Does Employment Reduce Recidivism?
Elliott Markson

Do individuals who obtain employment upon release likely to stay crime-free or are they going to commit another crime? The main purpose of this research is explanatory. It is explanatory because researching the issues surrounding employment and recidivism should be able to explain behavioral changes, a change in social status, and the effects that employment has on the individuals released from prison. The main independent variable of this research question is whether or not the released inmate will be employed or not upon release. The main dependent variable is whether or not the individual will return to their criminal behavior or not. The unit of analysis we will be studying is individual ex-offenders. Our goal will be to learn something about the population that we are studying and to gather information to identify certain common traits. Observations will be made using the longitudinal study method. Observations will be stretched over an extended period of time, and made twice a year for five years.
The notion that having a job reduces the probability of recidivism is suitably confirmed throughout criminological literature. Employment offers the essential earnings for survival, increases self-esteem, advances the connection to a community, and progresses the impression of belonging to a group. Consequently, even if locating employment is strenuous for ex-offenders, a policy that aids these individuals in gaining employment will possibly lessen the likelihood of recidivism. Throughout the last decade researchers have formulated programs to ease the complicated shift confronted by ex-offenders during the phase of time between discharge and reintegration into society. These types of programs ultimately consist of two categories: post-release programs and in-prison programs. Post-release programs include support after the individual is released and the in-prison programs begin assisting the individual while still in prison. “A good job would be necessary not only to provide the basic needs for survival in the short run but also as a key element to secure self-esteem, security and sense of integration in the society as whole” (Bierens, & Carvalho , 2). As knowledge accrues, a supporting objective to complete reintegration proves to be job placement. A sizeable amount of social science research has revealed that through personal disaster family members are prolific foundations of psychological, relevant, and financial assistance. Essentially, family members come to signify central members of the offenders’ social system. It is considered that, proportional to the broader community, the family is further capable to excuse or condone the offenders’ stigma – an occurrence that eases the development of social bonds among offenders and members of their family. “Likewise, several other qualitative studies have observed that family serves an important role in the post-release environment, namely as a resourceful network of support” (Berg and Huebner, 384). A history of imprisonment can lead to unpleasant elimination from conservative social networks in an individual’s community, predominantly when those networks encompass individuals who have little preceding information to create an impression of the offender’s self other what is identified by their criminal history/record. Altogether, the literature proposes that good quality social bonds with family lessen the hazard for recidivism, partly, by assisting job attainment. Conceivably the most obvious complication to a lucrative reintegration is the utter number of inmates being discharged daily. Totaling to the logistical dilemma from mass reentry, the communities to which numerous offenders return to are frequently long away from model and progressively economically poorer than when they left. Moreover, the availability of transitional amenities and halfway houses has diminished in many communities, restraining local resources convenient to support in the conversion process. Correspondingly, more offenders are being discharged without adequate attention to their occupational, educational, and rehabilitative necessity. “Recent estimates of prison and jail populations suggest that an overwhelming number of offenders are diagnosed with substance abuse problems and/or mental health disorders that, ostensibly, compound the challenge of living a straight life after release” (Miller & Miller, 895). This connection involving mental illness and substance abuse evidently indicates the call for therapeutic intervention. Research has constantly uncovered that areas where job positions are limited, low-skilled and low- standing workers incomprehensively suffer as employers can allow for more discerning in their employment methods. “Combined with an economic recession, and in the absence of significant governmental assistance, a prison record may present an almost insurmountable obstacle for long-term employment” (Hannon & DeFina, 612). This absent of acceptable quality job prospects might lead ex-offenders to believe they have little alternatives but to practice a criminal career again. As a result, bearing in mind the existing condition of the economy, the solution emphasizes the crucial significance of delicately applying prisoner reintegration programs.
Another article found that when individuals are released from prison and gain employment that they are no more likely to stay out of prison than someone who failed to gain employment. Individuals who gain employment upon release do however have a longer time between their release and their next incarceration than their counterparts who do not gain employment. This article explores the association between employment and recidivism for parolees released from Texas prisons. Along with determining whether obtaining employment on release from prison is associated with decreased odds of re-incarceration, this article analyzes whether obtaining employment is associated with increased time to re-incarceration. Proportional hazard models were used to examine the effect of employment on re-incarceration over time. This analysis allowed a unique view of desistance from crime as a process of behavioral change with multiple stages. Results generally support this perspective, finding that although obtaining employment is not associated with a significant decrease in likelihood of re-incarceration, it is associated with significantly greater time to re-incarceration. Thus, among parolees who are re-incarcerated, those who obtain employment spend more time crime-free in the community before returning to prison. This article argues that increased time crime-free is an indicator of positive behavior change that should be supplemented with clinical interventions to help formerly incarcerated persons maintain the initial motivation associated with employment.
Since this survey uses only those who have been previously incarcerated, it will be difficult to get a random sample of people from the general population, thus making this a quasi-experimental design. This survey will be conducted in a longitudinal format recording data about a subject’s recidivism after release. The survey would be administered every six months for five years, then separation of those who did have a job at the start of the study and those who did not. Those without a job would be the control group to compare with those that did have a job.
The subjects chosen will all be former prison inmates that have been released, whether early on parole or having served their full sentence. The first way to obtain subjects would be to ask a parole officer if they had any parolees willing to take part in the survey. A second would be asking prison institutions about prisoners that are close to release and asking those if they wish to participate, but it is doubtful they would disclose that information. A third more difficult choice would be to ask nearby employers if they have hired any convicted felons, and then ask them if they wish to participate.
There’s not much criteria other than the subjects chosen have to have served time in prison, but that in itself severely limits the amount of people that can participate. When chosen, subjects will be asked if they currently have a job or not and if they are actively looking for one. Those who don’t have a job and aren’t looking for one will be set as the control group. Those with a job or those actively seeking one will be set as the experimental group. Within each group there would hopefully be enough subjects to have sub-groups based on type of crime so that those can be compared. Every six months the subjects from both groups would report of any crimes that they have been officially arrested for.
As this is a longitudinal format study, one of the biggest problems to validity would be experimental mortality. Those subjects that are recruited through parole officers would be easier to keep in contact with, but those that volunteer or are recruited without the assistance of an officer have a chance at unofficially “dropping” from the study without reason. If they cannot be reached before the next six-month survey session, they would be removed from the study or marked as recidivated depending on how long they lasted in the study. A second problem is subject history during the study, most likely an issue with those that committed a violent or gang crime. At any given time, a subject may land in the hospital for any reason, making it difficult for him to commit a crime. On the control side, this would make it difficult to find the recidivism rate since the subject cannot commit a crime. On the experimental side, this could make the subject lose his job while in the hospital, and change how they feel afterwards, if they choose to look for another or not. If they choose to commit a crime again later, it would be harder to make the distinction if it was because they had no job or any other reason.
Ethical Issues: Possible angle There are various forms of ethical issues that contemporary researchers must implement to protect the rights of their research participants. One of the ethical issues for this research project involves voluntary participation. The principle of voluntary participation requires that people not be coerced into participating in research. This is especially relevant where researchers had previously relied on 'captive audiences' for their subjects -- prisons, universities, and places of that nature. The concern for voluntary consent in this particular research project arises in the gathering of ex-offenders. Although the source of collection for the unit of analysis (ex-offenders) is stated as parole officers, it is not certain or guaranteed this is ethically appropriate. This could be a violation of confidentiality for the ex-offender and would require further investigation before proceeding. Our findings present confirmation that employment programs for ex-offender can reduce recidivism, given that these programs account for the heterogeneity of the ex-offenders. A program that is homogeneous for all ex-offenders might not produce the expected outcomes. Existing research also implies that family members are a significant element of ex-offender social networks in the post-prison circumstance. Moreover, bonds to family are a consistent correlate of post-release success. In this manner, family attachment and job attainment are jointly favorable to each other. An additional finding proposes that prison reentry may have a substantial influence on ex-offenders probability of success after release. A further correlation found in this research is ex-offender recidivism is possibly linked to a feeble regional economy. These weak regional economies where low-skilled individuals have trouble acquiring quality employment, expenditures on public goods and services is deprived, and these communities are less able to receive released inmates. In opposition, under a vastly robust economic circumstance, a swell in population with newly released offenders will have less of a negative result. A advisable objective for future research would be to further identify policy solutions to reintegration programs for offenders, how to strengthen family ties between ex-offenders and family members, and aid in job obtainment when released from prison into a failing economy.
References
Berg, M. T. & Huebner, B. M. (2011). Reentry and the Ties that Bind: An Examination of Social Ties, Employment, and Recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28(2), 382-410.
Bierens, H. J., & Carvalho, J. R. (2011). Job Search, Conditional Treatment and Recidivism: The Employment Services for Ex-Offenders Program Reconsidered. B.E. Journals of Economic Analysis & Policy: Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 11(1), 1-38.
Hannon, L., & DeFina, R. (2010). The state of the economy and the relationship between prisoner reentry and crime. Social Problems, 57(4), 611-629.
Makarios, M., Steiner, B., & Travis, L. (2010). Examining the predictors of recidivism among men and women released from prison in Ohio. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(12), 1377-1391.
Miller, H. & Miller, J. (2010). Community In-Reach Through Jail Reentry: Findings from a Quasi-Experimental Design. Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 893-910.
Tripodi, S. J., Kim, J. S., & Bender, K. (2010). Is Employment Associated With Reduced Recidivism? The Complex Relationship Between Employment and Crime. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(5), 706-720.