1. Nora Wikoff August 19, 2013

2. 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

3. Services Life skills Transitional jobs Job coaching Job development Supportive services Increased Employment Income Soft skills Work readiness Stability Increased Employment Job retention Reduced recidivism

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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

7. Figure 1

8. 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

9. Initial 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

10. n% EducationLess than high school diploma63740.34 High school diploma22814.44 GED45829.01 Vocational training/certification694.37 Some or more college18711.84 Racial/ethnic statusAfrican American87755.54 Hispanic623.93 White51632.68 Multi-racial/Other1247.85 EmploymentWorked in 6 mths before prison1,04566.14 Ever held job for 2/more years55835.34

11. Source: 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

12. Sources: 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

13. YesNo% Yes Participation in any employment-focused program87570656.34 Education (e.g., GED, literacy, college classes)72145.60 Employment (job training or vocational education)20813.16 Prison job (work release or prison industry job)1227.72 Participation in more than one program1651,41610.44 Both education and employment1167.34 Both employment and prison job241.52 Both education and prison job472.97 Education, employment, and prison job11.70 Table 2

14. Group-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

15. Duration models Table 5 Indicators of three employment services Interaction terms for employment services Demographic characteristics Prior employment Criminal history

16. Six latent factors: Tables 6-9 Human capital accumulation Social capital accumulation Labor force attachment Consumption needs Psychological distress Personal mastery

17. Figure 2

18. Group-based trajectory model Propensity score model Survival analysis Structural equation model

19. Group-based trajectory model Variation in length of men’s criminal histories Unobserved heterogeneity Propensity score model Unobserved heterogeneity Lack of common overlap

20. Survival analysis Variation in quality and quantity of services received Official data: timing and observation SEM 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

21. Program evaluation Service delivery Work-crime relationship

22. Timeline Measures of participation Simulation Matching when overlap is not existent