Cited by 56Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCrime Patterns and InterventionsCriminal Justice and Penology

The Benefits of Keeping Idle Hands Busy: An Outcome Evaluation of a Prisoner Reentry Employment Program

Duwe, Grant·2015·Crime & Delinquency

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

Crossref · 10.1177/0011128711421653

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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”
  • 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.”

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
Venue
Crime & Delinquency
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