Recidivism Among Participants of an Employment Assistance Program for Prisoners and Offenders

Abstract

Recidivism outcomes were examined over a 2-year postrelease period for participants of an Australian employment assistance program. The voluntary 12-month program operated from 17 Victorian correctional locations, 7 prisons, and 10 community corrections locations, targeting participants at moderate to high risk of reoffending. Recidivism outcomes included simple rates of reoffending for the whole program (N = 3,034 registered participants) and analyses of rate and seriousness of reoffending and extent of poly-offending for a random sample of 600 program participants and 600 nonparticipants. Offending among program participants’ pre- and post-registration was also investigated. Results showed a very low rate of reoffending (7.46%) for the entire program participant group while engaged in the program. As well, program participants had significantly lower levels of recidivism than nonparticipants, and postregistration offending was significantly lower than preregistration offending. Findings indicate that long-term postrelease employment support programs provide positive benefits in terms of reduced reoffending.

Keywords

recidivism offending employment program prisoners offenders

It is well understood that the high rate of growth in the prison population over the past decade has resulted in a large number of individuals reentering the community following prison release. An important strategy in addressing this issue has been the development of programs that promote successful community reintegration and reduced rates of reoffending. Employment is a key factor in this endeavour with benefits relating to the individual and family (Hoare & Machin, 2010; Richie, 2001). Equally important, employment is linked to wider system-level benefits, including reduced crime and reincarceration rates, reduced costs within the corrections system, improved community safety, and the addition of capable and enthusiastic workers into a shrinking workforce (see Solomon, Johnson, Travis, & McBride, 2004; Uggen, 2000; Zhang, Roberts, & Callanan, 2006). There are also potential social justice benefits related to employment, including improved attitudes of employers toward ex-prisoners, promotion of equality of opportunity, and improved societal attitudes related to the inclusion of ex-prisoners in labour market activities. This article reports findings pertinent to a comprehensive employment assistance program for prisoners and offenders in Australia.

There are wide-ranging barriers to employment for ex-prisoners, including lack of job contacts due to segregated social networks; transport difficulties; lack of recent job experiences; difficulty making the transition from benefits to employment; lack of basic skills and/or poor qualifications; low self-esteem, confidence, and motivation; absent or poor work experience history; and difficulty adjusting to the routine of work (Fletcher, 2001; Heinrich, 2000; Mukamal, 2001; National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders [NACRO], 1997; Visher & Travis, 2003; Webster, Hedderman, Turnbull, & May, 2001). As well, restricted access to particular jobs, lack of equal employment policy, and recruitment procedures including criminal background checks, all limit opportunities for gainful employment (Employment Support Unit, 2000; Stoll & Bushway, 2008; Uggen, Manza, & Thompson, 2006). Additional problems may relate to difficulty meeting requirements for release, including random drug screenings, day reporting, and regular parole or probation-officer meetings (Buck, 2000). Attitudes toward the employability of ex-prisoners are also complex (e.g., Lukies, Graffam, & Shinkfield, 2011) and somewhat dependent on the severity and chronicity of criminal background (Graffam, Shinkfield, & Hardcastle, 2008; Haslewood-Pócsik, Brown, & Spencer, 2008). These manifold social barriers to reintegration may be obviated if effective early intervention support strategies are in place to assist offenders to remain outside the prison system.

Numerous employment interventions have been developed to help overcome many of these barriers to employment. Employment assistance programs may be either prison based or community based, and in some cases have a transition component. They typically have the aim of overcoming recognised barriers to employment for ex-prisoners, increasing employment of this group and reducing recidivism. This is important given that employment of ex-prisoners reduces the likelihood of reoffending following prison release, particularly for males (Sampson & Laub, 1993; Tripodi, Kim, & Bender, 2009), with recidivism less likely for those individuals employed in higher quality jobs (Uggen, 1999). There is also evidence for a relation between employment and time to reincarceration. Tripodi et al. (2009) found that obtaining employment upon release did not significantly reduce the odds of reincarceration over time, but was related to time to reincarceration. In other words, recidivists who obtained employment upon release spent proportionately more time in the community before reincarceration than recidivists who were not employed.

Together, these findings may suggest that sustained motivation for positive behaviour change is difficult to achieve over the longer term, a process that may be facilitated by those community-based employment programs that offer ongoing support. Although having a criminal record is a major impediment to obtaining and retaining a job, the provision of appropriate support and employer incentives may ameliorate the impact of criminal history (Albright & Denq, 1996; Solomon et al., 2004) and help prolong time to reincarceration. For example, older offenders who have participated in work release programs are less likely to reoffend than nonparticipants of a comparable age (e.g., Uggen, 2000).

Reintegration models have a focus on “people in context” with the objective being sustained positive lifestyle change for ex-prisoners. Employment is one important element in this regard. Successful reintegration into the community is understood as complex and multifaceted, and typically, ex-prisoners experience comprehensive challenges to reintegration that go beyond simply employment (Shinkfield & Graffam, 2009). The value of reintegration models that adopt an ecological framework is that they provide a more complete perspective on the types and levels of challenges that ex-prisoners face in community reintegration, how those factors contribute to reintegration outcomes, and how those challenges, alone and in combination, may influence reoffending.

Recidivism may be viewed as the failure to desist from crime (Visher & Travis, 2003) and is typically quantified by an individual’s rearrest, reconviction (irrespective of sentencing outcome), or their return to prison (e.g., Langan & Levin, 2002). If well defined, recidivism is a measure that is easy to conceptualise and measure and, accordingly, has been applied extensively in the criminal justice field. Recidivism among participants was an important element of the evaluation of the employment assistance program reported here with all participants classified as moderate to high risk of reoffending.

Level of risk of reoffending is an important component in treatment planning. Although not addressed specifically in this study, the risk-needs-responsivity model of correctional treatment (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990) is relevant because it provides a comprehensive and empirical approach to offender assessment and treatment classification. Essentially, this approach highlights the need to assess the level of risk for reoffending on the basis of static and dynamic risk factors, and to match the intensity of intervention to level of risk (the risk principle). To reduce recidivism, it is necessary for treatment to focus on the criminogenic needs of the individual that empirically relate to reoffending (the need principle). The responsivity principle takes into account factors that may affect or possibly impinge on treatment and requires that they be identified and accommodated in the process of rehabilitation.

Recidivism and Program Participation

There have been at least 50 meta-analytic reviews of offender treatment or rehabilitation (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007) that have provided support for the efficacy of prison-based and community-based treatment programs in reducing recidivism (e.g., Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990; Dowden & Andrews, 1999, 2000, 2003; Hollin, 1999; Lipsey, 1992; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Lösel, 1995). For example, reduced recidivism has been associated with program participation in prison, including those aimed at improving employment prospects and job skills, developing cognitive skills, and reducing substance abuse (e.g., Cullen, 2002; Gaes, Flanagan, Motiuk, & Stewart, 1999; Inciardi, Martin, Butzin, Hooper, & Harrison, 1997; Saylor & Gaes, 1997). The findings from several early large-scale meta-analytic reviews of adult and/or juvenile treatment programs (e.g., Lipsey, 1992; Lösel, 1995) indicated an approximately 10% reduction in recidivism (Gendreau, Goggin, French, & Smith, 2006). On the basis of meta-analytic reviews such as those identified above, there is a consensus that treatment programs are generally effective in reducing recidivism.

There are mixed findings with respect to the effectiveness of prison-based and community-based vocational programs in reducing recidivism, with some studies reporting generally positive effects, notwithstanding weaknesses in experimental design (e.g., Wilson, Gallagher, & MacKenzie, 2000) and others mixed or negative effects (e.g., Bloom, 2006; Visher, Winterfield, & Coggeshall, 2005). For example, a meta-analysis of eight community-based employment programs for ex-prisoners found that employment interventions did not reduce recidivism (Visher et al. 2005). The null finding was explained by a lack of studies using random assignment and rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness of employment programs generally. In contrast, a more comprehensive meta-analysis of 33 evaluations of vocational, education, and work programs found that vocational programs had a significant and positive effect on employment, and that program participants were less likely to recidivate than nonparticipants (Wilson et al., 2000).

Moreover, evaluations of programs that have provided postrelease support in employment and training as well as other reintegration support have shown reductions in recidivism (e.g., Sarno et al., 2000; Saylor & Gaes, 1997). Positive program effects were observed by Saylor and Gaes (1997) in a study of more than 7,000 U.S. prisoners who participated in academic, vocational, and work experience programming (Post Release Employment Program [PREP]). Twelve months after release, 72% of program participants were employed compared with 63% of those in a comparison group of nonparticipants. As well, prisoners who received work experience while in prison had lower recidivism rates following release than the comparison group.

Sarno et al. (2000) conducted evaluations of two employment and training programs for unemployed young offenders on probation. The Advice and Support Services for Education and Training (ASSET) program provided skills training and work experience to young offenders aged 16 to 25 in London. The recidivism rate for participants was 43%, whereas the recidivism rate of a comparison group of nonparticipants was 56%. A second scheme reported a recidivism rate of 32% for participants; however, the figure increased to 45% when restricted to those offenders aged 16 to 25 years (the target group). A multifaceted approach to reintegration was viewed as an ideal approach.

More recently, Zhang et al. (2006) evaluated the Preventing Parolee Crime Program (PPCP) which provided employment services, literacy education, housing support, and substance abuse treatment for parolees. Participants of the program had a recidivism rate of 44.8% compared with 52.8% for a sample of nonprogram parolees; however, the rate of recidivism was substantially lower (32.7%) for those participants who met at least one treatment goal of their program(s). Program effects associated with meeting the treatment goals of the two employment training programs incorporated in PPCP also revealed generally low rates of recidivism (at 28.5% and 33.1%) for program participants, supporting the benefits of community-based employment interventions.

Background to the Employment Assistance Program and Proposed Outcomes

The study reported here focused on recidivism among participants of an employment assistance program operating in Australia. The program has a dual purpose of placing participants into sustained employment and reducing reoffending. During the 2-year period of investigation, the program operated out of 17 corrections locations, 7 prisons, and 10 community corrections locations, targeting participants at moderate to high risk of reoffending. Program participants were assessed by the Department of Justice as being moderate to high risk of reoffending using standard Department clinical assessment tools. Prisoners and offenders registered on a voluntary basis and were eligible to receive assistance for 12 months commencing prerelease for prisoner participants. The program adopted a long-term focus on development of employment-related skills, as well as focusing on broader life skills. Employment assistance provided included activities related to work preparation and placement into employment such as constructing resumes, being interviewed, and making job applications, but also included more general life skills and reintegration supports, including referrals to housing, drug and alcohol treatment, and other relevant services. Work preparation involved skill building tailored to the individual to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Job placement assistance included postemployment placement support and on-the-job training. The transition element of the program ensured continuity of contact for prisoners (pre-release and post-release) and offenders (pre- and post-completion of community orders). In short, assistance provided was intensive in that it was long-term and multifaceted. In a larger project report (Graffam, Shinkfield, Mihailides, & Lavelle, 2005), results pertaining to the effectiveness of the program in providing employment assistance are reported.

Measurement of recidivism is an issue in its own right as definitions have varied, ranging from rearrest through reconviction to reincarceration in the case of prisoners. In our view, using rearrest as the basis of determining recidivism is not reasonable because no crime has been proven at the point of rearrest and simple breaches of orders would be included rather than just overt criminal acts. We believe that reconviction is the best measure of recidivism, and that offending/reoffending is best considered in terms of frequency/rate of offending, seriousness/severity of offending, and degree of poly-offending. Thus, the three measures of reoffending used in this study relate to reconviction.

Given suggestions in the literature and the intensive nature of assistance provided, it was hypothesised that (a) sustained participation in the program would be associated with low recidivism; (b) recidivism would be lower for those participants placed into employment than those registered, but not placed into employment; (c) recidivism would be lower post-registration than pre-registration in the program; and (d) recidivism would be lower among program participants than nonparticipants.

Method

Participant Files

Primary analysis of recidivism among participants of the employment assistance program was based on the total program participant population. The total number of registered participants for the period of the investigation was 3,034. There were 2,525 males (83.2%) and 509 females (16.8%). These proportions closely match proportions in the state criminal justice system. Of the total registered participants, in the first 2 years, 55.1% were prisoner participants and 44.9% were offender participants (those serving community orders). These proportions differ from the proportions in the criminal justice system, with approximately 33% prisoners and 67% offenders in the state corrections system (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, 2010).

Data for the comparative analyses of recidivism comprised two sets of randomly selected files. Those two data sets included the files of 600 employment program prisoner participants (M = 30.23 years; SD = 8.52) and 600 nonprogram participant prisoners in the system (M = 35.38 years; SD = 10.89).

Procedure

Ethics approval and permission to access data records were provided by the Department of Justice. To investigate recidivism, first, program records were analysed. Program records were obtained from the Prisoner Information Management System (PIMS) through the program providers and the Department of Justice. Data files were compiled from electronic reports. Recidivism data were provided electronically from PIMS records. The PIMS database only records offences resulting in a custodial sentence. This database is password encrypted and was made unavailable to anyone except researchers. Recidivism outcomes were examined over a 2-year postrelease period for program participants. It is important to note that the time frame for program involvement (12 months) is shorter than the 2-year time frame for examining reoffending used in this study. The PIMS allows for records of reoffending over a 2-year period post-release.

Data Analysis

The overall program recidivism rate was calculated for the total program participant population, as was the rate of reoffending for male/female participants, prisoner/offender participants, those participants placed in employment, and participants registered, but not placed in employment. More advanced analyses of recidivism were also conducted based on the sample of 600 program participant files and 600 nonprogram participant files, as well as the program participant sample pre- and post-registration in the program.

For the more advanced analyses, three measures of reoffending were used including (a) rate of reoffending, (b) seriousness of offending, and (c) extent of poly-offending. Rate of reoffending was defined as the number of offences per day, calculated by tallying the number of PIMS offence entries for each participant, divided by the number of days between first and most recent offence. Seriousness of offending was defined as the ascribed score of each participant’s most serious reoffence, using a 5-point scale with 5 = offences involving death or very serious harm to other people; 4 = offences where harm to others had occurred or where federal crimes had been committed; 3 = moderately serious offences where no harm had come to other people, but weapons were involved or potential for harm existed; 2 = offences that involved breaches of public trust, property, or violations of others’ rights, but no involvement of weapons or threat of harm; and 1 = offences with no potential for harm to others or for less serious violations of trust. Poly-offending was defined as the total number of different offence types recorded. Several one-way analyses of variance were conducted on the three advanced measures of reoffending to examine program/non-program effects and preregistration/postregistration offending.

Results

Reoffending Rates of the Program Participant Population

The most basic measurement of recidivism is the rate of reoffending among the program participant population as a whole. Overall, the rate of reoffending by registered program participants was low at 7.46%, a figure that is well below reoffending rates reported in the literature. It is important to note that this was achieved by participants remaining engaged in the program. Females had an overall lower reoffending rate (5.97%) compared with males (8.38%) and prisoners had slightly more than half the reoffending rate (5.69%) of offenders (10.98%). Reoffending was also investigated in relation to distinguishing between participants placed into employment and those registered but not placed into employment over the period of investigation. Reoffending rates were low for participants placed in employment (6.40%) and those not placed in employment (7.73%), suggesting a positive program effect, in addition to an employment effect.

Offending of Program Participants Pre-Registration and Post-Registration

Preregistration and postregistration offending within the program participant sample (n = 600) were investigated. There was a significant reduction in the rate of reoffending (or number of offences per day) for the sample of program participants following their registration in the program (M = 0.002) compared with pre-registration in the program (M = 0.011), F(1, 586) = 61.10, p < .001. The decline in number of offences per day is equivalent to an 82% reduction in offending. There was also a significant reduction in seriousness of offending following program registration (M = 1.21) compared with pre-registration (M = 4.35), F(1, 586) = 594, p < .001, equivalent to a 72% decline in seriousness/“severity” of offending. In terms of poly-offending, there was a significant reduction in the total number of different offences committed by the sample of program participants following their registration in the program (M = 0.77) compared with pre-registration (M = 3.87), F(1, 586) = 1,156, p = .01. That result was equivalent to an 80% reduction in the breadth of offences.

Offending of Program Participants and Nonparticipants in the Program

Additional analyses of reoffending were conducted to investigate more fully program effects on offending. The measures of reoffending included “rate of reoffending” (number of offences per day), “seriousness of offending” (rated “severity” of offences), and “poly-offending” (number of different offences). Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for the three measures of recidivism among the large random sample of program participants (n = 600) and nonparticipants (n = 600).

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of Reoffending for Program (n = 600) Participants and Nonprogram (n = 600) Participants.

	Program participants		Nonprogram participants
	M	SD	M	SD
Number of offences per day	0.0065*	0.021	0.0089*	0.010
Rated “severity” of offences	2.79***	1.67	3.29***	2.06
Number of different offence types	2.32**	1.21	2.49**	1.15

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Although number of offences per day was expected to be small, it is useful because it provides a standardised unit of measure. Results revealed that program participants committed significantly fewer offences per day (M = 0.0065) compared with nonparticipants (M = 0.0089), F(1, 1508) = 5.98, p < .05. In terms of the seriousness of offending, results revealed that the average “seriousness” of offences by program participants was significantly lower (M = 2.79) compared with nonparticipants (M = 3.29), F(1, 1508) = 23.69, p < .001. With respect to poly-offending, results indicated that program participants committed significantly fewer different kinds of offences (M = 2.32) compared with nonparticipants (M = 2.49), F(1, 1508) = 7.31, p = .01.

Discussion

Effectiveness of the Program on Reoffending

Recidivism among participants of a comprehensive employment assistance program was investigated by examining offending rates of the whole program participant population while registered in the program, and a program participant sample pre- and post-registration in the program, as well as comparing randomly selected samples of program participants and nonparticipants. Of importance, the rate of reoffending by program participants was very low, in fact, well below reoffending rates reported in the literature that suggest generally high rates of recidivism (e.g., Sarno et al., 2000; Wilson et al., 2000). A second finding was lower rates of reoffending for participants placed in employment compared with participants who were registered, but unplaced in employment. This finding indicates an association between employment and reduced recidivism, which has been well supported in prior literature (e.g., Makarios, Steiner, & Travis, 2010; Rahill-Beuler & Kretzer, 1997; Soothill & Holmes, 1981; Uggen, 2000). Reoffending was also low for participants who were not placed into employment, suggesting a positive program participation effect as well as an employment effect. Saylor and Gaes (1997) reported similar positive program effects for participants of a postrelease employment and training program, suggesting the inherent benefits of participation over nonparticipation. It is likely that the attention to general life skills development and reintegration support referred to earlier contributed to this. Referral to relevant support services may have also contributed.

Of interest, females had an overall lower reoffending rate. It is apparent that males are more likely than females to return to prison (Langan & Levin, 2002), and our result may reflect this difference. The prisoner group had slightly more than half the reoffending rate of the offenders in the program, which may be indicative of a higher level of “readiness to change” among ex-prisoners, better program engagement during the prerelease phase for prisoners, or the loss of criminal associations due to separation. However, reoffending was low for both groups.

A unique contribution to this study was the addition of three measures of reoffending: number of offences per day, rated “severity” of offences, and number of difference offence types. In our comparison of program and nonprogram participants, program participants showed significantly lower rates on all three measures. As well, a comparison of pre- and postregistration offending of program participants showed reduced offending after registration on all three reoffending measures. Together, these findings suggest positive program effects associated with program participation, a finding that is well supported in the literature (e.g., Sarno et al., 2000; Saylor & Gaes, 1997; Wilson et al., 2000).

Program Features and Implications for Practice

Our results show that participation in the employment assistance program was associated with reductions in reoffending. Those reductions were in the rate of offending, the “severity” of offences, and the range of offences committed. As we have pointed out already, there was a strong focus in the program on engaging prisoner participants with medium to high risk of reoffending, which is reflected in the high proportion of prisoner participants in the program population. The dual emphasis of the program on employment and reduction of reoffending is an important element in the program logic and design, and may have contributed to the low recidivism rates.

It is reasonable to assume that the low rates of reoffending, even among those participants not placed in employment, suggests a motivation to change on the part of participants in general, as well as simply an intention to seek employment. As such, the program either attracts committed participants, develops in participants some commitment to success in reintegration, or a combination of both conditions. It is not possible to determine at this point which factor is the greater contributor to the reduced reoffending that has been identified.

The relative success of the employment program identified in this article may be attributed to the long-term focus on development of employment-related skills as well as the breadth of skills targeted in the program. The transitional element of the program ensured continuity of contact pre- and post-release from prison and pre- and post-completion of community orders. This element may have contributed to success. Moreover, a broad range of additional supports was provided through referrals to housing, drug and alcohol treatment, and other relevant services. This broad transitional support may have also contributed to the program’s success.

In fact, the employment program demonstrates many of the key features identified as important elements of preferred practice of employment programs for ex-prisoners. Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll (2003), for example, identified prerelease training and preparation, case management services incorporating referrals for substance use treatment and other relevant support, education or training activities such as those relevant to improving so-called soft skills, and training related more specifically to the needs of the employer as elements of preferred practice. In addition, transitional work experience over a 3 to 6-month period was also identified as important, both in terms of improving work-readiness skills and as an indication to employers that the individual could maintain short-term employment. Provision of job placement assistance and the existence of postemployment support such as job-coaching activities were also identified by the authors as important features of postrelease employment programs. These are all elements contained in the program reported here.

Several other investigators have identified similar elements of preferred practices of employment programs, including collaboration with other support services, provision of support services, and direct follow-up with participants (Sarno et al., 2000). Roberts, Barton, Buchanan, and Goldson (1997) affirmed that the establishment of strong local partnerships with other relevant services was one of the main factors contributing to the success of many employment programs. The importance of ensuring training is matched to employment opportunities and needs in the local community is also an important element of preferred practice. Research in Australia has shown that well-designed intervention programs that appropriately match the needs of the offender with services offered can be very effective in reducing reoffending (Andrews, Zinger et al., 1990). Access to good programs may affect significantly on outcomes for prisoners or offenders under community supervision as well (Dunne, 2000; Ward, 2001). Additional features shared by successful postrelease employment programs include assisting prisoners to develop skills for appropriately disclosing criminal history, providing incentives to employers, focusing on job retention, and the provision of long-term follow-up support (e.g., Solomon et al., 2004; Webster et al., 2001). Again, most of these features are exemplified by the program reported here.

To put in context our statements about the effectiveness of the program in providing employment assistance, it is important to note that at the time of the study, unemployment in Australia was well below 5%, which means that there was relatively low availability to jobs in general. Given the lack of qualifications and work experience typical of this group, the vast majority of jobs involved unskilled labour.

Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research

In terms of limitations, the PIMS records a person’s activity through the prison system and is only a partial record of criminal activity. PIMS obviously cannot measure criminal activity in the community that escapes detection. PIMS also does not capture information about those offences where there is a noncustodial sentence involved because of its very nature. In other words, PIMS provides a partial snapshot of recidivism. As well, we were unable to analyse patterns in offending as the data are only kept in the PIMS system for 2 years, and if someone is charged with multiple offences, only the most serious offence is recorded.

Another limitation is that the random sample only related to prisoner program participants, given that we were not given access to community program client records. Future studies of employment programs would benefit from comparing prisoner and offender client samples, given our finding that the prisoner group had slightly more than half the reoffending rate of the community corrections group.

In addition, although our results indicate that correctional programs and employment assistance programs in particular are generally effective in reducing recidivism, it is important to acknowledge the lack of external validity and the extent to which the results can be generalised (Gaes & Kendig, 2002). Selection bias in correctional programming contributes to difficulty in identifying positive effects related to programming and effects related to the characteristics of the participant, such as their motivation, behaviour, background, and so forth (Lawrence, Mears, Dubin, & Travis, 2002). In other words, it is possible that the generally positive program effects may be associated with the differential characteristics of the participants, such as their level of motivation and readiness to change, rather than the components of the program itself (see Wilson et al., 2000).

In our study, selection bias may be a problem given that the program was voluntary and the fact that offenders did not volunteer for the comparison group. Those who volunteered may simply have been more motivated to change and the reoffending results may reflect this inherent motivation. It is possible, therefore, that greater motivation to change on the part of the volunteers may have contributed to better reoffending outcomes regardless of whether they had participated in the program or not. Although the program was voluntary, it was not waitlisted, so selection bias was not introduced in this regard. Regardless, of the potential limitations, program employment and recidivism outcomes are both nonetheless impressive.

The social and economic costs of crime are well documented and have been widely acknowledged to be staggeringly high. Assistance to ex-prisoners and offenders with their reintegration makes good social and economic sense. However, success will not come without investment in full-bodied assistance programs. An important feature of the program that formed the basis of this study is its dual purpose, employment plus reduced reoffending. Because reoffending is associated with being unemployed, success in employment is likely to lead to reduced reoffending. In short, the two main objectives of the program, employment and reduced reoffending, are interdependent. Because the program is conceived as more than an employment program and also focuses on assistance in transition/reintegration, there is a high probability that providers maintain attention to assisting participants in broader reintegration matters relevant to reduced reoffending. A wide range of supports was made available directly and indirectly through employment consultants and the duration of eligibility (12 months) allowed for fairly sustained support, once again, potentially contributing to the positive program effects.

Conclusion

In summary, the measures of recidivism applied in this study have provided support that postrelease employment assistance provides positive benefits in terms of reduced recidivism. Inclusion of more complex measures of recidivism is an important element in further understanding the benefits of employment program support for prisoners/ex-prisoners and offenders. Future studies of similar programs could examine whether lower reoffending rates are sustained over the longer term and any additional variables that contribute to recidivism. It is important to note that measurement of recidivism alone does not provide any indication of how well an individual is adjusting to community life, because it fails to take into account the process of community reintegration itself (Travis, 2003; Visher & Travis, 2003). It may be useful in future studies, therefore, to incorporate measures of success in reintegration, including intrapersonal, subsistence, and support variables critical to the reintegration process (Shinkfield, 2006; Shinkfield & Graffam, 2009), in addition to measures of recidivism.

Footnotes

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partially funded by a grant from WISE Employment Limited. That support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Albright

Denq

(1996). Employer attitudes toward hiring ex-offenders. The Prison Journal, 76, 118-137.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Hoge

R. D.

(1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.

Andrews

D. A.

Zinger

Hoge

R. D.

Bonta

Gendreau

Cullen

F. T.

(1990). Does correctional treatment work? A psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.

Bloom

(2006). Employment-focused programs for ex-prisoners. What have we learned, what are we learning, and where should we go from here. Oakland, CA: MDRC. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED493008.pdf

Buck

M. L.

(2000). Getting back to work: Employment programs for ex-offenders. New York, NY: Public/Private Ventures.

Cullen

F. T.

(2002). Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In Wilson

J. Q.

Petersilia

(Eds.), Crime: Public policies for crime control (pp. 253-290). Oakland, CA: Institute of Contemporary Studies.

Dowden

Andrews

D. A.

(1999). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 21-24.

Dowden

Andrews

D. A.

(2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 449-467.

Dowden

Andrews

D. A.

(2003). Does family intervention work for delinquents? Results of a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45, 327-342.

10.

Dunne

(2000, September). A framework for reducing reoffending: Differentiated case management (DCM) in Victorian Corrections. Paper prepared for the Office of Correctional Services Commissioner, Department of Justice, Victoria, Australia.

11.

Employment Support Unit. (2000). Integra: Working with ex-offenders. Birmingham, UK: Author.

12.

Fletcher

D. R.

(2001). Ex-offenders, the labour market and the new public administration. Public Administration, 79, 871-891.

13.

Gaes

G. G.

Flanagan

T. J.

Motiuk

L. L.

Stewart

(1999). Adult correctional treatment. In Tonry

Petersilia

(Eds.), Prisons: Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 26, pp. 361-426). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

14.

Gaes

G. G.

Kendig

(2002). The skill sets and health care needs of released offenders. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410629_ReleasedOffenders.pdf

15.

Gendreau

Goggin

French

Smith

(2006). Practicing psychology in correctional settings. In Weiner

I. B.

Hess

A. K.

(Eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology (3rd ed., pp. 722-750). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

16.

Graffam

Shinkfield

A. J.

Hardcastle

(2008). The perceived employability of ex-prisoners and offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 673-685.

17.

Graffam

Shinkfield

A. J.

Mihailides

Lavelle

(2005). Creating a pathway to reintegration: The Correctional Services Employment Pilot Program (CSEPP). Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University.

18.

Haslewood-Pócsik

Brown

Spencer

(2008). A not so well lit path: Employers’ perspectives on employing ex-offenders. Howard Journal, 47, 18-30.

19.

Heinrich

(2000). Reducing recidivism through work: Barriers and opportunities for employment of ex-offenders. Chicago: University of Illinois, Great Cities Institute.

20.

Hoare

P. N.

Machin

M. A.

(2010). The impact of reemployment on access to the latent and manifest benefits of employment and mental health. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 759-770.

21.

Hollin

C. R.

(1999). Treatment programs for offenders: Meta-analysis, “what works,” and beyond. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 361-372.

22.

Holzer

H. J.

Raphael

Stoll

M. A.

(2003). Employer demand for ex-offenders: Recent evidence from Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410779_ExOffenders.pdf

23.

Inciardi

J. A.

Martin

S. S.

Butzin

C. A.

Hooper

R. M.

Harrison

L. D.

(1997). An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27, 261-278.

24.

Langan

P. A.

Levin

D. J.

(2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

25.

Lawrence

Mears

D. P.

Dubin

Travis

(2002). The practice and promise of prison programming. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

26.

Lipsey

M. W.

(1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In Cook

T. D.

. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83-127). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

27.

Lipsey

M. W.

Cullen

F. T.

(2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297-320.

28.

Lipsey

M. W.

Wilson

D. B.

(1998). Effective interventions for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In Loeber

Farrington

D. P.

(Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313-366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Lösel

(1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In McGuire

(Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 79-111). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.

30.

Lukies

Graffam

Shinkfield

A. J.

(2011). The effect of organisational context variables on employer attitudes toward the employability of ex-offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 460-475.

31.

Makarios

Steiner

Travis

L. F.

(2010). Examining the predictors of recidivism among men and women released from prison in Ohio. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1377-1391.

32.

Mukamal

(2001). From hard time to full time: Strategies to help move ex- offenders from welfare to work [Monograph]. U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved http://lac.org/doc_library/lac/publications/from_hard_time.pdf

33.

National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. (1997). Offenders and employment. London, England: Author.

34.

Rahill-Beuler

C. M.

Kretzer

K. M. T.

(1997). Helping offenders find employment. Federal Probation, 61, 35-37.

35.

Richie

B. E.

(2001). Challenges incarcerated women face as they return to their communities: Findings from life history interviews. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 368-389.

36.

Roberts

Barton

Buchanan

Goldson

(1997). Evaluation of a home office initiative to help offenders into employment. London, England: Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate.

37.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

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

38.

Sarno

Hearnden

Hedderman

Hough

Nee

Herrington

(2000). Working their way out of offending: An evaluation of two probation employment schemes (Home Office Research Study No. 218). London, England: Home Office.

39.

Saylor

W. G.

Gaes

G. G.

(1997). Training inmates through industrial work participation and vocational and apprenticeship instruction. Corrections Management Quarterly, 1, 32-43.

40.

Shinkfield

A. J.

(2006). A three-part ecological model of community reintegration of ex-prisoners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.

41.

Shinkfield

A. J.

Graffam

(2009). Community reintegration of ex-prisoners: Type and degree of change in variables influencing successful reintegration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 29-42.

42.

Solomon

A. L.

Johnson

K. D.

Travis

McBride

E. C.

(2004). From prison to work: The employment dimensions of prisoner reentry. A report of the reentry roundtable. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411097_From_Prison_to_Work.pdf

43.

Soothill

Holmes

(1981). Finding employment for ex-prisoners: A ten-year follow-up study. Howard Journal, 20, 29-36.

44.

Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. (2010). Report on Government Service, 2010. Canberra, Australia: Productivity Commission. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/93933/29-chapter8-chapter.pdf

45.

Stoll

M. A.

Bushway

S. D.

(2008). The effect of criminal background checks on hiring ex-offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 371-404.

46.

Travis

(2003). In thinking about “what works,” what works best? The Margaret Mead Address at the National Conference of the International Community Corrections Association. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410906_travis_speech_transcript.pdf

47.

Tripodi

S. J.

Kim

J. S.

Bender

(2009). Is employment associated with reduced recidivism? The complex relationship between employment and crime. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 706-720.

48.

Uggen

(1999). Ex-offenders and the conformist alternative: A job quality model of work and crime. Social Problems, 46, 127-151.

49.

Uggen

(2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65, 529-546.

50.

Uggen

Manza

Thompson

(2006). Citizenship, democracy, and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605, 281-310.

51.

Visher

C. A.

Travis

(2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89-113.

52.

Visher

C. A.

Winterfield

Coggeshall

M. B.

(2005). Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 295-315.

53.

Ward

(2001). Transition from custody to community: Transitional support for people leaving prison. Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Victorian Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/prisons/research+and+statistics/moving+from+custody+to+community+report

54.

Webster

Hedderman

Turnbull

P. J.

May

(2001). Building bridges to employment for prisoners (Home Office Research Study 226). The Communication and Development Unit, London, England: Home Office. Retrieved from http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hors/hors226.pdf

55.

Wilson

Gallagher

MacKenzie

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

56.

Zhang

S. X.

Roberts

R. E. L.

Callanan

V. J.

(2006). Preventing parolees returning to prison through community-based reintegration. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 551-571.