Nally et al - Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders
Copyright © 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences (IJCJS) – Official Journal of the South Asian
Society of Criminology and Victimology (SASCV) ISSN: 0973-5089 January – June 2014. Vol. 9 (1): 16–34.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike License, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited. This license does not permit commercial exploitation or the
creation of derivative works without specific permission.
HTU

UTH

T

T

T

Post-Release Recidivism and Employment
among Different Types of Released Offenders:
A 5-Year follow-up Study in the United States
John M. Nally1
Indiana Department of Correction, United States of America
2

Susan Lockwood

Indiana Department of Correction, United States of America

Taiping Ho

3

Ball State University, United States of America

Katie Knutson4
Public Consulting Group, Indianapolis, United States of America

Abstract
The main focus of this 5-year (2005-2009) follow-up study of released offenders was to explore the
post-release employment and recidivism among different types of released offenders before, during, and
after the economic recession of 2008. The dataset of this study contained a cohort of 6,561 offenders
who were released from the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC), United States, throughout
2005. Results of this study revealed 37.0 percent of violent offenders, 38.2 percent of non-violent
offenders, 36.3 percent of sex offenders, and 36.9 percent of drug offenders were never employed since
release from prison. The recidivism rate was 46.6 percent among violent offenders, 48.6 percent
among non-violent offenders, 54.7 percent among sex offenders, and 45.8 percent among drug
offenders, respectively. Most importantly, the results of this study revealed that an offender’s education
and post-release employment were significantly and statistically correlated with recidivism, regardless of
the offender’s classification. This study also found a relatively high unemployment rate among
released offenders within the first year of release from prison. Accordingly, almost half of the recidivist
offenders were re-incarcerated within 12 months of the initial release.
________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: Released Offenders, Recidivism, Violent offenders, Non-Violent offenders.
1Director

of Education, Indiana Department of Correction, 302 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis,
IN 46204, United States of America. Email: jnally@idoc.in.gov
2Director of Juvenile Education, Indiana Department of Correction, 302 W. Washington Street,
Indianapolis, IN 46204, United States of America. Email: slockwood@idoc.in.gov
3Professor, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana
47306, United States of America. Email: taipingho@bsu.edu
4Consultant, Public Consulting Group, 150 W. Market Street, Suite 510, Indianapolis, IN 46204,
United States of America. Email: taipingho@bsu.edu
16
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences
Vol 9 Issue 1 January – June 2014

Introduction
Rarely have researchers examined the patterns of post-release employment and
recidivism among ex-offenders before, during, and after the economic recession. A major
obstacle was that previous researchers were unable to obtain offenders’ post-release
employment information. Instead, they relied on the unemployment information of the
general population to examine the impact of employment/unemployment on recidivism
among ex-offenders. Ex-offenders were usually characterized as economically poor,
educationally illiterate, socially inadequate to societal norms, and disproportionally
unemployed after release from prison. For example, researchers (Fehr, 2009; Matsuyama
& Prell, 2010) found that ex-offenders frequently encountered numerous challenges after
release from prison because of deficiencies in education and job skills. Accordingly,
uneducated/unskilled offenders were likely to be unemployed after release from prison;
and, in turn, they were likely to become recidivist offenders simply because they were
unable to be financially sufficient for independent living in the community.
According to the most recent prison release data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(Guerino, et al., 2012), the United States’ imprisonment rate in 2010 was 500 sentenced
prisoners per 100,000 (or 1 in 200 residents) and there were 708,677 prisoners released
from state and federal correctional institutions during 2010. Results from previous studies
identified a variety of factors, such as, educational illiteracy, lack of job skills, lack of
interpersonal skills, criminal history, the neighborhood contexts, or employment, that
might contribute to a relatively high recidivism rate among ex-offenders (Gendreau et al.,
1996; Hemphill et al., 1998; Klimecki et al., 1994; Kubrin & Stewart, 2006; Rossman &
Roman, 2003; Uggen, 2000; Vacca, 2004; Visher et al., 2005). Undoubtedly, previous
recidivism studies highlighted several profound challenges for incarcerated individuals to
successfully reenter the community upon release from prison. Particularly, prisoners who
were released during the recessionary period encountered much greater challenges due to
job scarcity in labor markets and weak economic conditions. Researchers (Bushway,
2011; Cox, 2010; Fletcher, 1999; Hannon & DeFina, 2010; Mears & Mestre, 2012; Nally,
et al., 2012) indicated that unemployment and recidivism were interrelated during the
recession; however, there was a need to conduct a longitudinal study of the patterns of
post-release employment and recidivism among ex-offenders during the recessionary
period. Accordingly, the present researchers conducted a 5-year follow-up study of postrelease employment and recidivism among 6,561 released offenders and examined the
interrelationship of recidivism and employment among different types of offenders (i.e.,
violent, non-violent, sex, and drug offenders) before, during, and after the recent
economic recession of 2008.
Challenges to Reducing Recidivism among Ex-Offenders
Undoubtedly, ex-offenders had to overcome a variety of challenges in order to
successfully reenter the community upon release from prison. Realistically, finding
employment was one of the immediate challenges to an ex-offender upon release from
prison, and it was increasingly difficult during the recessionary period. Ex-offenders were
frequently kept from employment due to criminal background checks (Holzer, et al.,
2004; Pettit & Lyons, 2007; Travis, 2005) or deficiencies in education and job skills
(Fashey, et al., 2006; Hollin & Palmer, 2009; Rossman & Roman, 2003; Vacca, 2004).
During the economic recessionary period, it was extremely difficult for ex-offenders to
compete with law-abiding citizens for limited job opportunities in all industrial sectors.
17
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 Nally et al - Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders

Additionally, employers were generally reluctant to hire ex-offenders due to issues of
liabilities or concerns about their customers’ discomfort (Albright & Denq, 1996;
Backman, 2011; Clear, et al., 2001; Giguere & Dundes, 2002; Gunnison & Helfgott,
2010; Harris & Keller, 2005; Holzer, et al., 2006; Lukies, et al., 2011; Stoll & Bushway,
2008; Varghese, et al., 2010). Particularly, employers would likely access the sex offender
registry to keep from hiring a sex offender in order to maintain a safe workplace and to
protect customers where children were congregated.
Previous researchers (Finn, 1998; Harrison & Schehr, 2004; Solomom, et al., 2008;
Visher, et al., 2008; Uggen, 2000; Uggen & Staff, 2001; Wadsworth, 2006) indicated that
post-release employment could serve as an important mechanism to prevent ex-offenders
from involvement in criminal activities when reentering the community. Theoretical
assumptions on the causal relationship between employment and recidivism were
primarily based on the concept that ex-offenders would likely re-offend if they could not
obtain legitimate and sustainable employment upon release from prison. A consistent
finding was that released offenders were likely to become recidivist offenders after release
from prison if they were unemployed (Allen, 1988; Batiuk, 1997; Blomberg, et al., 2012;
Burke & Vivian, 2001; Fabelo 2002; Harlow, 2003; Nuttall, et al., 2003; Vacca, 2004;
Wilson, et al., 2000).
Another significant challenge to an offender’s reentry into the community was his level
of formal education. Particularly, those educationally-illiterate ex-offenders were
disproportionally unemployed due to their inadequate education and job skills (Aos, et al.,
2006; Batiuk, 1997; Chappell, 2002; Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Harlow, 2003; Steurer &
Smith, 2003; Vacca, 2004; Winterfield, et al., 2009). A recent study (Nally, et al., 2012)
revealed that ex-offenders who had a lower level of education had a higher recidivism rate
and a higher unemployment rate. Meanwhile, uneducated (or under-educated) exoffenders were likely to be re-incarcerated earlier than those offenders who had a higher
level of education. Realistically, correctional education programs were educational
remedies for a vast majority of offenders to improve their education and job skills during
incarceration. Steurer, et al. (2001) conducted a 3-year follow-up study of the impact of
correctional education on recidivism and employment among ex-offenders and results
showed that correctional education program participants had a lower recidivism rate than
those offenders who did not participate in correctional education programs. However,
Steurer et al. (2001) found that the effect of correctional education on post-release
employment was statistically insignificant because post-release employment among exoffenders was largely dependent upon economic conditions during the time period of
release, regardless of the offender’s level of formal education.
Economic conditions (e.g., recession) greatly impacted post-release employment and
recidivism among ex-offenders (Bellair & Kowalski, 2011; Bushway, 2011; Cox, 2010;
Hannon & DeFina, 2010; Harrison & Schehr, 2004; Wang, et al., 2010). Previous
researchers used the unemployment rate of the general population, rather than the
population of ex-offenders, as a predictor to estimate post-release recidivism among
released offenders. Nonetheless, the unemployment rate in the general population is
significantly different from the population of ex-offenders in any given economic
condition. For example, the unemployment rate in the general population was about 9.9
percent at the end of December of 2009 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). Surprisingly,
Nally, et al. (2011) found the unemployment rate among ex-offenders was 65.6 percent
during the recent recessionary period of 2008-2009. Across states, ex-offenders
18
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences
Vol 9 Issue 1 January – June 2014

encountered incremental challenges in finding a job during the recent recessionary period
and a higher recidivism rate was expected as the unemployment rate increased (see, for
examples, Bellair & Kowalski, 2011; Uggen, 2000). Due to limited access to employmentrelated information among released offenders, previous researchers likely would have
insufficient information about an offender’s employment status after his release from
prison. Consequently, the effect of post-release employment on recidivism among exoffenders might not be accurately estimated.
Post-release recidivism is regarded as the primary measure of the success of an
offender’s reentry into the community. Previous studies revealed that post-release
recidivism rates were quite different among different types of ex-offenders. For example,
Roman, et al. (2003) found the recidivism rate among drug offenders was 16.4 percent
within 1 year, but increased to 27.5 percent within 2 years after graduation from drug
court supervision. Langan, et al. (2003) revealed the recidivism rate was 43.0 percent
among 9,691 sex offenders within 3 years after release from prison. Durose and Mumola
(2004), who examined the recidivism rates among 210,886 non-violent offenders
(committing property, drug, public-order or other non-violent offenses), found almost 7
in 10 non-violent offenders were re-arrested within 3 years after release from prison,
nearly 50 percent of nonviolent offenders were re-convicted, and more than 25 percent of
non-violent offenders were re-incarcerated. Undoubtedly, there is a need to further
examine the potential distinctive differences of post-release employment and recidivism
among different types of ex-offenders.
In an attempt to understand the contributing factors to recidivism, the present
researchers conducted a 5-year follow-up study of 6,561 offenders who were released
throughout 2005 from the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC). As part of this,
individual offender’s employment information was obtained from the Indiana Department
of Workforce Development (IDWD) to adequately examine the effect of employment on
recidivism. In this study, possible similarities or differences among different types of
offenders (i.e., violent offenders, non-violent offenders, sex offenders, and drug offenders),
in terms of post-release employment and recidivism, were carefully examined.
Furthermore, the present researchers analyzed the impact of the economic recession of
2008 on post-release employment and recidivism among ex-offenders.
Methodology
Data Description
To examine the patterns and interrelationships of post-release employment and
recidivism among ex-offenders during the recessionary period, the present researchers
conducted a 5-year (2005-2009) follow-up study of 6,561 offenders who were released
from Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) throughout 2005. Specifically, there
were 1,755 offenders released in the first quarter of 2005, 1,633 offenders in the second
quarter of 2005, 1,659 offenders in the third quarter of 2005, and 1,514 offenders in the
fourth quarter of 2005. This cohort of 6,561 released offenders represented more than 43
percent of a total of 15,184 offenders released from IDOC custody in 2005. It is important
to note that the economic recession started in December of 2007 and ended in late 2008,
but the unemployment rate in 2009 was significantly higher than that in the recession
period (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). The prominent feature of this 5-year followup study included detailed information about individual offender’s employment during
three different time periods (pre-recession, during-recession, and post-recession), which
19
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 Nally et al - Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders

allowed the present researchers to analyze the potential impact of the recent recession of
2008 (i.e., employment/unemployment) on post-release recidivism among ex-offenders in
the State of Indiana.
The dataset in this 5-year follow-up study was collected from three (3) primary sources:
(1) the IDOC Division of Research and Planning, (2) the IDOC Education Division, and
(3) the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (IDWD). IDOC Division of
Research and Planning provided up-to-date information such as the offenders’
demographical characteristics or legal information (e.g., recidivism). IDOC Education
Division provided information regarding the incarcerated offenders’ educational
information such as the level of education prior to release from IDOC custody. Based
upon information from “employed” offender’s W-9 forms, Indiana Department of
Workforce Development (IDWD) provided offender’s post-release employment
information (e.g., job title or income), if employed. IDWD documented offender’s
employment information quarterly, but there was no employment information among
unemployed offenders if they had never been employed since release in a quarter in any
given year during the study period. Undoubtedly, IDWD provided the present
researchers with crucial employment-related information which was used to analyze the
patterns of post-release employment among ex-offenders during the recessionary period
and the potential effect of employment on recidivism among this cohort of 6,561 exoffenders in Indiana.
Outcome Measures and Variables
The major outcome measure in this study focused on post-release recidivism among a
cohort of 6,561 released offenders during the study period of 2005-2009. Undoubtedly,
measuring recidivism can be difficult because it is defined so differently among a variety of
criminal justice agencies (Blumstein & Larson, 1971; Boudouris, 1984; Hoffman &StoneMeierhoefer, 1980; Latessa & Holsinger, 1998; Maxfield, 2005; Maxwell, 2005; Mears et
al., 2008; Vrieze & Grove, 2010). Although five major indicators have been identified as
measures of recidivism, including (1) police arrest, (2) a criminal charge for a new offense,
(3) a reconviction for a new criminal offense, (4) re-incarceration, and (5) a courtmandated supervision revocation (e.g., a probation or parole violation), the post-release
recidivism in the present study was measured by re-incarceration in IDOC.
Through reviewing IDOC files on the offender’s release date and return date, the
present researchers were able to determine the recidivism status, the survival time (elapsed
time between release and return), and legal reasons for re-incarceration. An offender was
considered as a recidivist offender in the study period of 2005-2009, if he or she returned
to IDOC custody after the initial release in 2005. Previous studies of recidivism usually
focused on the prevalence rate among ex-offenders, but with little or no information
about the time frame when recidivist offenders returned to prison. By calculating the
elapsed time between re-incarceration and the initial release in 2005, the present
researchers examined the patterns of re-incarceration and post-release recidivism rates
among recidivist offenders in the study period of 2005-2009. In addition, legal reasons for
re-incarceration among those recidivist offenders were analyzed.
In order to explore potential distinctions of offender’s characteristics relative to postrelease recidivism, independent measures in this study included ethnicity, gender, age, and
level of formal education (prior to release from IDOC custody). Undoubtedly, an
offender’s ethnicity was frequently used as an indicative variable or predictor to examine
20
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences
Vol 9 Issue 1 January – June 2014

racial disparities in post-release recidivism (Bales & Piquero, 2012; Wang, et al., 2010;
Wehrman, 2010). Additionally, post-release employment among ex-offenders was another
important independent measure to recidivism in this study. Researchers (Needels, 1996;
Tripodi, et al., 2010; Uggen, 2000; Visher, et al, 2008) consistently indicated that postrelease employment was an important predictor of recidivism. However, there was a need
to conduct a longitudinal study to further examine the relationship between post-release
employment and recidivism among ex-offenders.
In this study, offender classification was treated as a control variable to examine the
patterns of post-release employment and recidivism among different types of offenders.
Offender classification was based on the most serious offense that an offender had
committed. In other words, an offender who committed a “crime against a person” was
categorized as a “violent” offender; an offender who committed a “crime against property
or misdemeanor” was categorized as a “non-violent” offender; an offender who
committed a “sex-related crime” was categorized as a “sex” offender; and a offender who
committed a “drug-related crime” was categorized as a “drug” offender. Consequently,
the present researchers grouped this cohort of 6,561 ex-offenders into four (4) different
subgroups; they were: (1) violent offenders (n=1,201), (2) non-violent offenders
(n=3,469), (3) sex offenders (n=369), and (4) drug offenders (n=1,522).
Data Analysis
Data analyses in this study primarily focused on examining the offender’s characteristics
(i.e., ethnicity, gender, age, and education) relative to post-release employment and
recidivism among different types of ex-offenders (i.e., violent, non-violent, sex, and drug
offenders). The effects of the offender’s characteristics on the recidivism rate among
different types of offenders would be the primary outcome measures in this study. In other
words, offender’s characteristics (i.e., ethnicity, gender, age, and education) and postrelease employment were treated as important predictors of recidivism among different
types of ex-offenders. Due to the dichotomous nature of dependent measurement
(recidivist offenders versus non-recidivist offenders), a logistic multiple regression analysis
was used to examine the effect of the offenders' characteristics and post-release
employment on recidivism among the cohort of 6,561 ex-offenders, while controlling for
the offender classifications (i.e., violent, non-violent, sex, and drug offenders). Such
multiple regression analyses would provide a clear indication of which factor exerted the
most influential impact on post-release recidivism among ex-offenders.
Results
As Table 1 illustrates, 18.3 percent (n=1,201) of a total of 6,561 offenders who were
released from IDOC custody in 2005 were classified as “violent” offenders, 52.9 percent
(n=3,469) were “non-violent” offenders, 5.6 percent (n=369) were “sex” offenders, and
23.2 percent (n=1,522) were “drug” offenders. Results of this study revealed a majority
of 1,201 violent offenders were African American males in the age range of 20-40 years
old. A majority of 1,201 violent offenders had a high school diploma or GED (n=627),
but 35.3 percent (n=424) of violent offenders had an education below high school. 37.0
percent (n=444) of 1,201 violent offenders had never been employed after release from
prison. The post-release recidivism rate was 46.6 percent among 1,201 violent offenders
in the study period of 2005-2009.
21
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 Nally et al - Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders

Results of this study also revealed that a majority of 3,469 non-violent offenders were
African American males in the age range of 20-40 years old. A majority of 3,469 nonviolent offenders had a high school diploma or GED (n=1,856), but 33.5 percent
(n=1,161) of non-violent offenders had an education below high school. 38.2 percent
(n=1,326) of 3,469 non-violent offenders had never been employed after release from
prison. The post-release recidivism rate was 48.6 percent among 3,469 non-violent
offenders in the study period of 2005-2009.
22
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences
Vol 9 Issue 1 January – June 2014

In regard to characteristics of sex offenders, results of this study revealed that a majority
of 369 sex offenders were Caucasian males. Approximately 88.6 percent (n=327) of sex
offenders were in the age range of 20-50 years old and the mean age of 369 sex offenders
was 36.5 years old. Almost half of 369 sex offenders had a high school diploma or GED,
but 41.7 percent (n=154) of sex offenders had an education below high school. 36.3
percent (n=134) of 369 sex offenders had never been employed after release from prison.
The post-release recidivism rate was 54.7 percent among 369 sex offenders in the study
period of 2005-2009.
This study found that a vast majority of 1,522 drug offenders were African American
males in the age range of 20-40 years old. There were 52.2 percent (n=794) of 1,522
drug offenders with a high school diploma or GED, but 38.2 percent (n=582) of drug
offenders had an education below high school prior to release from prison. Results of this
5-year follow-up study also revealed that 36.9 percent (n=561) of 1,522 drug offenders
had never been employed after release from prison. The post-release recidivism rate was
45.8 percent among 1,522 drug offenders in the study period of 2005-2009.

Table 2 illustrates the unemployment rates, based on a quarterly measure in the study
period of 2005-2009, among a cohort of 6,561 offenders who were released from IDOC
custody throughout 2005. Results of this study clearly showed that ex-offenders had a
considerably higher unemployment rate than that of the general population in any given
time period during the study period of 2005-2009, regardless of types of offenders and
economic conditions (e.g., recession). Most surprisingly, this study’s results revealed that
23
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 Nally et al - Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders

offenders had encountered tremendous difficulties in finding a job within a short period of
time upon release from prison. In all 4 quarters of 2005, the unemployment rates were in
the range of 92-97 percent for released offenders.
Thereafter, the unemployment rates steadily decreased into the range of 60 percent
during the pre-recession period (from 1st quarter of 2006 to 3rd quarter of 2007). In other
words, ex-offenders would likely be employed in a variety of industrial sectors during a
strong economic condition, but the unemployment rates remained relatively higher than
the general population. However, the unemployment rates increased into the range of 70
percent during the recession period (from 4th quarter of 2007 to 4th quarter of 2008) and
became even higher during the post-recession period (from 1st quarter of 2009 to 4th
quarter of 2009). There was a similar pattern of unemployment rates across different types
of ex-offenders (i.e., violent, non-violent, sex, and drug offenders) in the study period of
2005-2009.

Table 3 provides detailed information about the survival time (i.e., elapsed time
between release and return) among recidivist offenders. The recidivism rate among 6,561
ex-offenders, within a 5-year (2005-2009) follow-up study period, was 47.9 percent.
Regardless of types of offenders, approximately 47 percent of recidivist offenders were reincarcerated within a year, and 81 percent of recidivist offenders were re-incarcerated
within 2 years, after the initial release in 2005. This study’s results also indicated that a
notable number of ex-offenders were likely to be re-incarcerated within 12 months after
24
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences
Vol 9 Issue 1 January – June 2014

the initial release from prison. Precisely, this study found that the re-incarceration rates
(by quarter) among recidivist offenders were: 6.5 percent (n=204) within 3 months, 12.8
percent (n=404) within 3-6 months, 14.3 percent (n=449) within 6-9 months, and 13.1
percent (n=413) within 9-12 months.
Variations in the survival time among different types of ex-offenders were not
significant. As Table 3 illustrates, 41.3 percent (n=231) of 559 recidivist violent offenders
were re-incarcerated within 12 months (i.e., 1 year), and 76.7 percent (n=429) were reincarcerated within 24 months (i.e., 2 years), after the initial release in 2005. Additionally,
48.8 percent (n=823) of 1,687 recidivist non-violent offenders were re-incarcerated
within 12 months, and 82.6 percent (n=1,394) were re-incarcerated within 24 months,
after the initial release in 2005. In regard to 202 recidivist sex offenders, 50.5 percent
(n=102) were re-incarcerated within 12 months, and 83.2 percent (n=168) were reincarcerated within 24 months, after the initial release in 2005. Results of this study also
revealed that 45.1 percent (n=314) of 696 recidivist drug offenders were re-incarcerated
within 12 months, and 79.9 percent (n=556) were re-incarcerated within 24 months, after
the initial release in 2005. In short, this 5-year follow-up study found that ex-offenders
were more likely to return to prison within 2 years of the initial release, regardless of types
of offenders.

25
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 Nally et al - Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders

Upon further examination, of the data, it was discovered that 33.5 percent (n=1,055)
of a total of 3,144 recidivist offenders had no information regarding the legal reasons for
re-incarceration. Based on available legal information, as Table 4 indicates, this study
found that 32.7 percent (n=684) of 2,089 recidivist offenders had committed a new crime,
33.8 percent (n=705) had a parole violation or a technical parole violation, 25.0 percent
(n=523) had a probation violation or a technical probation violation, and 8.5 percent
(n=177) had other violations (e.g., a violation of early-release-related Community Transition
Program).
This study also revealed some variations in the legal reasons for re-incarceration among
different types of ex-offenders. As Table 4 illustrates, major legal reasons for reincarceration among 342 recidivist violent offenders included committing a new crime
(25.4%), having a technical probation violation (24.2%), having a technical parole
violation (21.3%), or having a parole violation (16.9%). The most prominent legal reason
for re-incarceration among 1,152 recidivist non-violent offenders was committing a new
crime (37.5%). Results of this study also showed that a notable number of ex-offenders
were re-incarcerated because of either a technical parole or probation violation.
Particularly, the primary legal reasons for re-incarceration among 143 recidivist sex
offenders were a technical parole violation (31.5%) or a technical probation violation
(28.0%). Meanwhile, three (3) main legal reasons for re-incarceration among 451
recidivist drug offenders included committing a new crime (27.9%), having a technical
parole violation (22.8%), or having a technical probation violation (22.8%). The results of
this study consistently showed that a vast majority of ex-offenders were re-incarcerated
because of technical or regular parole or probation violations, regardless of the offender’s
classification.

26
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences
Vol 9 Issue 1 January – June 2014

Table 5 illustrates logistic multiple regression analyses of post-release recidivism among
a cohort of 6,561 offenders, while controlling for the offender’s classification. Specifically,
this study examined the effects of the offender’s characteristics (i.e., ethnicity, gender, age,
and education) and post-release employment on recidivism. Results of logistic multiple
regression analysis (the All Offenders equation -- Table 5) indicated that the offender’s
demographical characteristics (i.e., ethnicity, gender, and age), education, and post-release
employment were statistically and significantly correlated (p<.05) with recidivism. In
other words, this study found that African American offenders, male offenders, or younger
offenders were likely to become recidivist offenders after their release from prison. Most
importantly, this study’s results revealed that the offender’s education and employment
were the most important predictors of recidivism. Specifically, ex-offenders were more
likely to be re-incarcerated if they were uneducated (or under-educated) or unemployed.
In regard to 1,201 violent offenders, results of the logistic multiple regression analysis
(the Violent Offenders equation -- Table 5) showed that an offender’s age and education
were statistically correlated (p<.05) with post-release recidivism. This study’s results
revealed that recidivist violent offenders were likely to be younger offenders, uneducated
(or under-educated), or unemployed. Particularly, this study found that recidivist violent
offenders were likely to be under age of 30 and without a high school credential prior to
release from prison. Meanwhile, post-release employment was statistically but negatively
correlated (p<.001) with recidivism among violent offenders. Results of this study clearly
showed that violent offenders would likely become recidivists if they were unemployed
after release from prison.
Among 3,469 non-violent offenders, results of the logistic multiple regression analysis
(the Non-Violent Offenders equation -- Table 5) showed that an offender’s characteristics
(i.e., ethnicity, gender, age, and education) and post-release employment were statistically
correlated (p<.05) with recidivism. Specifically, this study revealed that recidivist nonviolent offenders were likely to be younger, male, and African American offenders who
were uneducated (or under-educated) or unemployed after release from prison. Most
importantly, post-release employment was an important predictor of recidivism among
non-violent offenders. In other words, non-violent offenders would likely become
recidivists if they were unemployed after release from prison.
Results of the logistic multiple regression analysis (the Sex Offenders equation -- Table
5) showed that an offender’s age and education were statistically correlated (p<.05) with
recidivism among 369 sex offenders. Specifically, this study revealed that recidivist sex
offenders were likely to be younger offenders or uneducated (or under-educated).
Meanwhile, this study found that post-release employment was also statistically, but
negatively, correlated (p<.05) with recidivism. In other words, sex offenders would likely
become recidivists if they were unemployed after release from prison. However, results of
this study showed an offender’s race and gender had no effect on recidivism among sex
offenders.
In regard to 1,522 drug offenders, results of the logistic multiple regression analysis (the
Drug Offenders equation -- Table 5) showed only an offender’s age and post-release
employment were statistically correlated (p<.001) with recidivism. Specifically, this study
found that younger drug offenders, who were under age of 30, were likely to be recidivist
offenders after release from prison. Meanwhile, post-release employment was the most
important predictor of recidivism among drug offenders. In other words, drug offenders
would likely become recidivists if they were unemployed after release from prison. This
27
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 Nally et al - Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders

study’s results showed that an offender’s race, gender and education had no effect on
recidivism among drug offenders.
Discussion
Undoubtedly, post-release recidivism has been used frequently as the benchmark to
evaluate the success (or failure) of the criminal justice system. If recidivism remains
relatively high among ex-offenders, the general public casts doubt on the effectiveness of
correctional interventions or behavioral modifications for incarcerated offenders. Even
though many studies of ex-offenders have broadened our knowledge about plausible
elements contributing to recidivism, there was a need to conduct a longitudinal study and
to examine the patterns of the post-release recidivism in different economic conditions.
Consistent with findings from previous studies (see, for examples, Berg & Huebner,
2011; La Vigne, et al., 2008; Matsuyama & Prell, 2010), this 5-year follow-up study found
that ex-offenders would likely become recidivists if they were unemployed after release
from prison. At its core, post-release employment was the major predictor of recidivism,
regardless of an offender’s classification (i.e., violent, non-violent, sex, and drug offenders).
The most notable finding from this study was, as Table 2 indicates, that virtually all exoffenders could not find a job and the unemployment rates were in the range of 92-97
percent within 1-3 quarters of release from prison. Among 1,755 offenders released in the
1st quarter of 2005, for example, the unemployment rates were 92.3 percent in the 1st
quarter of 2005, 93.9 percent in the 2nd quarter of 2005, 92.7 percent in the 3rd quarter of
2005, and 93.1 percent in the 4th quarter of 2005. Meanwhile, the recidivism rate was
st
50.6 percent among 1,630 “unemployed” offenders who were released in the 1 quarter of
2005. Undoubtedly, the effect of “unemployment” on recidivism was significant.
Results of this study also indicated that ex-offenders encountered tremendous
difficulties finding employment upon release from prison and these difficulties persisted
throughout several quarters after release, either during a strong economic condition or in
the recessionary period. Obviously, the economic recession had a negative impact on the
post-release employment among ex-offenders. The unemployment rates were almost 7
times higher than that among the general population during the period of recession (from
4th quarter of 2007 to 4th quarter of 2008), and it continued to increase during the postst
th
recession period (1 quarter of 2009 to 4 quarter of 2009). In addition to a weak
economic condition and competing with the general population for limited job
opportunities, previous researchers illustrated a variety of other plausible reasons, such as
criminal background checks (see, for examples, Holzer, et al., 2004; Pettit & Lyons, 2007;
Travis, 2005), that prevented ex-offenders from being employed in an array of industrial
sectors after release from prison.
A further examination of “employed” ex-offenders, who had a job at least 1 quarter
during the study period of 2006-2009 (after they were released from prison throughout
2005), revealed the patterns of employment among ex-offenders changed significantly
during the recessionary period. There was a 37.5 percent decrease in employment among
ex-offenders from 2006 to 2009. (There were 2,620 offenders in 2006, 2,143 offenders in
2007, 2,123 offenders in 2008, and 1,644 offenders in 2009 employed at least 1 quarter in
that given year.) Meanwhile, several job sectors, such as construction or manufacturing,
that traditionally had provided adequate job opportunities for ex-offenders, steadily
declined during the recessionary period. This study found that employment in
construction among ex-offenders steadily declined from 13.8 percent in 2006 to 9.0
28
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences
Vol 9 Issue 1 January – June 2014

percent in 2009 and employment in manufacturing decreased from 20.6 percent in 2006
to 13.5 percent in 2009. Furthermore, results of this study also revealed that “temporary
help services,” which were primarily temporary-based minimum-wage jobs, had become
the major job sources for ex-offenders before, during, and after the economic recession of
2008. Consequently, a vast majority of employed ex-offenders could be classified as
“working poor” because more than 87 percent of employed ex-offenders had an annual
income below $20,000 and approximately 66 percent had an annual income below
$10,000.
Another notable finding from this 5-year follow-up study was that an offender’s
characteristics (e.g., age or education) had a significant impact on recidivism. Consistent
with previous studies (Batiuk, 1997; Burke & Vivian, 2001; Nuttall et al., 2003; Vacca,
2004), this study found that offenders were likely to be recidivist offenders if they were
uneducated (or under-educated). Specifically, this study’s results revealed that the
recidivism rate was 55.9 percent among offenders without a high school credential, 46.2
percent among offenders who had a high school diploma or GED, but only 31.0 percent
among offenders with a college education. A further examination also showed some
unique findings in regard to an offender’s characteristics in post-release recidivism, while
controlling for an offender’s classification. Among ex-offenders without a high school
credential, the recidivism rate was 56.4 percent among violent offenders, 56.8 percent
among non-violent offenders, 63.6 percent among sex offenders, and 51.7 percent among
drug offenders. Surprisingly, this 5-year follow-up study showed that the recidivism rate
climbed to 70.1 percent among unemployed African American males under age of 30
without a high school credential. On the other hand, the recidivism rate was 64.4 percent
among unemployed Caucasian males under the age of 30 without a high school credential.
Undoubtedly, racial disparities in post-release recidivism, considering a variety of
offender’s characteristics, need to be further examined in future research.
Another striking finding was that this study found ex-offenders with multiple times of
re-incarceration within a 5-year time span. Regardless of an offender’s classification, 1,064
in a total of 6,561 released offenders returned to prison twice, 269 offenders returned to
prison three (3) times, and 39 offenders returned to prison four (4) times since their initial
releases in 2005. In other words, this study’s results implicated that a notable number of
ex-offenders frequently wandered from prison to the community and back with little
stability after their initial releases in 2005. Taking violent offenders as an example, results
of this study found that 27.4 percent (n=153) of 560 recidivist violent offenders returned
to prison twice, 5.7 percent (n=32) returned to prison three times, and 1.1 percent (n=6)
returned to prison four times since their initial releases in 2005. Most importantly, this
unique feature of multiple re-incarcerations among ex-offenders, within a short period of
time, may invoke future research reconsidering the fundamental elements in defining
recidivism.
Conclusion
The lingering hangover of the economic recession likely will persist in the foreseeable
future, creating difficulties for offenders looking for jobs upon release from prison.
Results of this 5-year follow-up study clearly indicated that post-release employment was
as an effective buffer for reducing recidivism among ex-offenders. However, ex-offenders
usually lacked the education or professional skills needed to meet the ever-changing job
demands from a variety of industrial sectors which might employ them, regardless of their
29
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 Nally et al - Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders

criminal background. This study found that more than 35 percent of 6,561 ex-offenders
did not have a high school credential prior to release from prison and most of these
individuals were under the age of 30. Furthermore, results of this study consistently
revealed that younger offenders would likely become recidivists if they were unemployed
and uneducated (or under-educated), regardless of their classification. A majority of
young, unemployed, recidivists were re-incarcerated multiple times after the initial releases
in 2005.
Undoubtedly, results of this 5-year follow-up study clearly implicated the need to
enhance correctional education for incarcerated inmates in order to increase their
employability after release from prison, which, in turn, would decrease recidivism. It is
important to mention that the effect of correctional education on post-release
employment and recidivism among ex-offenders has been recognized widely (Burke &
Vivian, 2001; Mercer, 2009; Nuttall et al., 2003; Rose, et al., 2010; Stevens and Ward,
1997; Vacca, 2004). This study found that educated offenders were less likely than
uneducated offenders to become recidivists. Arguably, correctional education could play a
crucial role in reducing the cost of incarceration by reducing recidivism. Unfortunately,
the funding for correctional education programs across the nation has been reduced due to
shrinking state budgets and weak economic conditions. In particular, uneducated offenders
would be less likely to reenter the community successfully and more likely to roam in and
out of the criminal justice system during the span of their lifetimes. Both the financial and
social cost for this may be immeasurable. However, it is anticipated that the present study’s
findings will extend our understanding of some of the contributing factors to recidivism
and provide some insights for future research to continuously study the impact of
economic conditions on post-release recidivism among ex-offenders.
References
Albright, S., & Denq, F. (1996). Employer attitudes toward hiring ex-offenders. The
Prison Journal, 76(2), 118-137.
Allen, J. (1988). Administering quality education in an adult correctional facility.
Community Services Catalyst, 18(4), 28-29.
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What
works and what does not. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Backman, C. (2011). Vocabularies of motive among employers conducting criminal
background checks. Acta Sociologica, 54(1), 27-44.
Bales, W. D., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Assessing the impact of imprisonment on
recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(1), 71-101.
Batiuk, M. (1997). The state of post secondary correctional education in Ohio. Journal of
Correctional Education, 48(2), 70-72.
Bellair, P. E., & Kowalski, B. R. (2011). Low-skill employment opportunity and AfricanAmerican-White difference in recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
48(2), 176-208.
Berg, M. T., & Huebner, B. M. (2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination
of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28(1), 382-410.
Blomberg, T. G., Bales, W. D., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Is educational achievement a
turning point for incarcerated delinquents across race and sex? Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 41(2), 202-216.
30
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences
Vol 9 Issue 1 January – June 2014

Blumstein, A., & Larson, R. C. (1971). Problems in modeling and measuring recidivism.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 8(2), 124-132.
Boudouris, J. (1984). Recidivism as a process. Journal of Offender Counseling Services
Rehabilitation, 8(3), 41-51.
Burke, L., & Vivian, J. (2001). The effect of college programming on recidivism rates at
the Hampden County House of Correction: A 5-year study. Journal of Correctional
Education, 52(4), 160-162.
Bushway, S. D. (2011). Labor markets and crime. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.),
Crime and Public Policy (pp. 183-209). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chappell, C. (2004). Post-secondary correctional education and recidivism: A metaanalysis of research conducted from 1990-1999. Journal of Correctional Education, 55(2),
148-169.
Clear, T. R., Rose, D. R., & Ryder, J. A. (2001). Incarceration and the community: The
problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 335-351.
Cox, R. (2010). Crime, incarceration, and employment in light of the great recession.
The Review of Black Political Economy, 37(3-4), 283-294.
Durose, M. R., & Mumola, C. J. (2004). Profile of nonviolent offenders exiting state
prisons. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs. U.S. Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C.
Erisman, W., & Contardo, J. B. (2005). Learning to reduce recidivism: A 50-state analysis of
postsecondary correctional education policy. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher
Education Policy.
Fabelo, T. (2002). The impact of prison education on community reintegration of
inmates: The Texas case. Journal of Correctional Education, 53(3), 106-110.
Fashey, J., Roberts, C., & Engel, L. (2006). Employment of ex-offenders: Employer
perspectives. Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety: Crime & Justice Institute.
Fehr, L. (2009). Reentry matters. Correction Today, 71(6), 8-13.
Finn, P. (1998). Job placement for offenders in relation to recidivism. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 28(1/2), 89-106.
Fletcher, D. R. (1999). Ex-offenders and the labour market: A review of the discourse of
social exclusion and consequences for crime and the New Deal. Government and Policy,
17(4), 431-444.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult
offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575-608.
Giguere, R., & Dundes, L. (2002). Help wanted: A survey of employer concerns about
hiring ex-convicts. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13(4), 396-408.
Guerino, P., Harrison, P. M., & Sabol, W. J. (2012). Prisoners in 2010 (Revised).
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Gunnison, E., & Helfgott, J. B. (2011). Factors that hinder offender reentry success: A
view from community corrections officers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 55(2), 287-304.
Hannon, L., & DeFina, R. (2010). The state of the economy and the relationship
between prisoner reentry and crime. Social Problems, 57(4), 611-629.
Harlow, C. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice.
31
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 Nally et al - Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders

Harris, P. M., & Keller, K. S. (2005). Ex-offenders need not apply: The criminal
background check in hiring decisions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1),
6-30.
Harrison, B., & Schehr, R. C. (2004). Offenders and post-release jobs: Variables
influencing success and failure. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(3), 35-68.
Hemphill, J. F., Hare, R. D., & Wong, S. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: A review.
Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3(1), 139-170.
Hoffman, P.B., & Stone-Meierhoefer, B. (1980). Reporting recidivism rates: The
criterion and follow-up issues. Journal of Criminal Justice, 8(1), 53-60.
Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (2009). Cognitive skills programmes for offenders.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(2&3), 147-164.
Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2006). Perceived criminality, criminal
background checks, and the racial hiring practices of employers. Journal of Law and
Economics, 49(2), 451-480.
Klimecki, M. R., Jenkinson, J., & Wilson, L. (1994). A study of recidivism among
offenders with an intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental
Disability, 19(3), 209-219.
Kubrin, C. E., & Stewart, E. A. (2006). Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of
neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44(1), 165-197.
Langan, P. A., Schmit, E. L., & Durose, M. R. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders
released from prison in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional
programs: Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(4), 2229.
La Vigne, N., Davies, E., Palmer, T., & Halberstadt, R. (2008). Release planning for
successful reentry: A guide for corrections, service providers, and community groups.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.
Lukies, J., Graffam, J., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2011). The effect of organizational context
variables on employer attitudes toward employability of ex-offenders. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(3), 460-475.
Matsuyama, K, & Prell, L. (2010). Education, employment and offender reentry.
Corrections Today, 72(4), 90-91.
Maxfield, L. D. (2005). Measuring recidivism under the federal sentencing guidelines.
Federal Sentencing Reporter, 17(3), 166-170.
Maxwell, S. R. (2005). Rethinking the broad sweep of recidivism: A task for evaluators.
Criminology & Public Policy, 4(3), 519-526.
Mears, D.P., & Mestre, J. (2012). Prisoner reentry, employment, signaling, and the better
identification of desisters. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(1), 5-15.
Mears, D.P., Wang, X., Hay, C., & Bales, W.D. (2008). Social ecology and recidivism:
Implications for prisoner reentry. Criminology, 46(2), 301-340.
Mercer, K. (2009). The importance of funding postsecondary correctional educational
programs. Community College Review, 37(2), 153-164.
Nally, J. M., Lockwood, S. R., Ho, T., & Knutson, K. (2012). The post-release
employment and recidivism among different types of offenders with a different level of
education: A 5-year follow-up study in Indiana. Justice Policy Journal, 9(1), 1-29.
32
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences
Vol 9 Issue 1 January – June 2014

Nally, J. M., Lockwood, S. R., & Ho, T. (2011). Employment of ex-offenders during the
recession. Journal of Correctional Education, 62(2), 117-131.
Needels, K. E. (1996). Go directly to jail and do not collect?: A long-tem study of
recidivism, employment, and earnings patterns among prison releases. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(4), 471-496.
Nuttall, J., Hollmen, L., & Staley, M. (2003). The effect of earning a GED on recidivism
rates. Journal of Correctional Education, 54(3), 90-94.
Pettit, B., & Lyons, C. J. (2007). Status and the stigma of incarceration: The labor-market
effects of incarceration, by race, class, and criminal involvement. In S. Bushway & M.
A. Stoll (eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial
America (pp. 203-226). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Roman, J., Townsend, W., & Bhati, A. S. (2003). Recidivism rates for drug court
graduates: Nationally based estimates. The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.
Rose, C., Reschenberg, K., & Richards, S. (2010). The inviting convicts to college
program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(4), 293-308.
Rossman, S., & Roman, C. (2003). Case-managed reentry and employment: Lessons from
the opportunity to succeed program. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, Justice
Police Center.
Solomon, A., Visher, C., La Vigne, N., & Osbourne, J. (2006). Understanding the challenges
of prisoner reentry: Research findings from the Urban Institute’s prisoner reentry portfolio.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Steurer, S.J., & Smith, L.G. (2003). Education reduces crime: Three-state inmate recidivism
study. Lantham, MD: Correctional Education Association.
Steurer, S. J., Smith, L., & Tracy, A. (2001). Three state recidivism study. Lantham, MD:
Correctional Education Association.
Stevens, D., & Ward, C. (1997). College education and recidivism: Educating criminals is
meritorious. Journal of Correctional Education, 48(3), 106-111.
Stoll, M. A., & Bushway, S. D. (2008). The effect of criminal background checks on
hiring ex-offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(3), 371-404.
Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute.
Tripodi, S. J., Kim, J. S., & Bender, K. (2010). Is employment associated with reduced
recidivism?: The complex relationship between employment and crime. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(5), 706-720.
Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration
model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 67(3), 529546.
Uggen, C., & Staff, J. (2001). Work as a turning point for criminal offenders. Corrections
Management Quarterly, 37(4), 347-368.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2012). Labor force statistics from the current population survey.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Vacca, J. (2004). Educated Prisoners Are Less Likely to Return to Prison. Journal of
Correctional Education, 55(4), 297-305.
Varghese, F. P., Hardin, E. E., Bauer, R. L., & Morgan, R. D. (2010). Attitudes toward
hiring offenders: The roles of criminal history, job qualifications, and race.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(5), 769-782.
33
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License

 Nally et al - Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders

Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2005). Ex-offender employment
programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3),
295-316.
Visher, C., Bebus, S., & Yahner, J. (2008). Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of
releases in three states. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Vrieze, S. I., & Grove, W. M. (2010). Multidimensional assessment of criminal recidivism:
Problems, pitfalls, and proposed solutions. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 382-395.
Wadsworth, T. (2006). The meaning of work: Conceptualizing the deterrent effect of
employment on crime among young adults. Sociological Perspectives, 49(3), 343-368.
Wang, X., Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2010). Race-specific employment contexts and
recidivism. Criminology, 48(4), 1171-1211.
Wehrman, M. M. (2010). Race, concentrated disadvantage, and recidivism: A test of
interaction effects. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 538-544.
Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of
correction-based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 347-368.
Winterfield, L., Coggeshall, M., Burke-Storer, M., & Correa, V. (2009). The effects of
postsecondary correctional education—Final report. Urban Institute, Washington, DC:
Justice Policy Center.

34
© 2014 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. All rights reserved. Under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License