonathan-Zamir

Weisburd

(2013). The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy: Findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 50, 3-32.

18.

Knight

Simpson

D. D.

Hiller

M. L.

(1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for in-prison therapeutic community treatment in Texas. The Prison Journal, 79, 337-351.

19.

Lamb

H. R.

Goertzel

(1974). Ellsworth house: A community alternative to jail. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 64-68.

20.

Laub

J. H.

Sampson

R. J.

(2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

21.

LeClair

D. P.

Guarino-Ghezzi

(1991). Does incapacitation guarantee public safety? Lessons from Massachusetts furlough and pre-release programs. Justice Quarterly, 8, 1-40.

22.

Maguire

(1996). Prison industry programs and inmate institutional behavior. Forum on Corrections Research, 8, 39-42.

23.

Martin

S. S.

Butzin

C. A.

Saum

C. A.

Inciardi

J. A.

(1999). Three-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment for drug-involved offenders in Delaware: From prison to work release to aftercare. The Prison Journal, 79, 294-320.

24.

Martinson

(1974). “What works?” Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest Spring, 35, 22-55.

25.

Maruna

(2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

26.

Maruna

Immarigeon

LeBel

(2004). Ex-offender reintegration: Theory and practice. In Maruna

Immarigeon

(Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration (pp. 3-26). Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.

27.

McNeill

(2002). Beyond “what works”: How and why do people stop offending? Scotland: Criminal Justice Social Work Development Center, Edinburgh.

28.

National Research Council. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence, committee to review research on police policy and practices. In Skogan

Frydl

(Eds.), Committee on law and justice (pp. 217-251). Washington, DC: Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press.

29.

Prendergast

M. L.

Cartier

(2008). Improving parolees’ participation in drug treatment and other services through strengths case management. Perspectives, 32, 38-46.

30.

Reisig

M. D.

Bratton

Gertz

M. J.

(2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005-1028.

31.

Ronel

Elisha

(2011). A different perspective: Introducing positive criminology. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 305-325.

32.

Rudoff

Esselstyn

T. C.

(1973). Evaluating work furlough: A follow-up. Federal Probation, 37(2), 48-53.

33.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

(1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

34.

Seiter

R. P.

Kadela

K. R.

(2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 360-388.

35.

Solomon

Johnson

Travis

McBride

(2004). From prison to work: The employment dimensions of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

36.

Sparks

Bottoms

(1995). Legitimacy and order in prisons. British Journal of Sociology, 46, 45-62.

37.

Stephan

J. J.

(2008). Census of state and federal correctional facilities, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

38.

Turner

Petersilia

(1990). Parolee perspectives of prison education and work programmes. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 23, 1-14.

39.

Turner

Petersilia

(1996). Work release in Washington: Effects on recidivism and corrections costs. The Prison Journal, 76, 138-164.

40.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

41.

Tyler

T. R.

(2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from legal authorities? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 215-235.

42.

Tyler

T. R.

(2010). “Legitimacy in corrections”: Policy implications. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 127-134.

43.

Tyler

T. R.

Schulhofer

Huq

(2010). Legitimacy and deterrence effects in counterterrorism policing: A study of Muslim Americans. Law & Society Review, 44, 365-401.

44.

Waldo

G. P.

Chiricos

T. G.

(1977). Work release and recidivism: An empirical evaluation of social policy. Evaluation Review, 1, 87-108.

45.

Wilson

D. B.

Gallagher

C. A.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 37, 347-368.

46.

Witte

(1977). Work release in North Carolina: A program that works! Law and Contemporary Problems, 41, 230-251.