R E S E A R C H
R E P O R T
October 2004

From Prison to Work: The
Employment Dimensions
of Prisoner Reentry
A Report of the Reentry Roundtable
Amy L. Solomon
Kelly Dedel Johnson
Jeremy Travis
Elizabeth C. McBride

research for safer communities

URBAN INSTITUTE

Justice Policy Center

URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center
2100 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
www.urban.org

© 2004 Urban Institute

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban
Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
The Justice Policy Center (JPC) carries out nonpartisan research to inform the national
dialogue on crime, justice, and community safety. For more information on JPC’s reentry
research, visit http://jpc.urban.org/reentry. To receive monthly email updates on JPC
research, send an email to JPC@ui.urban.org.

From Prison to Work:
The Employment
Dimensions of Prisoner
Reentry
A Report of the Reentry Roundtable

Amy L. Solomon
Kelly Dedel Johnson
Jeremy Travis
Elizabeth C. McBride

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Amy L. Solomon is a policy associate at the Urban Institute, where she works to link the
research activities of the Justice Policy Center to the policy and practice arenas. Her
primary areas of concentration include prisoner reentry and problem-solving approaches
to community safety. Ms. Solomon currently manages the Institute’s research
partnerships with the Reentry Policy Council and the National Governors Association’s
Prisoner Reentry Academy. Prior to joining the Urban Institute, Ms. Solomon served as
policy analyst and acting director of strategic planning at the National Institute of Justice.
She has also managed an alternative sentencing program, developed reentry strategies for
returning prisoners, and worked with juveniles in detention, probation, and school
settings. Ms. Solomon received a B.A. in English from the University of Michigan and a
Master’s in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University.
Kelly Dedel Johnson is the director of One in 37 Research, Inc. based in Portland,
Oregon. As a consultant to federal, state, and local agencies, her research on the juvenile
and criminal justice system takes one of three major forms: 1) developing written tools to
enhance practice or inform public policy; 2) conducting investigations on the conditions
of confinement in juvenile correctional facilities; and 3) undertaking rigorous evaluations
of various juvenile and criminal justice programs to determine their effectiveness. Prior
to working as a consultant, Dr. Dedel Johnson was one of the founders of The Institute on
Crime, Justice, and Corrections at The George Washington University, and also worked
as a senior research associate at the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. She has
also worked with juveniles on probation and their families and survivors of sexual
assault. Dr. Dedel Johnson received a B.A. in psychology and a B.A. in criminal justice,
both from the University of Richmond, Virginia, and a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from
the Center for Psychological Studies in Berkeley, California.
Jeremy Travis became the fourth president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice on
August 16, 2004. Prior to his appointment, President Travis served four years as a senior
fellow affiliated with the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. There, he launched
a national research program focused on prisoner reentry into society and initiated
research agendas on crime in a community context, sentencing, and international crime.
From 1994 to 2000, Mr. Travis directed the Natio nal Institute of Justice, the research arm
of the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to his service in Washington, Mr. Travis was
deputy commissioner for legal matters for the New York City Police Department from
1990 to 1994. Mr. Travis has taught courses on criminal justice, public policy, history,
and law at Yale College, the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public
Service, New York Law School, and The George Washington University. He has
authored one book, co-edited two books, and published numerous book chapters, articles,
and monographs on constitutional law, criminal law, and criminal justice policy. He is a
board member of the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute.
Mr. Travis earned a J.D., cum laude, from the New York University School of Law, and
an M.P.A. from the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. He
received a B.A., cum laude, in American studies, from Yale College.

Elizabeth C. McBride is a research assistant with the Justice Policy Center at the Urban
Institute. Her primary research interests are prisoner reentry and the impact of crime
policies on communities. Her past projects have included a design for a school violence
and drug abuse prevention program and an evaluation of tribal courts. Prior to joining the
Urban Institute, she worked as a policy analyst at Carnevale Associates, LLC, where she
conducted research on crime trends and criminal justice policies and wrote topical
publications for U.S. Department of Justice initiatives. Ms. McBride received her B.A. in
politics, summa cum laude, and a certificate in American studies from Princeton
University.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the many individuals and organizations that made this
report possible. First, we would like to thank Tony Thompson of the New York School of
Law for serving as co-chair for the Reentry Roundtable, which serves as the basis for this
report. We would also like to thank the Roundtable participants whose thoughtful
discussion over the course of the meeting shaped the content of this report. We owe a
special thanks to the following individuals who prepared discussion papers and
presentations that framed this meeting of the Roundtable and greatly influenced this
monograph; Richard Freeman, Harvard University; Anne Piehl, Harvard University;
Harry Holzer, Georgetown University; Stephen Raphael, University of California at
Berkeley; Michael Stoll, University of California at Los Angles; Knut Rostad, The
Enterprise Prison Institute; Rob Atkinson, The Progressive Policy Institute; Shawn
Bushway, The University of Maryland; David Ellwood, Harvard University; Robert
Carmona, STRIVE; Rodney Carroll, Welfare to Work Partnership; and Peter Cove,
America Works. We are also grateful to Harry Holzer, Mindy Tarlow, Knut Rostad, and
Christy Visher who provided critical feedback on various drafts of the report and Meagan
Funches who offered research support and formatted the text and graphics. Finally, we
thank our funders and project partners, the Rockefeller Foundation, The Joyce
Foundation, and the Open Society Institute. Without their support, this document would
not have been possible.

Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1
The Relationship between Work and Reentry............................................................................. 4

THE LABOR MARKET CONTEXT ................................................................................. 6
FORMER PRISONER PROFILE .................................................................................... 8
Education Profile.................................................................................................................. 8
Prior Work Experience and Income .......................................................................................... 9
Physical Health, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse Issues .......................................................10
Length of Stay in Prison........................................................................................................12
Limited Job Prospects ..........................................................................................................12

WORK EXPERIENCE WHILE IN PRISON ........................................................................15
Historical Context ...............................................................................................................15
Work Assignments in Prison ...................................................................................................16
Benefits of Allowing Inmates to Work......................................................................................17
Barriers to Implementing Prison-Based Work Programs ...............................................................18

WORK ON THE OUTSIDE ........................................................................................20
Postprison Employment Programs ...........................................................................................21
Additional Factors Influencing Employment Opportunities...........................................................24

LOOKING FORWARD .............................................................................................26
Enhance Work Opportunities Inside Prison................................................................................26
Expand Work Opportunities Outside Prison...............................................................................27

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................29

INTRODUCTION

The transition from prison to the community is not a new phenomenon. The vast
majority of prisoners are released to society and face the challenges of adjusting to the
freedom, temptations, responsibilities, and struggles of the street. What has changed,
however, is the scale of prisoner reentry—more than 630,000 prisoners now return home
each year, four times the number that came home 25 years ago (Harrison and Karberg
2004; Hughes and Wilson 2002; Travis and Lawrence 2002). The impact of the increased
number of annual releasees is amplified even further because prisoners are spending
longer periods of time incarcerated and have diminishing access to education and training
programs that could assist in their transition upon release (Lynch and Sabol 2001). Over
the past decade, a greater proportion of inmates have been released without post-prison
supervision and without services to assist them with finding jobs, housing, and needed
support services (Petersilia 2003). Finally, disproportionately large numbers of prisoners
are released to a relatively small number of communities that are already challenged by
high unemployment and poverty rates, few job opportunities, crime, and gang activity
(Lynch and Sabol 2001; La Vigne, Kachnowski, et. al 2003, La Vigne, Mamalian, et. al
2003, La Vigne, Thomson, et. al 2003, Visher, La Vigne, and Travis 2004). Thus,
individuals are released from prison with the need to reestablish themselves in the
community, but are often released into environments that are ill-prepared to support a
positive transition and full of risks and challenges.
The criminal justice literature indicates that people released from prison often
continue their involvement with the criminal justice system. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics completed two recidivism studies on prisoners released in 1983 and in 1994.
Both studies revealed that approximately two-thirds of those released (62.5 percent for
the 1983 cohort and 67.5 percent for the 1994 cohort) were subsequently rearrested
within three years of release (Beck and Shipley 1989; Langan and Levin 2002). These
rearrests generate significant fiscal costs for the criminal justice system, human costs in
terms of victimization, and costs with respect to public support—a growing public
sentiment that the criminal justice system does not work to control crime. Changes to
existing policy and practice showing even modest improvements over the current state of
affairs have the potential to transform the way in which the phenomenon of prisoner
reentry impacts society. Rather than draining community resources, safety, and morale,
prisoners who return to the community with support systems in place can become
productive members of society, thus saving resources, strengthening family and
community ties, and expanding the labor force and economy.
The challenges and opportunities of prisoner reentry raise important questions about
what can be done to better serve prisoners, their families, their communities, and society
at large as we face released prisoners’ inevitable return home. How can we boost the odds
of successful reintegration? How can we reduce the known risks that have historically
thwarted that goal? How can policies and practices be improved in the short-term?

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

1

In an effort to address these important questions, the Urban Institute has invited
academics, practitioners, policymakers, service providers, former prisoners, and community
leaders to participate in a series of Reentry Roundtable discussions to assess the state of
knowledge surrounding various dimensions of reentry, including substance abuse, race,
gender, health, housing, the role of civil institutions, and the impact of reentry on
communities and families. The fifth Roundtable, held in May 2003, focused on policies,
practices, problems, and incentives involved in connecting returning prisoners to meaningful
employment. Five discussion papers and four presentations were commissioned and,
combined with the discussions that came out of the Roundtable and additional literature from
the field, form the conceptual framework for this report. Much of the content of this
monograph is derived directly from these papers.
Reentry Roundtable May 2003
Meeting Participants
Jeremy Travis (Co-chair), The Urban Institute
Tony Thompson (Co-chair), New York University
School of Law
Robert Atkinson, Progressive Policy Institute
Roger Baysden, Iowa Prison Industries
Dan Bloom, Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation
Fred Braun, The Workman Fund
Shawn Bushway, University of Maryland
Robert Carmona, STRIVE
Rodney Carroll, Welfare to Work Partnership
Peter Cove, America Works
Benjamin De Haan, Oregon Department of Corrections
David Ellwood, Harvard University
Jeffrey Fagan, Columbia University
Richard Freeman, Harvard University
Sallie Glickman, Philadelphia Workforce Investment
Board
Harry Holzer, Georgetown University

John Jeffries, National HIRE Network
Rick Keister, Delco Remy International
Ronald Mincy, Columbia University
Demetra Nightingale, The Urban Institute
John Nuttall, New York State Department of
Correctional Services
Ronald Owens, City of Oakland
John Ownby, Texas Workforce Commission
Alice Patterson, Clark Construc tion Company
Anne Piehl, Harvard University
Knut Rostad, The Enterprise Prison Institute
Unmi Song, The Joyce Foundation
Michael Stoll, University of California, Los Angeles
Mindy Tarlow, The Center for Employment
Opportunities
Susan Tucker, Open Society Institute
Darren Walker, The Rockefeller Foundation
Bruce Western, Princeton University
Diane Williams, Safer Foundation

Discussion papers commissioned by the Reentry Roundtable

—

“Can We Close the Revolving Door,” by Richard B. Freeman, Harvard University

—

“Crime, Work, and Reentry,” by Anne Piehl, Harvard University.

—

“Employment Barriers Facing Ex -Offenders,” by Harry Holzer, Georgetown University; Steven Raphael,
University of California at Berkeley; and Michael A .Stoll, University of California at Los Angeles

—

“Can Inmates Become an Integral Part of the U.S. Workforce,” by Knut A. Rostad, The Enterprise Prison
Institute, and Rob Atkinson, The Progressive Policy Institute

—

“Reentry and Prison Work Programs,” by Shawn Bushway, The University of Maryland

Reentry Roundtable papers available at http://www.urban.org
Presentations for the Reentry Roundtable

—

“Where Is the Economy Headed over Time and How Will the Prison Population Be Affected?” by David
Ellwood, Harvard University

—

“Reality Check: Employment Challenges and Successes,” by Robert Carmona, STRIVE

—

“From Prison to Work: Applying Lessons from Welfare Reform,” by Rodney Carroll, Welfare to Work
Partnership

—

“From Prison to Work: Applying Lessons from Welfare Reform,” by Peter Cove, America Works

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

2

The aim of this monograph is to highlight relevant research and identify key policy
issues. The report first addresses the relationship between work and reentry, outlining the
links between gainful employment and individual, familial, community, and societal
outcomes once prisoners are on the outside. Next the monograph describes the current
labor market, identifying the gap that former prisoners could potentially fill when they
enter or return to the work force. The focus then shifts to explore the skill sets, education
levels, work histories, and health-related needs of returning prisoners. With this
understanding of the population, the report examines the past and current state of work
inside state and federal prisons. In this section, the report identifies the potential benefits
of various types of inmate labor as well as prison programming aimed at enhancing
employment opportunities upon release. The monograph then looks at the opportunities
for as well as the legal barriers to work on the outside. This section draws upon the
lessons learned from three effective employment programs, highlighting the importance
of links between work on the inside and outside. Finally, the document identifies key
considerations to meet the goals of enhancing work opportunities available to prisoners
and expanding work opportunities after release.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

3

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK AND REENTRY

The connection between work and crime is multifaceted. Research has shown a
relationship between an individual’s status in the workforce and his or her likelihood of
committing a crime. For example, higher levels of job instability have shown to lead to
higher arrest rates (Sampson and Laub 1993). In addition, as wages go up, crime has
shown to decrease (Bernstein and Houston 2000; Western and Petit 2000). Research also
indicates that there is a correlation between increases in money earned through legitimate
means and decreases in illegal earnings (Bernstein and Houston 2000; Uggen and
Thompson 2003).
Research has also suggested that work has benefits that reach multiple levels,
including the individual, family, community, and societal levels. Individual- level benefits
include rehabilitation—work offers former prisoners an opportunity to develop new roles
as productive members of society. Holding a job serves as an important signal that the
individual is moving toward a crime-free lifestyle. Perhaps most importantly,
employment can increase the skill level, breadth of job experience, and earning levels of
former prisoners. In addition, it can bring daily structure and prosocial connections to
situations that are often fraught with too little of the former and too few of the latter.
Research suggests that new roles, new routines, and new social supports are the essence
of a successful transition (Laub and Sampson 2001; Maruna 2001; Sampson and Laub
1993).
At the family level, work provides former prisoners with an income, enabling them
to provide financial assistance to their familial and social networks. In addition,
communities stand to reap measurable economic benefits with the return of former
prisoners to the workforce. Not only are these individuals workers, they are also
taxpayers and consumers who, by spending a portion of their income, could increase the
demand for goods and services in their communities.
The larger society also stands to reap public safety benefits when former prisoners
are engaged in legitimate work. While the impact certainly varies because former
prisoners all differ with respect to their prior criminal activity, employment may
encourage an individual to desist from criminal activity. For an individual who is
embedded in a pattern of criminal behavior, it is unlikely that making one aspect of his
life more pro-social (i.e., work) will be sufficient to overcome long-term behavioral
patterns and pressures to persist with criminal activity. Yet former prisoners who are
engaged in lawful work after they have returned to the community are less likely to
commit new crimes, thereby enhancing public safety.
Because the link between employment and crime is complicated by other factors,
including housing, health care, and drug treatment, employment is only one component
of a multifaceted approach to assist returning prisoners. Holding a job is a signal that an
individual has made a commitment to change and to become involved in a more prosocial

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

4

lifestyle. Getting and holding a job requires a set of skills and attitudes—willingness to
follow a schedule, work well with colleagues or team members, and set long-term
goals—which are needed to succeed in a variety of activities and responsibilities in
society. Efforts to improve the employment outcomes of former prisoners should often be
supplemented by quality programming that addresses key areas of need and carefully
considers the timing and sequence of these interventions. As research has shown,
successful employment-related interventions that engage private-sector employers and
former prisoners benefit the former prisoner, his or her family and social networks,
communities, and society at large.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

5

THE LABOR MARKET CONTEXT

Examining the impact of America’s incarceration policies on the job prospects of
former prisoners requires a discussion of the labor market in which this population seeks
jobs. In 1997, the male labor force in the United States averaged more than 97.7 million. 1
In that same year, more than 1.1 million men were in the custody of state or federal
correctional authorities, representing 1.2 percent of the potential labor force in this
country (Gillard and Beck 1998; U.S. Department of Labor 2002). 2 While many of these
individuals were employed prior to their admission to prison, their removal from the
labor market while incarcerated, and the restrictions placed on them as a result of their
criminal histories, impact the nation’s economy. This impact has been estimated to
amount to an annual net loss in gross domestic product between $100 and $200 billion
(Freeman 1992).
There is a missed opportunity to expand the skill sets and employment prospects of
prisoners during incarceration. If individuals emerged from prison with fortified skill
sets, solid work experience, and connections to legitimate jobs at market wages—wholly
better prepared to be more productive than when they entered prison—the prospects for
positive outcomes in terms of earnings, family support, self-esteem, and recidivism could
be amplified. In this scenario, the experiences of prisoners during incarceration could
potentially offset the potential harms that a criminal record and limited skills might pose.
The country tends to focus, however, on the competition for jobs among unemployed
workers and not on the potential contributions returning prisoners could make to the
nation’s economy. Programs aimed at improving the employment prospects of prisoners
are sometimes met with concern that these individuals will displace other law-abiding
workers. Much like the opposition to migrant labor, a sector of society feels that returning
prisoners should not have access to jobs that would otherwise be available to residents
who have not spent time in prison.
Anticipated changes in the labor market will undoubtedly affect the employment
opportunities available to individuals released from prison. As discussed in this report,
the typical job for which a prisoner is prepared is a low-skill, blue collar, or
manufacturing job. However, globalization, technological advances, and migrant labor
have reduced the number of opportunities in these areas. The market has shifted toward
jobs in the service sector—child and elder care, customer service—jobs for which
individuals with criminal histories are less likely to be hired or may be legally barred. At
the same time, with the retirement of the baby boom generation, it is likely that the labor
market will tighten, unemployment rates will fall, and employers will need to develop
new sources of labor. Released prisoners could be one of them (Ellwood 2003).

1

The male labor force includes all non-institutional males age 16 and older.
An additional 498,678 were incarcerated in local jails. The total number of state and federal prisoners and local jail
inmates represents approximately 1.6 percent of the potential labor force (civilian and institutional populations).
2

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

6

The focus on former prisoner employment will occur in the context of an economy
that continues to change substantially. 3 The wage gap, or the difference in income
between workers at the bottom of the wage distribution and those at the top, may
continue to widen. Since 1970, earnings among men working full-time at the top of the
wage bracket increased 30 percent, while earnings among men working full-time at the
bottom of the wage bracket decreased 20 percent. Thus, given that former prisoners are
most likely to find jobs at the lower end of the wage bracket, there is reason for concern
that their ability to earn a living is limited.
While the U.S.-born workforce grew 44 percent over the past 20 years, it is not
projected to increase in size over the next 20 years. Unlike the baby boom generation that
was better educated and more highly skilled than previous ge nerations, the next
generation to move into the workforce will not bring an increasing share of workers with
education beyond high school, nor will the range of skills expand markedly. Thus, given
the growth in technology and the increasing number of high-skill occupations, employers
will experience shortages in skilled workers. This shift could potentially benefit former
prisoners, providing that they have participated in prison programs that develop skills
relative to those industry sectors projected to experience labor shortages.

3

This discussion of the economy draws heavily on David Ellwood’s presentation, “Where Is the Economy Headed over
Time and How Will the Prison Population Be Affected?” (2003).

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

7

FORMER PRISONER PROFILE

In addition to understanding the economy and job market to which prisoners return,
it is also important to discuss the characteristics and demographics of the prisoner
population in order to understand fully the nexus between work and reentry. Perhaps
most notable is the size of the current prisoner population, which, at the end of 2002,
reached an all-time high of 1.4 million people (Harrison and Beck 2003). This statistic
does not include the number of people who have ever been incarcerated, which is
estimated at approximately 5.6 million adult U.S. residents, or 1 in every 37 adults in the
country (Bonczar 2003). If current incarceration rates remain unchanged, about 1 in 3
black males, 1 in 6 Hispanic males, and 1 in 17 white males are expected to go to prison
during their lifetime. The vast majority of the people in prison in 2002 were male (94
percent), black or Hispanic (63 percent), and young (58 percent were age 18 to 34)
(Harrison and Beck 2003).
Education Profile

Prisoners have education levels far below the general population. The Bureau of
Justice Statistics reported that among those in state and federal prison in 1997,
approximately 40 percent had not completed high school or attained a GED, compared
with 18 percent of the general population over age 18 (Harlow 2003). Minorities had
lower rates of educational attainment than white inmates—44 percent of black inmates,
53 percent of Hispanic inmates, and 27 percent of white inmates had not completed high
school or attained a GED. Among males age 20 to 39, those in prison had markedly lower
academic achievement than their counterparts in the general population. Compared with
the general population, those in prison were approximately twice as likely not to have
completed high school or attained a GED. And four times the number of young males in
the general population had attended some college or post-secondary courses compared
with incarcerated males.
Although nearly all state, federal, and private prisons offer some type of educational
or vocational programming, resources have not kept pace with the increasing prison
population. Accordingly, only about half of the total inmate population receives
educational or vocational training, a proportion that has been decreasing over time
(Harlow 2003; Lynch and Sabol 2001). Courses typically offered through education
programs include GED, high school, college, and English as a second language classes.
Figure 1 illustrates the rates of participation in various programs by state and federal
prisoners. (Often rates of participation in programs are limited by the number of available
program slots.) Notably, only about one-third of prisoners receive vocational training
designed to improve their ability to obtain legitimate employment once released.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

8

Figure 1. Participation Rates in Educational Programs since Most Recent Admission, 1997
Type of program

State prisoners (%)

Federal prisoners (%)

(n = 1,046,136)

(n = 87,624)

Total Participating

51.9

56.4

Basic education

3.1

1.9

GED/high school

23.4

23.0

College courses

9.9

12.9

English as a second language

1.2

5.7

32.2

31.0

2.6

5.6

Vocational
Other
Source: Harlow (2003).

Note: Data may not add to total due to rounding or inmates’ participation in more than one educational program.

Prior Work Experience and Income

Prior work experience and income are also limited. According to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (Harlow 2003), between 21 and 38 percent of prisoners were
unemployed just prior to being incarcerated, depending on their level of educational
attainment (figure 2). 4 Between 57 and 76 percent of prisoners reported receiving income
from wages in the month prior to their arrest, with better-educated inmates more likely to
report this type of income. Other reported sources of income included family and friends,
various forms of government assistance, and illegal sources. Interestingly, the proportion
of inmates reporting illegal sources of income did not vary significantly by educational
attainment—better educated inmates were no less likely to report illegal earnings than
their counterparts who did not have a diploma or GED.

4

Official labor statistics exclude persons not looking for work from official unemployment statistics. For our purposes,
however, these individuals are included in the percentages of people who were not working prior to incarceration.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

9

Figure 2. Employment and Income in Month Prior to Admission for State Prisoners, 1997
(percent)
Education level of state prison inm ates
Less than HS

GED

HS Diploma

Postsecondary/
some college

Employment
Full-time
Part-time
Unemployed

47.7
14.8
37.5

56.4
11.9
31.7

63.8
11.3
24.9

69.9
9.0
21.0

Income source
Wages
Illegal sources
Family/friends
Transfer payments
Welfare
SSI or Social Security
Compensation payments
Investments
Other

57.1
23.3
19.8
18.4
11.0
7.4
1.5
0.5
1.4

64.4
32.3
20.8
12.7
7.8
3.8
2.1
1.4
2.1

70.7
24.4
15.9
14.1
7.7
5.3
2.5
1.6
2.6

75.9
25.9
12.1
14.8
7.5
5.4
3.6
7.7
6.9

Personal income
Less than $1,000
$1,000 to $1,999
$2,000 to $4,999
$5,000 or more

63.3
21.6
8.9
6.3

51.7
25.9
13.2
9.2

47.4
29.5
14.6
8.5

32.7
28.7
24.8
13.8

Homeless in year prior to admission

11.6

10.6

10.0

8.2

Source: Harlow (2003).
Note: Data may not add to total due to rounding or inmates having more than one income source.

Between one-third and two-thirds of inmates reported personal income of less than
$1,000 in the month prior to their arrest. Even at the higher end of the education scale
(i.e., those with some education beyond high school), only 39 percent reported income
above $2,000 per month, and only 15 percent of those who did not have a diploma or
GED reported earnings at this level. Thus, not only are prisoners less educated than their
same-age counterparts in the general population, they also report high rates of
unemployment, dependence on sources of illegal earnings, and relatively low monthly
earnings.
Physical Health, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse Issues

The challenges posed by mental health conditions, physical ailments, and substance
abuse problems also complicate the employment issues of prisoners. As shown in figure
3, a significant proportion of state prisoners have serious medical, mental health, and
substance abuse problems that may limit their readiness or ability to participate in the

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

10

labor market. In most cases, the prevalence of these problems significantly exceeds that
found among the general U.S. population, particularly with regard to communicable
diseases such as HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis B and C, and tuberculosis (Hammett, Roberts, and
Kennedy 2001). Substance use is also widely prevalent among the prison population.
While not always signifying an addiction, chronic substance use often leads to problems
maintaining a job and can interfere with participation in productive, prosocial activities.

Figure 3. Proportion of State Prison Inmates with Medical, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse
Problems.
Type of problem

Proportion (%)

Medical (a)
Some physical impairment or mental condition

31

Condition that limits ability to work

21

HIV+ (b)

2

Confirmed AIDS cases (b)

0.5

Mental Health (c)
Reported mental illness or emotional condition

10

Ever had overnight stay in psychiatric hospital

11

Taken prescribed medication for emotional problem

19

Received professional counseling for emotional problem

22

Substance Use (d)
Regular drug use ever prior to incarceration

70

Drug use in month before arrest

57

Drug use at time of offense

33

Alcohol use at time of offense

37

Sources: (a) Maruschak and Beck 2001. (b) Maruschak 2003. (c) Ditton 1999. (d) Mumola 1999.

Research has shown that inmates who participate in treatment programs for
substance abuse are less likely to reoffend upon their release, as compared with inmates
who do not participate (Gaes et al. 1999). Despite these results, and the sizable number of
offenders with substance abuse issues, only a small—and declining—portion of inmates
receive alcohol and drug treatment during incarceration (figure 4). In 1997, 10 percent of
state prisoners and 9 percent of federal prisoners reported participating in formal
treatment (e.g., residential programs, professional counseling, or detoxification) since
their admission to prison, compared with 25 percent and 16 percent, respectively, in 1991
(Mumola 1999). Thus it is clear that any effort to improve the employment outcomes of
former prisoners will also need to address the medical, mental health, and substance
abuse issues that can interfere with the ability to obtain and maintain a job.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

11

Figure 4. Program Participation among State Prison Inmates since Admission
Type of program

Participation (%)

Mental health counseling from trained professional (a)

13%

Substance abuse treatment (b)

10%

Self-help group, peer counseling, drug education (b)

20%

Sources: (a) Maruschak and Beck 2001. (b) Mumola 1999.

Length of Stay in Prison

Today’s inmates are spending a longer period behind bars than their counterparts as
recently as 10 years ago. Among inmates released from prison in 1999, the average time
served in prison for the current offense was 29 months, compared with 22 months served
by those released from prison in 1990 (Hughes, Wilson, and Beck 2001). Further, the
proportion of soon-to-be-released inmates who reported serving more than five years
nearly doubled, increasing from 13 percent in 1991 to 21 percent in 1997 (Lynch and
Sabol 2001). These longer periods of incarceration are likely problematic for persons
seeking employment after release, since time spent in prison is time spent away from
potential contacts and job networks, and is time during which job skills, work habits, and
current technical knowledge are likely to erode. Research has shown that after being
incarcerated for long periods of time, former prisoners indeed have lost many of their
networks or contacts that could help them find a job (Hagan and Dinovitzer 1999). Time
in prison may also have strengthened ties to antisocial peer groups, and as a consequence,
restricted awareness of or access to legitimate work opportunities.
Limited Job Prospects

Given this profile, it appears that the job prospects for former prisoners are limited at
best. 5 Individuals with little work experience and low levels of education face difficulty
in the job market, which is compounded by a mismatch between employer expectations
and former prisoners’ qualifications, and employer preferences for workers without
criminal histories.
Employment outcomes of former prisoners are hindered by a disconnect between the
expectations and attitudes of employers and the characteristics and circumstances of the
typical former prisoner. Most (95 percent) unskilled jobs require a high school diploma or
some work experience (Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2003b). Yet employers’ expectations
seem inconsistent with former prisoners’ qualifications, as a large portion of former
prisoners do not have a high school diploma (40 percent), were unemployed prior to

5

This section draws heavily on the following Roundtable papers: Freeman (2003), available at
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410857, and Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll (2003b), available at
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410855.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

12

incarceration (20 to 40 percent), and have persistent health and mental health concerns
(10 to 22 percent) that contribute to their failure to report to work.
In addition, some former prisoners also make choices that further limit their
employment outcomes. For a variety of reasons, including low pay, few benefits, and the
lack of job advancement afforded by many jobs, many former prisoners choose illegal
opportunities or more informal work arrangements. Jobs with few tangible rewards also
do not engender a sense of commitment and are likely to be viewed as temporary.
Moving from job to job does little to remediate the spotty work history of many former
prisoners, and feeds into employers’ reluctance to hire individuals who may move on to
another position after only a few months.
Communities that receive large concentrations of released prisoners are already
struggling with high rates of unemployment and poverty and a dearth of available jobs.
The disparity between the residences of returning offenders and the location of skillappropriate jobs has been termed a “spatial mismatch.” Increased numbers of prisoners
are released to large metropolitan areas that have lost a share of the labor market to
outlying suburbs (Brennan and Hill 1999). For example, over a 20-year period ending in
the mid-1990s, employment opportunities in the outlying suburbs of Cleveland grew by
121 percent, compared with only 2 percent within the city of Cleveland (Lynch and Sabol
2001). In addition, the proportion of relatively low-skill but higher-wage jobs (e.g.,
manufacturing) declined from 30 to 15 percent of all employment (Bania, Coulton, and
Leete 2000). Many of these urban areas also absorbed large numbers of workers leaving
welfare, who have similar levels of education and prior work experience, and therefore
may compete with former prisoners for the available jobs.
Further, surveys of potential employers have documented reluctance to hire workers
with criminal records. More specifically (Holzer et al. 2003b) reported that:
§

Employers were least likely to hire former prisoners compared with other
disadvantaged groups, such as welfare recipients;

§

Employers were more likely to hire former prisoners for construction and
manufacturing jobs than those in the retail or service sectors, which
required significant contact with customers;

§

Employers’ attitudes varied depending on the offense committed by the
former prisoner and whether any relevant work experience had been
acquired since release. Employers were most reluctant to hire individuals
convicted of violent crimes, and were more willing to hire low-level drug
offenders; and

§

The practice of conducting a criminal background check was far from
universal, but is more prevalent now than in the past decade.

One’s status as a former prisoner causes concern among potential employers for
several reasons. First, there are a number of occupations in which state or federal law

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

13

bars a person with a felony conviction from holding them, such as those caring for
children, certain health services, private security firms, real estate, and virtually all law
enforcement and other criminal justice positions. Second, employers can be held liable
for damage incurred as a result of exposing other employees and the public to the
potentially dangerous situation created by hiring an individual with a criminal record.
Recently, employers have lost 72 percent of negligent hiring cases, holding them
responsible for the loss, pain, and suffering of victims at an average of $1.6 million
(Connerley, Arvey, and Bernardy 2001). With the danger of a lawsuit and the historical
record of judgments against employers, some employers have decided that hiring former
prisoners is simply not worth the risk.
In addition, some employers further discriminate against a large number of former
prisoners because of their race or other minority status. A recent study sent pairs of
individuals to apply for the same entry- level job. One applicant had a criminal record,
while the other did not. The study found that applicants with criminal records
experienced a 50 percent reduction in job offers compared to those without (Pager
2003.The study’s findings also indicated that the presence of a criminal history further
compounds racial bias—African-American applicants with criminal records experienced
a 64 percent reduction in job offers (Pager 2003).
These individual challenges, legal barriers, and societal biases restrict the job market
for former prisoners. Meanwhile, information on how well former prisoners fare in this
job market is sparse. One study estimated the employment rates among young men who
had previously been incarcerated to be approximately 20 to 25 percentage points lower
than those of their non–criminal justice involved counterparts (Freeman 1992). A study
of California parolees found that only 21 percent had a full-time job, 9 percent had
“casual” jobs, and 70 percent were unemployed (California Department of Corrections
1997). Another small-scale study found that while one-third of released prisoners in New
York City found a job in the mainstream labor market within 30 days of release, most of
these individuals were hired by former employers or received help in their job search
from family and friends. Very few found jobs on their own or through the assistance of
an employment program for former prisoners (Nelson, Deess, and Allen 1999).
Furthermore, even after they enter the job market, former prisoners often earn less than
other workers with comparable demographics (Freeman 1999; Western 2002).
Thus, America’s criminal justice policies have a significant impact on the job
prospects of a large segment of the population. Despite the discouraging picture that
emerges from the profile of former prisoners and the restricted opportunities of the labor
market, there is reason to be optimistic. The nation’s correctional system has a long
history of providing work opportunities and work readiness programs that, when
combined with transitional work programs after release, lay the foundation for real job
opportunities upon release.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

14

WORK EXPERIENCE WHILE IN PRISON
Historical Context

Throughout American corrections history, the experience of prison has been
intertwined with work. Inmate labor was introduced to prisons in 1682, when
Pennsylvania declared, “All prisons shall be work-houses” (Garvey 1998). According to
the Quakers, who created the American penitentiary, work was integral to the reformative
process. With the expansion of prisons in the early 19th century, inmate labor was seen as
cheap labor that could be sold to private firms, which would then sell the goods on the
open market. 6 While this system of contract labor had become dominant throughout the
country, by the end of the 19th century, a collaborative movement brought this system to
an end; Congress restricted the sale of prison- made goods, thereby limiting inmate labor
to producing goods used by the states.
In 1934, Congress authorized the Federal Prison Industries (FPI) to develop industry
programs much like those in state prisons within the
federal prison system. These programs were Federal Prison Industries
implemented with the principal goal of generating In 2001, the FPI’s gross sales amounted
revenues that would offset the costs of incarceration to $583 million, although it profited only
$4 million—an improvement from a $12.8
and contribute to the payment of restitution, child million loss in 2000. Some suggest the
program’s focus on low -wage jobs, which
support, and funds for crime victims. The goods and
aims to maximize the number of inmates
services federal inmates produced through these who can be employed, contributes to low
profits (Atkinson and Rostad 2003).
programs were—and still are today—sold to federal Inmate wages are very low, averaging
agencies, which are mandated to purchase a portion of $0.23 to $1.15 per hour.
their required goods from the FPI. (Federal Prison
Industries 1996)
Several decades later, in an effort to loosen the
restrictions Congress had imposed on state prisonmade goods, Congress passed the Justice System
Improvement Act in 1979, which created the Prison
Industry Enhancement (PIE) program. The PIE
program effectively encouraged state prison systems to
develop partnerships with private companies to
produce goods using inmate labor. The underlying
goal was to create employment opportunities for
prisoners that approximated private-sector work
opportunities.

6

Prison Industry Enhancement
In 2002, the PIE program included 188
partnerships with private companies and
employed only 3,734 inmates, or less
than three-tenths of 1 percent of the total
prison population (Enterprise Prison
Institute 2002; National Correctional
Industries Assoc iation 2003]). While
many states are moving toward
expanding the role of private companies
in state prisons, the pace has been slow
and the targeted employment rates are
conservative. Recent PIE assessments
suggest that this is in part because
programs struggle paying inmates wages
that are comparable to those of civilian
workers in similar industries (Auerbach
2001).

Further discussion of this history can be found in Travis (forthcoming).

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

15

Work Assignments in Prison

Today, while only a small share of inmates obtain employment through the FPI or
the PIE program, nearly half of the state inmate population and almost all of the federal
inmate population have some sort of work assignment while incarcerated (figure 5). And
yet for the most part, these jobs do not always provide work experience that appeals to
employers on the outside.

Figure 5. Inmate Work Assignments in State and Federal Prisons, 2000
Percentage
of eligible
population

State
General work

Federala

Percentage of
eligible
population

Percentage
of eligible
population

Total

394,599

39.4

77,785

78.3

472,384

43.1

Farm work

29,920

3.0

150

0.2

30,070

2.7

Traditional
industries

52,708

5.3

21,404

21.5

77,643

7.1

PIE program

3,531

0.3

~

~

3,531

0.3

Total work
assignments

480,758

Total eligible
population
Percentage of
eligible
population with
work
assignments
Total population

99,339

1,000,851

94,143

48
1,091,788

580,097

1,094,991

100
117,949

53
1,209,737

Source: Adapted from Corrections Yearbook 2000.
Notes: Data exclude 90,940 state inmates and 23,806 federal inmates who are considered under restrictive status. These
inmates are not eligible for work assignments.
a

All federal inmates are required to have a work assignment.

In 2000, there were approximately 1.1 million state and federal inmates eligible to
work (i.e., not on security- or medical-restricted status). Of these, 53 percent had a work
assignment—43 percent were assigned to general institutional maintenance, 7 percent to
traditional industries programs, and 3 percent to farming or agricultural work. Clearly,
general institutional maintenance jobs, such as janitoria l and laundry labor, remain the
dominant form of work in state prisons.
The few inmates who are assigned to industry work in state prisons (7 percent)
primarily hold jobs in traditional prison industries, which include garment assembly,

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

16

furniture, license plates, metal fabrication, printing, agriculture, and janitorial labor.
These jobs are more prevalent in federal prisons, where approximately 31 percent of jobs
are in the clothing and textile industries, 24 percent in office furniture, and 15 percent in
electronics (U.S. Department of Justice 2002). While many work assignments aid the
operation of prisons and employ inmates, they do not always add to an inmate’s
repertoire of marketable skills. However, the work experience itself, which involves
showing up on time, working well in a team setting, and responding to supervisors, has
inherent value for prisoners once they are released, as they will need to demonstrate to
private-sector employers that they possess the attributes of a good employee.
Benefits of Allowing Inmates to Work

At the most basic level, allowing inmates to work reduces inmate idleness and
fosters a sense of productivity among prisoners. 7 Employment of any sort—from
institutional maintenance to industry programs—is beneficial from this perspective.
Inmate labor, particularly a prison industries program, also has the potential to contribute
positively to the operation of prisons, the development of inmates’ skills, and the ability
of businesses to access a large labor pool. Full implementation of a prison industries
program could also provide significant cost-savings in the operating budget of the
criminal justice system.
Research has suggested that prison labor programs offer prison administrators an
effective management tool, and can lead to reductions in misconduct, violence, and
disturbances among the prisoner population. In one study, conducted by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, inmates in prison industry programs were less likely to be involved in
institutional misconduct (Saylor and Gaes 1992). Since the passage of a 1995 voter
referendum requiring state prisoners to work 40 hours per week, the Oregon Department
of Corrections has reported a 60 percent reduction in major disciplinary reports (as a
disciplinary report can result in expulsion from popular work assignments) (Butterfield
2001).
Work programs also benefit inmates, who have the opportunity to develop jobspecific skills and workplace habits while incarcerated, thereby addressing deficits in
their pre-prison employment histories. Wages earned from prison-based employment may
enable inmates to contribute financially to their families at home. The ability to make
such contributions and participate in a productive environment may benefit inmates
emotionally and psychologically. Further, research has shown that inmates involved in
employment programs are less likely to be rearrested upon release and more likely to
obtain employment in the period following their release from prison (Canestrini 1993;
Lattimore, Witte, and Baker 1990; Saylor and Gaes 1992, 1999). A meta-analysis of
corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs found that program
participants recidivate at a lower rate and are employed at a higher rate than non7

This section draws heavily on the following paper: Atkinson and Rostad 2003. Available at
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410854 .

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

17

participants (Wilson, Gallagher, and MacKenzie 2000). In fact, the analysis suggested
that program participants are twice as likely to find employment after release than nonparticipants.
The private businesses that sustain prison industry partnerships also stand to reap
benefits from these arrangements. A recent survey of inmate employers found that the
quality of the prisoner workforce was the principal factor that sustained business-prison
partnerships (Enterprise Prison Institute 2002). In addition, employers reported that
prison industry programs provided valuable training in areas including teamwork,
dependability, communication skills, and general job readiness.
While research suggests that prison industry programs show promise for prison
administrators, inmates, and key stakeholders, the concerns of workers who might be
displaced by the inmate population have disproportionately influenced important
discussions on the expansion of prison industry programs.
Barriers to Implementing Prison-Based Work Programs

Although prison industries got their start producing goods for private companies,
organized labor and businesses have raised concerns about unfair competition, worker
displacement, and the propriety of providing jobs to prisoners in periods of high national
unemployment. Opposition from a number of different sectors—labor, business,
prisoners’ rights advocates—has led to an impasse in which the full potential of prison
work programs has yet to be achieved. Concerns that bringing these programs to scale
could result in a loss of private-sector jobs and contracts stymied the full implementation
of the FPI and PIE programs. Legislative restrictions, including limits on the marketing
and sale of prison- made goods, prerequisites for consulting local businesses, and
admonitions that local economies and wo rkers not be adversely affected, have presented
challenges to the programs’ success.
In addition to the constraints that policies and procedures place on prison industries,
logistical barriers also prevent prison work programs from being implemented on a
national scale (Piehl 2003). Oregon provides a case study of the challenges that surround
implementing inmate work programs. In 1994, Oregon voters passed the Prison Reform
and Inmate Work Act, commonly known as Ballot Measure 17. This measure required all
inmates to be involved in full-time work or on-the-job training. Certain categories of
inmates were excluded from this requirement—those in intake, or in security or medical
segregation. In practice, an activity counts toward the 40-hour work requirement if it
involves work, education, training, or substance abuse treatment, although no more than
half of the time can be spent in an activity other than work. Key barriers to
implementation included the following:
§

A lack of space to employ all inmates on site and insufficient funds to cover
associated costs;

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

18

§

Insufficient private partnerships to provide meaningful work to all inmates;

§

Opposition from local businesses and residents that found themselves
competing with the DOC for contracts and jobs; and

§

Inconsistency between state requirements and federal PIE certification
requirements that restrict the potential for interstate commerce (Pens 1998).

In the eight years since Measure 17 was implemented, the state has overcome many
of these challenges. Oregon Correctional Enterprises operates production shops in
embroidery, farm fabrication, furnishings, GIS data conversion, graphic design, laundry,
metal fabrication, signage, and telecommunications, among others. Outside work crews
are used by many public agencies, including the Department of Transportation, the Food
Bank, fire departments, parks departments, and forest services.
In addition to the challenges that the Oregon example highlights, the clashes that
arise from the combination of a system focused on control (prisons) and an
entrepreneurial system focused on leveraging market opportunities (private businesses)
can also be discouraging (Atkinson and Rostad 2003). A survey of inmate employers
found that their experiences with the prison environment and its bureaucracy were the
primary sources of their dissatisfaction (Enterprise Prison Institute 2002). Often the
operational requirements of prisons can affect industry program goals and objectives.
While many issues must be resolved before these programs can be brought to scale,
in the meantime a large proportion of the state and federal prison population remains idle
and without the opportunity to gain the skills or basic work experience that might
enhance their likelihood of obtaining gainful employment once released. As the costs of
imprisonment continue to increase, the labor resources available in U.S. prisons are not
being fully tapped.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

19

WORK ON THE OUTSIDE

In previous sections, the monograph explored
the labor market to which former prisoners return,
as well as the limits placed on their job prospects.
And the last section highlighted the lack of
opportunities
for
prisoners
during
the
incarceration period. Now the discussion shifts to
the realities of finding work upon release,
focusing largely on programs already noteworthy
for successfully placing former prisoners into
jobs.
The period immediately following release
from prison is challenging. Returning prisoners
need to find housing, secure health care, and
reconnect with families. Finding work—earning
income—is critical. According to an exploratory
study of 49 individuals leaving prison in New
York State, “the number one concern for most of
the people in the study was landing a job.
Throughout the first month after release from
prison, people consistently
were
more
preoccupied with finding work than avoiding
drugs and other illegal activity or staying in good
health” (Nelson et al. 1999).

After Prison: Roadblocks To
Reentry
A Report on State Legal Barriers
Facing People with Criminal
Records
This recent report by the National HIRE
Network documents the legal barriers that
former prisoners face upon their return to free
society. The report is organized in three
sections, first cataloguing each state’s legal
obstacles to employment, housing, benefits,
voting, access to criminal records, parenting,
and driving. Next, the “Report Card” grades
each state based on the extent to which state
policies help or hinder the reentry process. And
finally the report presents state and federal
policy recommendations that might improve the
reintegration process for former prisoners.
Among its findings, the report indicates that
over the past 20 years, Congress and state
legislators have imposed new restrictions on
eligibility for public benefits, student loans, and
drivers’ licenses. Specifically, most states
permit
employer
discrimination
against
individuals with criminal histories, restrict a
former prisoner’s right to vote, and impede a
former prisoner’s eligibility determinations for
public assistance and food stamps.
The report is available at the National HIRE
Network’s website http://www.hirenetwork.org.

In addition to the challenges already cited, a general reluctance among employers to
hire individuals with criminal records also hinders a former prisoner’s job search. At the
same time, recent evidence from employer surveys suggests that employers may be
encouraged to hire former prisoners under the right circumstances, particularly in cases
where the potential employee was convicted of a nonviolent or drug-related offense and
has been drug- free and gained work experience after incarceration (Holzer et al. 2003a).
Further, employers express a greater willingness to hire former prisoners when there is a
third party intermediary agency that will provide ongoing support (Welfare to Work
Partnership 2000b). Intermediary agencies provide frequent and direct contact with the
individual, on-going contact with the employer, and collateral contacts with the former
prisoners’ families. Some agencies also provide drug testing, referrals for social services,
and resources for concrete supports, such as transportation, child care, clothing, and food,
so that problems in these areas do not interfere with the individual’s ability to continue
working (see sidebar).

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

20

Key Elements of Focus for Post-release
Intermediary Agencies
•

Provide in-custody access to counseling, training, education, vocational programs, and jobs to remediate
existing deficits in these areas.

•

Prepare for release by assembling needed documents (social security cards, copies of GED or high school
diplomas, transcripts, vocational training certificates, etc.), polishing interview skills, and providing guidance
on how to present criminal justice history and instruction on how to use job search resources.

•

Focus on motivation, envisioning new roles and self-concepts, identifying signals of readiness that can be
used to demonstrate commitment to a job, and nurturing the commitment to change.

•

Provide for a gradual transition from the “total institution” structure of the prison environment to an open
schedule that depends on self-direction and self -discipline.

•

Offer support during critical days following release and immediate access to income.

•

Attend to compatibility between former prisoners’ temperament and skills and the requirements of available
jobs.

•

Supplement criminal justice supervision with nonpunitive, problem-solving assistance.

•

Develop resources for concrete supports such as transportation, interview clothes and work clothes, child
care, housing, and food.

•

Create a well-developed network of potential employers in a diversity of job markets; emphasize those that
are convenient to former prisoners’ places of residence and easily accessible by public transportation.

•

Cultivate employer satisfaction through frequent contact and willingness to mediate conflicts and solve
problems related to the offender’s ability to report to work consistently and on time, to work as a team, to
take direction and constructive criticism, etc.

•

Coordinate job and criminal justice commitments to minimize interference with job responsibilities while
maintaining the benefits of supervision.

•

Focus on job retention so that ex-offenders build a solid work history that can be used to attract future
opportunities.

Source: Drawn primarily from Finn (1997, 1998a, and 1998b), published as part of a collaborative effort by the
National Institute of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of
Correctional Education.

Post-prison Employment Programs

Programs designed to increase sound job prospects for returning prisoners approach
this task from both supply and demand perspectives (Bushway and Reuter 1999). Supplyside issues revolve around increasing the attractiveness of former prisoners to potential
employers by (1) improving former prisoners’ self-presentation skills through interview
rehearsals and resume preparation, (2) enhancing their potential productivity through
specific-skill building programs or job training, (3) increasing their reliability through job
readiness programs and apprenticeship arrangements, and (4) alleviating some of the
logistical challenges that interfere with the ability to hold a job through the provision of
concrete supports such as transportation, child care, and housing assistance.
Demand-side issues revolve around reducing the costs, both tangible and intangible,
absorbed by employers hiring former prisoners. These can include screening potential
employees to ensure suitability, providing supervision and case management of
employees, and leveraging wage supplements or subsidized bonds.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

21

Effective programs in this area typically
provide intensive job placement services,
combined with ongoing monitoring to intervene
and assist with problems that could jeopardize
former prisoner’s placement. In addition, these
programs rely on an extensive network of
employers who have demonstrated their
willingness to hire former prisoners.
It is important to note that employment
programs for former prisoners are few and far
between. While there are a number of
employment placement and training programs—
such
as
One-Stop
centers—operating
throughout the country, they have not
historically focused on former prisoners
(although they typically accept them).
Nonetheless, valuable lessons can be learned
from other efforts to employ hard-to-employ
populations, such as former welfare recipients
(see sidebar). In addition, several specialized
programs have demonstrated success in linking
former prisoners to jobs, among them are the
Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) in
New York City, Safer Foundation in Chicago,
and Re-Integration of Offenders Program
(Project RIO) in Texas.
Unfortunately, the geographic limitations
and capacity restrictions of such programs
cannot begin to accommodate the level of need
generated by the 630,000 prisoners released to
society each year. However, collectively, they
offer insight to critical dimensions of successful
strategies targeting the employment challenges
for prisoners reentering the community and can
be useful to the efforts to bring such programs
to scale.
The CEO program offers a unique focus on
two key reentry needs: immediate support
during the critical days following release and
immediate access to income. An important
dimension of The Safer Foundation is the

Learning from Welfare to Work
The welfare population shares many similarities
with the former prisoner population: low
educational attainment, sporadic work histories,
mental health and medical issues—persons
generally considered “hard to employ.” However,
welfare reform has helped many of these
individuals find work—about two-thirds of people
receiving welfare assistance find work within one
year (Carroll 2003).
In the seven years since the major reforms were
made, a number of important issues have
surfaced.
There is much debate about which components of
work programs should have precedence. The
“work first” principal holds than moving people
quickly
into
jobs—from
dependence
to
independence—should be the priority (Cove
2003). However, there is also evidence that
ensuring that workers are adequately trained and
prepared to enter the workforce can enhance
employer satisfaction and improve job retention
rates (Welfare to Work Partnership 2000). Clearly,
there must be a balance between these two
goals.
Job retention—as well as job placement—
warrants attention. Between 60 and 65 percent of
the Welfare to Work Partnership employers find
that their welfare hires remain on the job at least
as long as their non-welfare hires (Welfare to
Work Partnership 2000a). Reducing employee
turnover is a priority for employers, and
intermediary agencies should focus on preparing
workers to stay on the job.
Transportation and child care are major issues
that require additional federal, state, or local
support to ensure they do not interfere with
employment goals (Welfare to Work Partnership
2000a).
While a number of financial incentives are
available (e.g., bonding, tax credits), they do not
generally change employers’ hiring habits (Cove
2003). They tend to serve as “icing on the cake”
for employers who are already willing to hire hardto-employ populations, but are not powerful
incentives for those who have indicated their
resistance.
A number of organizations have tracked the
success of the Welfare-to-Work initiative and have
created useful documents that can guide efforts to
bring former prisoners into the workforce (Welfare
to Work Partnership 2000a). Among these are
documents outlining important legislation that
could be passed to further support the movement
of welfare-dependent individuals into the
workforce and guides for employers containing
solutions to common challenges associated with
hiring former welfare recipients, such as child
care, health care, mentoring, substance abuse,
and personal financial responsibility.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

22

emphasis it places on job retention: holding onto a job for a significant period of time
signals commitment, discipline, and responsibility—characteristics that employers highly
value. A great contributor to the demonstrated success of Project RIO is the central
position of a well-established, highly respected employment agency with access to a large
network of potential employers and existing infrastructure for statewide coverage. Each
of these programs supplies a transitional experience for its clients—in the form of job
placement assistance beginning in prison and continuing after release, or in the form of a
subsidized work experience that relieves former prisoners of the immediate stressors of
income and structure.
The Center for Employment Opportunities
The Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) in New York City provides immediate transitional employment
services for parolees (including individuals released form a shock incarceration or boot camp program), probationers,
or sentenced inmates released from local jails. The long-term goal of the program is the placement of former prisoners
in permanent, full-time, unsubsidized positions paying above the minimum wage and providing a solid benefit package.
Participants undergo job readiness and job interview training in order to put returning prisoners to work immediately. In
addition, they are also assessed for needed support services such as housing, clothing, child care, and documentation
(e.g., birth certificate, driver’s license, etc.). In addition to the supported work component, all participants meet weekly
with an employment specialist, and once placed, they are monitored for up to one year. Within two to three months, 60
percent of participants are placed in permanent jobs.
Source: Finn 1998a.
Note: This section also draws on correspondence with Mindy Tarlow, Director of The Center for Employment
Opportunities, on August 26, 2004.

The Safer Foundation
As the nation’s largest community-based provider of employment services to former prisoners, Chicago’s Safer
Foundation provides both prison-based and reentry services to offenders and ex -offender in the Chicago or Quad
Cities area of Illinois and Iowa. The Safer Foundation works with the Illinois Department of Correction to provide
reentry services to offenders housed in two adult transition centers (ATCs) and the Sheridan Correctional Facility.
While in custody, prisoners attend basic education and life skills classes. Post-release services also include basic skills
classes, as well as intensive job placement assistance from employment specialists. Once the client has been placed,
employment specialists follow up with the participant and the employer for 30 days. After this initial period, specialized
case managers provide assistance with any emerging problems over a one-year period.
Of particular note is the Safer Foundation’s emphasis on job retention. The definition of “job placement” requires a
minimum of 30 days on the job. More than 40 percent of the Safer Foundation’s clients remain employed after six
months.
Source: Finn 1998b.

Project Reintegration of Offenders
Texas’s Project Reintegration of Offender (RIO) is operated through the state’s employment agency, the Texas
Workforce Commission. Clients are identified through state prison schools and parole officers. Assessment specialists
develop an employment plan that reflects available jobs and occupation demands in the community to which the
prisoner will be released, with a major emphasis placed on helping prisoners secure the various forms of
documentation required for employment. An employability and life skills program, supported by a series of seven
workbooks, helps prepare inmates for their job search. RIO stays involved with its clients during their entire period of
supervision, although the intensity diminishes as their situations stabilize. At the outset, employment specialists also
make contact with employers by phone at 30, 60, and 90-day intervals.
Source: Finn 1997.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

23

Additional Factors Influencing Employment Opportunities

While prison-to-work programs likely contribute to improved employment outcomes
for returning prisoners, there is also an array of factors that can complicate the search
process and job retention for this population. While some issues, such as job placement
and training, can be addressed with transition-oriented programming, other issues, such
as cond itions of parole or other supervising agency, may hinder employment. Further, the
current economy and local labor market can also influence a returning prisoner’s
employment outcomes.
Parole Conditions

Today, individuals on probation or parole represent nearly 71 percent of all persons
under correctional supervision (Glaze 2002). And over 80 percent of those who leave
prison are placed on parole. Yet prisoners, even those who were employed while in
prison, are often released to a supervising agency that provides little or no assistance with
job placement. In addition, other conditions of parole, such as curfews and parole officer
meetings, may interrupt a parolee’s work schedule, presenting challenges for job
attendance, punctuality, and performance. Meeting these potentially incongruent
conditions of parole potentially jeopardizes long-term employment.
Motivation

Researchers and practitioners agree that a necessary first step in the process of
desistance is a conscious decision to refrain from criminal activity. 8 Once this decision is
made, the individual then must learn new skills and must be open to taking on new roles
and self-concepts, such as that of an employee. This suggests that employment programs
will be helpful only to those former prisoners who are motivated to turn their lives
around. In this way, employment indicates a fundamental change, but is not the agent of
that change.
Therefore, the positive results demonstrated by successful programs may be due to
the voluntary nature of program participation by individuals who have already harnessed
the motivation to end their criminal careers. If this is true, the real potential of
employment programs for former prisoners lies in their ability to work with those ready
to change, and, importantly, to motivate individuals to change their lives, using training,
new skills, and jobs as tools toward this end. Employment may do this by giving former
prisoners new self- images—rather than offenders, they are breadwinners, valued
employees, and contributors to the local and national economies. Regardless, the personal
motivations of former prisoners play a noteworthy role in individual outcomes and
program evaluations.

8

This section draws heavily on the work of Bushway (2003), available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410853.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

24

Job Retention

Even for those former prisoners who do find employment, job retention can still be
an issue. While job placement statistics among many post-prison programs are
impressive, statistics on job retention are less so. Take the case of CEO in New York
City, which documented a job retention rate among those originally placed at 75 percent
after one month. This proportion dropped to 60 percent after three months. After six
months, only 38 percent of program participants held the same positions. These results
are not encouraging given that among the key challenges of this population is the lack of
commitment to employers over a significant period of time. This commitment is one of
the key qualities that employers seek. From this perspective, former prisoners can
increase their chances of long-term success by getting and keeping one job for an
extended period of time (Bushway 2003).
Case Management

Case management plays a central role among successful employment programs for
former prisoners—from pre-placement guidance, support during placement, and
continuing supervision for a substantial period after the client obtains a job. Whether by
phone, in-person, or during the course of a home visit, case managers and employment
specialists monitor their clients’ progress and offer assistance with issues such as the
need for transportation or child care, substance abuse treatment, adjustment to imposed
schedules, conflict management, and resolution of scheduling conflicts between job
responsibilities and conditions of parole or post-prison supervision. All of these issues
potentially distract former prisoners from their commitments to their jobs, and if left
unattended will likely disrupt the stability gained from obtaining employment.
Case management also benefits former prisoners because it increases the pool of
participating employers. Not only does pre-employment interaction provide an
opportunity to screen clients for job readiness, it also increases the likelihood for a
successful match between the individual and the demands of a particular job. The
connection of intermediary agencies, like CEO, RIO, and the Safer Foundation, to local
criminal justice agencies means that while the employers do not have to concern
themselves with these issues, they have direct access to intermediaries when concerns
arise. Finally, because a satisfied employer will be more likely to hire future program
clients, efforts to ensure their comfort with the arrangement, responsiveness to their
concerns, and the ability to mediate and resolve logistical or interpersonal conflicts is
essential to the ongoing success of the program.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

25

LOOKING FORWARD

The threads of a new vision for the transition from prison to work are present in what
we know about the employment-related needs of prisoners, the current opportunities and
restrictions on work in prisons, the concerns of potential employers, and the essential
elements of the handful of programs that have shown promising post-release employment
outcomes. The challenge remains to weave these threads together into an integrated
whole—one that maximizes the opportunities for learning, experience, and skill-building
that are present during incarceration, and one that features a seamless transition to work
beyond the prison walls.
As we know from the array of reentry strategies that have been implemented to date,
the prison-to-work trajectory should have its foundation within the prison walls, should
provide for transition to the community, and should include a plan for the long-term
maintenance of any progress made. Current knowledge of the economy, the labor market,
and the expectations of employers should also inform a strategy to prepare former
prisoners to succeed within the local labor market.
Enhance Work Opportunities Inside Prison

Providing prisoners with marketable work opportunities and employment-related
programming more effectively uses the incarceration period. The prison term is an
opportunity to address deficiencies with respect to education, technical and vocational
skills, and employment history. If these issues are dealt with while the prisoner is still on
the inside, then he or she will be better prepared and more likely to secure gainful
employment on the outside.
Enhancing the quantity and quality of work opportunities available in prison also
requires a policy agenda that assigns priority to prison employment. A legislative
mandate for inmate employment would realign the traditional goals of the prison system
to be more compatible with the broader societal goal of improved reentry. If work in
prison was assigned a greater heuristic purpose and job opportunities were structured to
provide more marketable experience, post-release employment outcomes would likely be
improved. By contrast, employing large numbers of prisoners to general institutional
maintenance jobs, which do not necessarily help prisoners develop useful job skills, does
not necessarily meet broader goals of improved reentry and enhanced public safety.
In considering ways to improve work opportunities for prisoners, it is clear that
federal legislation regarding prison industries deserves attention. Employment offerings
in the federal prison system should be realigned to focus on higher-skill industry sectors.
In this way, inmates can learn skills that will be marketable to local businesses upon
release. In addition, the PIE could also be greatly improved; unless the program is
expanded to serve beyond 0.3 percent of the state prisoner population, which it does
currently, it is virtually ineffective. Modifications to federal legislation that would

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

26

enhance and increase the partnerships between private companies and state prisons would
help the PIE realize its potential. For example, if federal restrictions on the interstate
transportation of goods produced in state prisons are removed, partnerships with state
prisons are much more attractive to private companies. In addition, greater cooperation
from prison administrators, which could be encouraged by creating a range of incentives
based on the goal of full employment, would also support these partnerships.
Expand Work Opportunities Outside Prison

In addition to creating opportunities within the prison walls that prepare inmates for
gainful employment once released, structured mechanisms that assist former prisoners in
negotiating the days and weeks immediately following release and in transitioning to fulltime employment are extremely important.
Transitional Work

The period immediately following release from prison is filled with difficult tasks,
from securing housing and reuniting with families, to meeting the conditions of
supervision and becoming financially self-sufficient. Given that all prisoners are released
with a similar constellation of immediate challenges, transitional programs that connect
former prisoners to job placement agencies and work opportunities in the community are
just as important as in-custody employment. Not only do these jobs provide daily access
to legal wages, but they also offer the secondary benefits of ready- made structure and
additional supervision. One option is to embrace the CEO model of transitional
employment, keeping in mind that for some former prisoners, employment may not be
his or her top priority immediately upon release, but instead it may be attending to health
needs or finding drug treatment. Nonetheless, creating links between work on the inside
and work on the outside is extremely important.
Full-Time Work

After a former prisoner is placed in a transitional work experience, plans for a longterm job assignment should begin. Even after full-time work is secured, Welfare to Work
teaches an important lesson: placing a hard-to-employ individual into a job that does not
lift the worker out of poverty cannot be considered a success. Post-release employment
programs, therefore, should be focused on placing former prisoners in jobs that pay
reasonable wages and offer opportunities for salary increases and promotion.
The efforts of the Welfare to Work Partnership also illustrate successful strategies to
recruit the support of local employers. The partnership includes 20,000 companies that
have provided jobs to 1.1 million former welfare recipients (Welfare to Work Partnership
2000b). Supported by changes in federal legislation and encouragement from the
Executive Office, the success of the partnership relied in large part on the network of
businesses that communicated their positive experiences hiring former welfare recipients
to their peers. A similar mechanism is needed to advance the goals of a prison-to-work

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

27

initiative. Two important realizations will likely need to occur before such an initiative is
to become successful: 1) former prisoners can make good, productive workers, and 2) job
retention rates among this population should closely mirror the rates among non–criminal
justice involved workers.
Ensuring that former prisoners contribute positively to their employers’
environments will be an important factor in a prison-to-work initiative. This will depend
on prisoners’ access to effective programming and attractive job assignments during
incarceration, and transitional support upon release. In addition, intermediary agencies
can work with former prisoners to hone interpersonal skills and offer support with issues
that might interfere with an employee’s ability to meet his work-related obligations.
Placing emphasis on job retention will also contribute to a prison-to-work initiative’s
success. Job retention benefits multiple parties—the employee (who will build a more
impressive résumé with long-term positions), the employer (who avoids the costs
associated with employee turnover), and the intermediary agency (which can maximize
its resources to help a greater volume of former prisoners, rather than helping the same
former prisoner find multiple jobs). Partnerships are a key to success in this area.
Intermediary agencies can provide critical supports that are beyond the expertise and
capacity of most employers. Functioning as mediators, they are also available to assist the
employer and employee in working through problems rather than terminating the
relationship.
Employers can also play a role in a program’s success by enhancing the
attractiveness of entry- level jobs and fostering loyalty to the company. For example,
employers can offer above poverty- level salaries and wages, training and opportunities
for promotion, mentoring and personal attention during the first few months of
employment, medical benefits and retirement plans, and flexible schedules. Further, there
are a number of government-sponsored support mechanisms that could make the
transition to work easier for employees. These include health insurance through Medicaid
or state-sponsored plans, child care subsidies, special child support arrangements,
transportation assistance, food stamps, and housing assistance. Government-sponsored
benefits and protections are available to employers as well, and can encourage long-term
relationships with employees.
While these incentives are certainly attractive, they are not likely, on their own, to
create a movement of the magnitude necessary to employ the large number of former
prisoners flowing into the nation’s communities. Through solid partnerships among
public and private entities, connections between in-custody and post-release job
resources, and multiple transition points, employment outcomes of former prisoners will
likely improve. Ultimately, finding ways to use the prison experience more effectively is
critical to increasing the likelihood of finding and sustaining employment for the 630,000
individuals leaving the nation’s prisons each year.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

28

References
Atkinson, Rob, and Knut Rostad. 2003. “Can Inmates Become an Integral Part of the U.S. Workforce?”
Paper prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry:
Understanding the Nexus between Prisoner Reentry and Work, New York, NY, May 19– 20.
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410854.
Auerbach, Barbara. 2001. Summary Findings of the 2000-2001 PIECP Compliance Assessments.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Bania, Neil, Claudia Coulton, and Laura Leete. 2000. “Welfare Reform and Access to Job Opportunities in
Cleveland Metropolitan Area.” In Multi-City Access to Opportunity Study, edited by Michael Rich.
Atlanta, GA: Emory University.
Beck, Allen, and Bernard Shipley. 1989. “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983.” Bureau of Justice
Statistics,Special Report. NCJ 116261. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Bernstein, Jared, and Ellen Houston. 2000. Crime and Work: What We Can Learn from the Low-Wage
Labor Market. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Bonczar, Thomas. 2003. Prevalence of Imprisonment in the U.S. Population, 1974–2001. NCJ 197976.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Brennan, John, and Edward Hill. 1999. Where Are the Jobs? Cities, Suburbs, and the Competition for
Employment. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Bushway, Shawn. 2003. “Employment Dimensions of Reentry: Understanding the Nexus between Reentry
and Work.” Paper prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner
Reentry: Understanding the Nexus between Prisoner Reentry and Work, New York, NY, May 19–20.
Bushway, Shawn, and Peter Reuter. 1999. “Labor Markets and Crime Risk Factors.” In Preventing Crime:
What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising [[Author: edited by?]]. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Butterfie ld, Fox. 2001. “Inmate Rehabilitation Returns as Prison Goal.” New York Times, May 20.
http://trends.csg.org/attachments/inmate_rehabilitation.pdf.
California Department of Corrections. 1997. “Preventing Parolee Failure Program: An Evaluation.”
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Corrections.
Canestrini, Kathy. 1993. “Wallkill Optical Program Follow-Up.” Albany, NY: New York State Department
of Correctional Services.
Carroll, Rodney. “From Prison to Work: Applying Lessons from Welfare Reform.” Presentation at the
Urban Institute’s Reentry Roundtable, The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry:
Understanding the Nexus between Prisoner Reentry and Work, New York, NY, May 19– 20.
Connerley, Mary, Richard Arvey, and Charles Bernardy, 2001. “Criminal Background Checks for
Prospective and Current Employees: Current Practices among Municipal Agencies.” Public Personnel
Management 20.
Cove, Peter. 2003. “From Prison to Work: Applying Lessons from Welfare Reform.” Presentation at the
Urban Institute’s Reentry Roundtable, The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry:
Understanding the Nexus between Prisoner Reentry and Work, New York, NY, May 19– 20.
Ditton, Paula. 1999. “Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers.” NCJ 147763.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Ellwood, David. 2003. “Where Is the Economy Headed over Time and How Will the Prison Population Be
Affected?” Presentation prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, The Employment Dimensions of
Prisoner Reentry: Understanding the Nexus between Prisoner Reentry and Work, New York, NY, May
19– 20.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

29

Enterprise Prison Institute. 2002. “Employing Prison Inmates: Does it Work?” Bethesda, MD: Enterprise
Prison Institute.
Federal Prison Industries, Inc. 1996. “Factories with Fences.” Sandstone, MN: Federal Correctional
Institution. http://www.unicor.gov/history/index.htm.
Finn, Peter. 1997. “Texas’ Project RIO (Re-Integration of Offenders).” Washington, DC: National Institute
of Justice.
———. 1998a. “Successful Job Placement for Ex-Offenders: The Center for Employment Opportunities.”
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice
———. 1998b. “Chicago’s Safer Foundation: A Road Back for Ex-Offenders.” Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice.
Freeman, Richard. 1992. “Crime and the Employment of Disadvantaged Youths.” In Urban Labor Markets
and Job Opportunity, edited by George Peterson and William V. Roman. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
———. 1999. “Economics of Crime.” In The Handbook of Labor Economics 3C, edited by O. Ashenfelter
and D. Card. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland Publishers.
———. 2003. “Can We Close the Revolving Door?” Paper prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, The
Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry: Understanding the Nexus between Prisoner Reentry and
Work, New York, NY, May 19–20.
Gaes, Gerald, Timothy Flanagan, Lawrence Motiuk, and Linda Stewart. 1999. “Adult Correctional
Treatment,” In Prisons, edited by Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia (361–426). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Glaze, Lauren E. 2002. “Probation and Parole in the United States, 2001.” Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bulletin. NCJ 195669. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Gillard, Darrell, and Allen Beck. 1998. “Prison and Jail Inmates Midyear 1997.” NCJ 167247. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Hagan, John, and Romit Dinovitzer. 1999. “Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment for Children,
Communities, and Prisoners.” In Prisons, edited by Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hammett, Theodore M., Cheryl Roberts, and Sofia Kennedy. 2001. “Health-Related Issues in Prisoner
Reentry.” Crime and Delinquency 47(3): 390–409.
Harlow, Caroline. 2003. “Education and Correctional Populations.” NCJ 195670. Washington, DC: Bureau
of Justice Statistics.
Harrison, Paige and Allen Beck. 2003. “Prisoners in 2002.” NCJ 200248. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
Harrison, Paige and Jennifer Karberg. 2004. “Prison and Jail Inmates at Mid-Year 2003.” Bureau of Justice
Statistics Bulletin. NCJ 203947. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Holzer, Harry, Steven Raphael, Michael Stoll. 2003a. “Employer Demand for Ex-Offenders: Recent
Evidence from Los Angeles.” Unpublished.
———. 2003b. “Employment Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders.” Paper prepared for the Reentry Roundtable,
The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry: Understanding the Nexus between Prisoner Reentry
and Work, New York, NY, May 19– 20. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410855.
Hughes, Timothy, and Dorothy James Wilson. 2002. “Reentry Trends in the United States.” Washington,
DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm.
Hughes, Timothy, Dorothy Wilson, and Allen Beck. 2001. “Trends in State Parole, 1990–2000.” NCJ
184735. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

30

La Vigne, Nancy, Vera Kachnowski, Jeremy Travis, Rebecca Naser, and Christy Visher. 2003. “A Portrait
of Prisoner Reentry in Maryland.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy, Cynthia Mamalian, Jeremy Travis, and Christy Visher. 2003. “A Portrait of Prisoner
Reentry in Illinois.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy, Gillian Thomson, Christy Visher, Vera Kachnowski, and Jeremy Travis. 2003. “A
Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Ohio.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Langan, Patrick, and David Levin. 2002. “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994.” NCJ 193427.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, The Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Lattimore, Pamela, Ann Witte, and Joanna Baker. 1990. “Experimental Assessment of the Effect of
Vocational Training on Youthful Property Offenders.” Evaluation Review 14:155– 133.
Laub, John, and Robert Sampson. 2001. “Understanding Desistance from Crime.” Crime and Justice 28:1–
70.
Lynch, James, and William Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry in Perspective.” Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
Maruna, Shadd. 2001. Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Maruschak, Laura. 2003. “HIV in Prisons, 2001.” NCJ 202293. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Maruschak, Laura, and Allen Beck. 2001. “Medical Problems of Inmates, 1997.” NCJ 181644.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Mumola, Christopher. 1999. “Substance Abuse and Treatment of State and Federal Prisoners, 1997.” NCJ
172871. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
National Correctional Industries Program. 2003. “Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program
Progress Report.” http://www.nationalcia.org/qtr0203stats.pdf.
Nelson, Marta, Perry Deess, and Charlotte Allen. 1999. “The First Month Out: Post-Incarceration
Experiences in New York City.” New York: The Vera Institute of Justice.
Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology 108 (5): 937– 75
Pens, Dan. 1998. “Oregon’s Pris on Slaveocracy.” Prison Legal News, May. Available at
www.angelfire.com/sc2/mplu/orslave.html
Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Piehl, Anne. 2003. “Crime, Work and Reentry.” Paper prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, The
Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry: Understanding the Nexus between Prisoner Reentry and
Work, New York, NY, May 19–20.
Sampson, Robert, and John H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through
Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Saylor, William, and Gerald Gaes. 1992. “The Post-Release Employment Project.” Federal Prisons
Journal 2(4): 33– 36.
———. 1999. “The Effect of Prison Employment and Vocational/Apprenticeship Training on Long-Term
Recidivism.” Washington, DC: U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons. http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/text/pblct/foru m/e08/e081d.shtml
Travis, Jeremy. Forthcoming. But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Travis, Jeremy and Sarah Lawrence. 2002. Beyond the Prison Gates. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

31

Uggen, Christopher, and Melissa Thompson. 2003. “The Socioeconomic Determinants of Ill-Gotten Gains:
Within-Person Changes in Drug Use and Illegal Earnings.” American Journal of Sociology 109:146–
85.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2002. “UNICOR 2002 Annual Report.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2002. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey.”
Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data.
Visher, Christy, Nancy La Vigne, and Jeremy Travis. 2004. “Returning Home: Understanding the
Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Maryland Pilot Study: Findings from Baltimore.” Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute.
Welfare to Work. “Welfare to Work Partnership Smart Solutions.” Washington, DC: Welfare to Work
Partnership. http://www.welfaretowork.org/publications/smart_solutions.htm.
Welfare to Work Partnership. 2000a. “The Bottom Line for Better Lives: A Report to the President on
Welfare to Work.” Washington, DC: The Welfare to Work Partnership.
Welfare to Work Partnership. 2000b. “Member Survey: Taking the Next Step.” Washington, DC: The
Welfare to Work Partnership. http://www.welfaretowork.org/publications/wirthlin/2000.pdf
Western, Bruce. 2002. “The Impact of Incarceration on Wage Mobility and Inequality.” American
Sociological Review 67:526– 46. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Western, Bruce, and Becky Petit. 2000. “Incarceration and Racial Inequality in Men’s Employment.”
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54:3–16.
Wilson, David B., Catherine A. Gallagher, and Doris L. MacKenzie. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of
Corrections-Based Education, Vocation, and Work Programs for Adult Offenders.” Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 37(4): 347– 68.

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry

32