An Experimental Evaluation of a Comprehensive Employment-Oriented Prisoner Re-entry Program
Open accessAbstract
While the economic model of crime suggests that improving post-prison labor market prospects should reduce recidivism, evaluations of previous employment-oriented re-entry programs have mixed results, possibly due to the multi-faceted challenges facing prisoners at the time of their release. We present an evaluation of an experiment that combines enhanced employment opportunities with wrap around services before and after release. This paper presents what we believe is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a re-entry program that combines post-release subsidized work with “reach-in” social services provided prior to release. The sample was 236 high-risk offenders in Milwaukee with a history of violence or gang involvement. We observe increased employment rates and earnings during the period when ex-offenders are eligible for subsidized jobs, and these gains persist throughout the year. The intervention has significant effects ( p < 0.01) in reducing the likelihood of rearrest. The likelihood that the treatment group is re-imprisoned during the first year after release is lower than for controls (22 vs. 26 %) but the difference is not statistically significantly different from zero. The results of our RCT suggest that “reach-in” services to help improve human capital of inmates prior to release, together with wrap around services following release, boosts employment and earnings, although whether there is sufficient impact on recidivism for the intervention to pass a benefit-cost test is more uncertain. Average earnings for both treatment and control groups were very low; legal work simply does not seem that important in the economic lives of released prisoners.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Important intervention components across all navigation studies included a low caseload for caseworkers (20-30 clients per 1.0 FTE), services starting in prison and bridged to the community, and a target population of individuals who had committed violent crimes.
“Important intervention components across all studies included a low caseload for caseworkers (20-30 clients per 1.0 FTE), services starting in prison and bridged to the community, and a target population of individuals who had committed violent crimes.57,58,66,67”
From Community investment interventions as a means for decarceration: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [67]
The Introduction describes services beginning about six months before release and continuing afterward, and a target group with a history of violence or gang involvement. It does not establish a caseload of 20–30 clients per full-time caseworker. Nor does it say that every participant had committed a violent crime, or establish these features across all the studies cited in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 43 · Cited by 172
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Apel R, Sweeten G (2010) The impact of incarceration on employment during the transition to adulthood. Soc Probl 57(3):448–479
- Beck JS (2011) Cognitive therapy: basics and beyond, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, New York
- Becker Gary S (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Political Econ 76(2):175–209
- Bushway SD, Apel R (2012) A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming. Criminol Public Policy 11(1):21–50. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00786.x · DOI
- Cook PJ (1975) The correctional carrot: the prospect of reducing recidivism through improved job opportunities. Policy Anal 1(1):11
- Cook PJ (1980) Research in criminal deterrence: laying the groundwork for the second decade. In: Morris Norval, Tonry Michael (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 211–268
- Cook PJ, O’Brien M, Braga AA, Ludwig J (2012) Lessons from a partially controlled field trial. J Exp Criminol 8(3):271–287
- Hammer TJ (2002) The long and arduous journey to truth-in-sentencing in Wisconsin. Fed Sentencing Report 15(1):15–18. doi:10.1525/fsr.2002.15.1.15 · DOI
- Harding DJ, Wyse JJB, Dobson C, Morenoff JD (2014) Making ends meet after prison. J Policy Anal Manag 33(2):440–470
- Lattimore P, Steffey DM, Visher C (2010) Prisoner reentry in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Vict Offenders 5(3):253–267. doi:10.1080/15564886.2010.485907 · DOI
- Mallar CD, Thornton CVD (1978) Transitional aid for released prisoners: evidence from the LIFE experiment. J Hum Resour 13(2):208–236
- Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (1980) Summary and findings of the National Supported Work Demonstration. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge
- Petersilia J (2003) When prisoners come home: parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press, New York
- Rossi PH, Berk RA, Lenihan KJ (1980) Money, work, and crime: experimental evidence. Academic Press, New York
- Travis J, Western B, Redburn S (2014) The growth of incarceration in the United States: exploring causes and consequences. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
- Uggen C (2000) Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: a duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. Am Sociol Rev 65(4):529–546
- Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1977) Work release and recidivism: an empirical evaluation of a social policy. Eval Q 1(1):87–108
- Zweig J, Yahner J, Redcross C (2011) For whom does a transitional jobs program work? Examining the recidivism effects of the center for employment opportunities program on former prisoners at high, medium, and low risk of reoffending. Criminol Public Policy 10(4):945–972
- Authors
- Cook, P. J., Kang, S., Braga, A. A., Ludwig, J., & O’Brien, M. E.
- Affiliations
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- Hanyang University (KR)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Marquette University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cook, Philip J.
- Venue
- Journal of Quantitative Criminology
- Published
- 2014-12-20
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 355-382
- ISSN
- 0748-4518 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7799
- OpenAlex
- W2047558119
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 19.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2025-10-27)
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Quantitative Criminology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- The Royal Society of Chemistry’s Journals, Books and Databases (The Royal Society of Chemistry) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Keywords
- recidivism, post-release employment, wraparound services, high-risk offenders, gang involvement, violent offenders, earnings, human capital, cost-benefit analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
