Labor force participation and crime among serious and violent former prisoners

Nora Wikoff August 19, 2013

Statement of the problem• Former prisoners face hurdles to gainful

employment• Recidivism rates are high among former prisoners• Prison- and community-based employment

programs attempt to increase employment and reduce crime• Programs do not appear to improve work

outcomes or reduce crime

Jobs program logic model

ServicesLife skillsTransitional jobsJob coachingJob developmentSupportive services

Increased EmploymentIncomeSoft skillsWork readinessStability

IncreasedEmploymentJob retention

Reduced recidivism

Reduced recidivism

Adapted from Redcross et al. (2012)

Aims• Examine whether weak evaluation findings result from • Men’s selection into employment programs• Contamination from participation in similar services

• Examine whether weak effects persist after controlling for • Prior criminal record• Work experience• Participation in programs that offer overlapping content

• Examine whether labor force non-participation signals increased risk of recidivism

• Examine whether higher quality employment reduces men’s risk of recidivism

Research questions• Do employment program participants differ from

nonparticipants along prior offending trajectories and pre-prison work experience?

• Do employment-focused programs improve men’s post-release employment and recidivism outcomes?

• Is labor force non-participation associated with increased recidivism risk?

• Is labor force participation associated with higher quality employment?

• Do financial problems and psychological distress mediate the relationship between labor force attachment and offending?

State of current knowledge• Observational studies• Employment is associated with reduced offending• Work-crime relationship may result from low rates of employment among

high-rate offenders• Employment may reduce financially motivated crimes, such as property

and drug offenses• Unemployment may increase some types of offending by increasing time

spent in unstructured activities• Experimental studies• Most jobs programs show modest or null effects • Subsidized work can reduce recidivism among older former prisoners • High-risk prisoners are more responsive to subsidized work and intensive

jobs programs than are lower-risk prisoners

Integrated conceptual model

Figure 1

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)

• 69 state agencies received federal funding to expand services• Population: adult male prisoners under 35 years old convicted

of violent or serious drug offenses• States designed reentry services to fit local context• Intent-to-treat design: nonparticipants receiving the treatment-

as-usual condition could access existing reentry services• Propensity score weights used to balance participant and

nonparticipant groups

SampleInitial sample: 2,564 adult male prisoners from 12 states• 538 released prior to Wave 1 interview• 295 refusals• 34 ruled ineligible or excluded from the study

Final sample: 1,697 adult male prisoners• 863 SVORI respondents• 834 non-SVORI respondents

Baseline characteristics (n = 1,579)n %

Education Less than high school diploma 637 40.34

High school diploma 228 14.44

GED 458 29.01

Vocational training/certification 69 4.37

Some or more college 187 11.84

Racial/ethnic status African American 877 55.54

Hispanic 62 3.93

White 516 32.68

Multi-racial/Other 124 7.85

Employment Worked in 6 mths before prison 1,045 66.14

Ever held job for 2/more years 558 35.34

Outcomes: Administrative dataSource: FBI National Crime Information Center• Arrest records for 11 states: n = 1,607 adult men • Reincarceration records for 7 states: n = 1,181 adult men

Arrest records• Group trajectory model: Pre-SVORI annual arrest counts • Survival models: Time in months to first rearrest after release• SEM: Arrest indicator since the last interview

Reincarceration records• Survival models: Time in months to first reincarceration

Outcomes: Self-report dataSources: Baseline and three follow-up interviews• Baseline interview: One month before release• Follow-up interviews: 3-, 9-, and 15-months after release

Follow-up interview completion rates:• 58% at Wave 2, 61% at Wave 3, 66% at Wave 4• 42% completed all waves; 79% one or more follow-up waves

Main outcome: Self-reported crimes since last interview• Obtained from respondents at each follow-up interview

Program participation (n = 1,581)Yes No % Yes

Participation in any employment-focused program 875 706 56.34

Education (e.g., GED, literacy, college classes) 721 45.60

Employment (job training or vocational education) 208 13.16

Prison job (work release or prison industry job) 122 7.72

Participation in more than one program 165 1,416 10.44

Both education and employment 116 7.34

Both employment and prison job 24 1.52

Both education and prison job 47 2.97

Education, employment, and prison job 11 .70

Table 2

GTM and PSM explanatory measuresGroup-based trajectory model (GTM) Table 3• Age: Linear and squared terms • Annual arrest counts• Offense type

Propensity score model (PSM) Table 4• Demographic characteristics• Prior employment• Criminal history• Family background • Control measures

Duration model explanatory measuresDuration models Table 5• Indicators of three employment services• Interaction terms for employment services• Demographic characteristics• Prior employment• Criminal history

SEM explanatory measuresSix latent factors: Tables 6-9• Human capital accumulation • Social capital accumulation • Labor force attachment• Consumption needs • Psychological distress• Personal mastery

Panel model

Figure 2

Statistical analyses• Group-based trajectory model• Propensity score model• Survival analysis• Structural equation model

Strengths and limitationsGroup-based trajectory model• Variation in length of men’s criminal histories• Unobserved heterogeneity Propensity score model• Unobserved heterogeneity • Lack of common overlap

Strengths and limitationsSurvival analysis• Variation in quality and quantity of services received• Official data: timing and observationSEM• Attrition from follow-up waves• Measurement error• Unbalanced panel: different lengths of panels and observation

periods, different exposure periods due to time in jail/prison

Implications for policy and practice• Program evaluation• Service delivery• Work-crime relationship

My own specific questions• Timeline• Measures of participation• Simulation• Matching when overlap is not existent