The Benefits of Keeping Idle Hands Busy: An Outcome Evaluation of a Prisoner Reentry Employment Program
Abstract
This study evaluated the effectiveness of EMPLOY, a prisoner reentry employment program, by examining recidivism and postrelease employment outcomes among 464 offenders released from Minnesota prisons between 2006 and 2008. As outcome data were collected on the 464 offenders through the end of June 2010, the average follow-up period was 28 months. Observable selection bias was minimized by using propensity score matching to create a comparison group of 232 nonparticipants who were not significantly different from the 232 EMPLOY offenders. Results from the Cox regression analyses revealed that participating in EMPLOY reduced the hazard ratio for recidivism by 32% to 63%. The findings further showed that EMPLOY increased the odds of gaining postrelease employment by 72%. Although EMPLOY did not have a significant impact on hourly wage, the overall postrelease wages for program participants were significantly higher because they worked a greater number of hours. The study concludes by discussing the implications of these findings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
All successful employment-based interventions combined vocational training and individualized assistance in acquiring jobs.
“All successful interventions combined vocational training and individualized assistance in acquiring jobs.49,51,54”
From Community investment interventions as a means for decarceration: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [49]
EMPLOY participants (232) experienced reduced rearrest rates (42% vs 50%), reconviction rates (25% vs 31%), reincarceration rates (9% vs 14%), and revocation rates (21% vs 38%) compared with 232 propensity-score matched eligible nonrecipients.
“The study found that the 232 participants in the treatment group experienced reduced rearrest rates (42% versus 50%), reconviction rates (25% versus 31%), reincarceration rates (9% versus 14%), and revocation rates (21% versus 38%), compared with 232 participants in the propensity-score matched group who were eligible but did not receive EMPLOY services.”
From Community investment interventions as a means for decarceration: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [49]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 26 · Cited by 56
- Authors
- Duwe, G.
- Affiliations
- Minnesota Department of Corrections (US)
- Corresponding author
- Duwe, Grant
- ORCID
- Duwe, Grant
- Venue
- Crime & Delinquency
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-11-06
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 559-586
- ISSN
- 0011-1287 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-387X
- OpenAlex
- W2118339502
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 5.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Crime & Delinquency (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- prisoner reentry, recidivism, prisoner release, wages, program effectiveness
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