Labor force participation and crime among serious and violent former prisoners

1. Labor force participation and crime among serious and violent former prisoners Nora Wikoff August 19, 2013

2. 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

3. Jobs program logic model • 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 • Reduced recidivism Adapted from Redcross et al. (2012)

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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

7. Integrated conceptual model Figure 1

8. 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

9. Sample 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. Baseline characteristics (n = 1,579)

11. Outcomes: Administrative data 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. Outcomes: Self-report data 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. Program participation (n = 1,581) Table 2

14. GTM and PSM explanatory measures 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 model explanatory measures Duration models Table 5 • Indicators of three employment services • Interaction terms for employment services • Demographic characteristics • Prior employment • Criminal history

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

17. Panel model Figure 2

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

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

20. Strengths and limitations 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. Implications for policy and practice • Program evaluation • Service delivery • Work-crime relationship

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