Employment After Prison

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/233474673
Employment After Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Former Prisoners
Article in Justice Quarterly · October 2011

DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2010.535553
CITATIONS READS
164 1,383
3 authors, including:
Christy A. Visher Jennifer Yahner

University of Delaware Urban Institute
110 PUBLICATIONS 5,001 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 1,240 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Initiative (SVORI) View project
Returning Home View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Christy A. Visher on 02 March 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Visher, Christy][University of Delaware]
On: 5 May 2011
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 926078022]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Justice Quarterly
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713722354
Employment After Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Former Prisoners

Christy A. Visher; Sara A. Debus-Sherrill; Jennifer Yahner
First published on: 10 December 2010
To cite this Article Visher, Christy A. , Debus-Sherrill, Sara A. and Yahner, Jennifer(2010) 'Employment After Prison: A
Longitudinal Study of Former Prisoners', Justice Quarterly,, First published on: 10 December 2010 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2010.535553
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2010.535553
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
JUSTICE QUARTERLY 2010, 1–21, iFirst Article
Employment After Prison: A

Longitudinal Study of Former
Prisoners
Christy A. Visher, Sara A. Debus-Sherrill and

Jennifer Yahner
0visher@udel.edu
Christy
000002010
Justice
10.1080/07418825.2010.535553
RJQY_A_535553.sgm
0741-8825
Original
Taylor
2010
00 and
&A.Visher
Quarterly
Article
Francis
(print)/1745-9109
Francis (online)
Downloaded By: [Visher, Christy][University of Delaware] At: 16:28 5 May 2011
Finding sustained employment is an important component of the transition from

prison to the community for exiting prisoners. Anecdotal reports from former
prisoners indicate that most individuals experience great difficulties finding jobs
after their release. However, little systematic information is available about the
employment experiences of individuals released from prison or the characteris-
tics of former prisoners who are successful in locating employment. Using a
causal framework, this paper examines the employment experiences of a multi-
state sample of former prisoners, and identifies the individual factors influencing
the likelihood of employment after release from prison, using data gathered from
interviews with prisoners before and at multiple times after release. Findings
indicate that consistent work experience before incarceration, connection to
employers before release, and conventional family relationships improve
employment outcomes after release. Individuals who relapse to drug use quickly
after release, have chronic physical or mental health problems, and are older or
nonwhite are employed fewer months after a period of incarceration.
Keywords prisoner reentry; employment; prisoners
Christy A. Visher is professor at the University of Delaware and Director of the Center for Drug and
Alcohol Studies, a research center within the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice. She has
over 25 years of experience in policy research and evaluation on crime and justice issues. At the
Urban Institute, she designed and directed Returning Home: The Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, the
pathbreaking multi-state, longitudinal study of 1500 men and women exiting prison and returning to
their families and communities. Her research interests focus on criminal careers, substance abuse,
communities and crime, violence, and the evaluation of strategies for crime control and prevention.
Sara A. Debus-Sherrill is a research associate II with the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center where
she currently works on research and evaluation projects related to criminal justice and law. Before
coming to the Justice Policy Center, she studied clinical psychology at the University of Alabama with
a focus in child and adolescent forensic psychology. She has experience with criminal and juvenile
justice populations in both a research and clinical capacity and has research interests in the areas of
corrections, reentry, and desistance from criminal activity. Jennifer Yahner is a research associate in
the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. She has been conducting criminal justice research
for more than a decade and has experience in issues surrounding prisoner reentry, court-ordered
supervision, intimate partner violence, and high-risk youth program evaluation. Correspondence to:
Christy A. Visher, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies,
University of Delaware, 257 E Main Street, Newark, DE 19711, USA. E-mail: visher@udel.edu
ISSN 0741-8825 print/1745-9109 online/10/000001-21

© 2010 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2010.535553
2 VISHER ET AL.
Introduction
Finding sustained employment is an important component of the transition from

prison to the community for exiting prisoners. Research indicates that “work” is
a primary feature of successful reintegration (Laub, Nagin, & Sampson 1998;
Sampson & Laub, 1993; Uggen, 2000) as connections made at work may serve as
informal social controls that help prevent criminal behavior. Moreover, accord-
ing to former prisoners themselves, finding and maintaining stable employment
is a chief element of their adjustment to life after prison and change in identity
(Maruna, 2001; Uggen, Wakefield, & Western, 2005). Anecdotal reports from
former prisoners indicate that most individuals experience great difficulties
finding jobs after release. However, little systematic information is available

about the employment experiences of former prisoners or the characteristics of
those who are successful in locating employment after release.
Although about two-thirds of prisoners report being employed prior to their
incarceration (Lynch & Sabol, 2001), their educational level, work experience,
and skills are well below national averages for the general population (Uggen et
al., 2005; Western, 2007), and the stigma associated with incarceration often
makes it difficult for them to secure jobs (Bushway & Reuter, 2002; Holzer,
Raphael, & Stoll, 2006a). When returning prisoners do find jobs, they tend to
earn less than individuals with similar background characteristics who have not
been incarcerated (Bushway & Reuter, 2002; Raphael, 2007; Western, 2002).
Thus, research supports a strong programmatic emphasis on increasing individual
employability in occupations with good wages through skills training, job readi-
ness, and work release programs, both during incarceration and after release. To
target these efforts most effectively, it would be useful to know which exiting
prisoners are likely to succeed in finding employment and which prisoners are
likely to have significant difficulties. Such knowledge is particularly critical given
that over 700,000 individuals are released annually from prison and about half of
them return to prison within three years (Langan & Levin, 2002).
Research on the lives of former prisoners suggests that their post-release
circumstances may be significant predictors of success or failure (Maruna, 2001;
Travis, 2005; Uggen et al., 2005), including finding and keeping a job. For exam-
ple, relationships with family and peers, physical and mental health conditions,
and even the neighborhood in which former prisoners reside may affect the like-
lihood of employment. Alcohol and other substance use problems also create
challenges for former prisoners as they enter the labor market after incarcera-
tion. However, examining the impact of these factors on employment outcomes
has not been common in existing research on former prisoners because such
analyses require unusually rich administrative data or expensive data collection
techniques to gather self-reported information.
Against this context of employment and prisoner reentry, this paper examines
the legal employment experiences of former prisoners and specifically identifies
the individual factors influencing the likelihood of employment after release
from prison, using data gathered from multiple interviews with prisoners before
EMPLOYMENT AFTER PRISON 3
and several times after release. Although the local labor market may affect
employment prospects for this group (Bushway, Stoll, & Weiman, 2007), we
focus particular attention on the personal characteristics of prisoners that lead
to successful employment who are returning to three metropolitan areas. To
begin, we review prior research on ex-prisoners’ experiences in finding employ-
ment and how individual characteristics of prisoners may facilitate or impede
post-release employment.
Background
Arguably one of the biggest challenges facing persons recently released from
prison is finding a job that provides meaningful employment at a decent wage.
Many experts believe that such experiences are the key to successful reintegra-
tion (Bushway & Reuter, 2002; Good & Sherrid, 2005; Rossman & Roman, 2003;
Sampson & Laub, 1993, but see MacKenzie, 2006 for an alternate view). Yet,
prison is unlikely to have given individuals new skills that they can use to launch
a conventional career. In fact, vocational programs often are unavailable in
prisons, and their availability has declined over the last decade (Lynch & Sabol,
2001). Even with these programs, former prisoners face a bleak employment
future because of low educational attainment, high rates of previous unemploy-
ment, and little work experience in jobs that provide a stable career and livable
wage (Western, 2006, 2007).
Added to these human capital deficits are demand-side (employer) barriers to
employment that may be direct or indirect. Employers may face direct barriers
to hiring formerly incarcerated individuals, including state laws and occupational
licensing requirements that exclude persons with criminal records from holding
specific jobs (Legal Action Center, 2004). Indirect barriers include widespread
city, county, and state laws that permit employers to exclude job applicants with
criminal records regardless of the nature and extent of the record (Harris &
Keller, 2005). In addition, employers may be unwilling to risk liability for hiring
individuals with criminal records into jobs requiring interaction with the public,
the handling of cash, or the direct supervision of children. These “collateral
consequences” of incarceration negatively affect the employment and earnings
of former prisoners (Holzer, 2009; Travis, 2005). Thus, the considerable personal
and public impediments to employment coupled with the apparent status of
former prisoners in the eyes of employers produce a dire situation for individuals
seeking work after a period of incarceration.
Individual and Contextual Factors Influencing Employment
A variety of individual and contextual factors are also likely to influence the
ability of exiting prisoners to find and sustain employment after incarceration,
including demographic characteristics, pre-release preparation for employment,
4 VISHER ET AL.
personal risk factors, and family support. The emerging literature on prisoner
reentry and successful reintegration provides some direction for identifying
possible predictors of employment outcomes for individuals seeking employ-
ment after a period of incarceration (e.g., Braman, 2004; Maruna, 2001; Travis,
2005). These include demographic and personal characteristics, such as age and
previous employment experiences; participation in employment programs prior
to and during prison; individual risk factors such as criminal history and
substance abuse; and the strength of family relationships and tangible support
families provide. In addition, for programmatic and policy purposes, it would be
useful to know whether the characteristics of prisoners who are successful in
securing employment are attributes that existed before incarceration, were
experienced during incarceration, or exemplify circumstances prisoners faced

after release. In fact, early experiences after release could be causally related
to subsequent employment outcomes in the first year after release or they
could indicate that someone is on a path towards unsuccessful reintegration.
Regardless, these types of characteristics could be the focus of prison or post-
release intervention programs.
Former prisoners’ education and the extent and nature of previous work expe-
rience should be main predictors of post-release employment outcomes as these
indicators of human capital are important criteria for employers seeking valuable
and dependable workers (Sabol, 2007; Western, 2007). Some individuals exiting
prison may find work with previous employers or in occupations that require few
skills or limited customer contact (Holzer et al., 2007). Holzer and his colleagues
(2004; Holzer, Raphael, & Stoll 2006a, 2006b) have used employer survey data to
analyze employers’ decisions to hire individuals with criminal records. In
employer surveys conducted in several metropolitan areas and administered to
over 3,000 employers, roughly 60% of employers would “probably not” hire appli-
cants with criminal records. But even among those with criminal records,
employers clearly valued prior work experience: employers were less averse to
hiring persons with property or drug-related criminal records than persons
recently released from prison with little or no work experience or those with a
history of violent crime.
Unfortunately, former prisoners are likely to have educational and work deficits
that make it difficult for them to find high-quality jobs. Age, race, and personal
attitudes towards self and work may also affect the employment prospects of
exiting prisoners. Previous studies suggest that the concept of self-efficacy is
useful in understanding successful reintegration (Maruna, 200l). Self-efficacy
refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to carry out a plan of action and
have control over their life. Thus, individuals with higher self-efficacy are likely
to put a lot of effort into finding and maintaining a job. Similarly, older former
prisoners have lower recidivism rates than younger prisoners (Rosenfeld, Wallman,
& Fornango 2005) and may be more motivated to find a job to avoid the risks of
criminal activity and adopt a conventional lifestyle upon their return to the
community (Shover, 1985; Terry, 2003; Uggen, 2000). Alternatively, older indi-
viduals may encounter age-related discrimination in the labor market and may
find it more difficult to get a job after a period of incarceration. In addition, black
men and especially black former prisoners appear to face additional obstacles in
finding employment which may be due to widespread discrimination in the labor
market (Holzer, 2001; Pager, 2003, 2007).
Activities and experiences in prison may prepare some individuals for employ-
ment. In the last decade, most correctional organizations have developed
programs that help prepare individuals for their return to the community,
including preparation for employment such as job training, job readiness
classes, and other job-related activities (Solomon, Johnson, Travis, & McBride,
2004). Job training and readiness programs help to develop skills needed for
post-release employment opportunities although the demand for such programs
usually exceeds availability (Lynch & Sabol, 2001). Also, individuals who work
inside the prison may be developing skills that will be useful after release, or at
least, developing a work “ethic” that may prepare them for work experiences in
the community (Solomon et al., 2004). Some correctional institutions attempt to
connect exiting prisoners to jobs in the community before release, either
through sponsored job fairs such as Project Rio in Texas (Buck, 2000) or by
encouraging individuals to make contacts with previous employers. Men and
women who are released from prison with these types of community connections
(i.e., social capital ties) may improve their prospects for post-release employ-
ment and a specific job offer before release is likely to be an important step
towards successful reintegration. Finally, one of the barriers to employment for
many former prisoners is their lack of valid identification (Travis, 2005). Many
prisoners return to the community with no identification or only a correctional
identification card that clearly indicates their status as a former prisoner.
Moreover, obtaining such identification quickly after release is very difficult as
former prisoners rarely have retained copies of other necessary documents such
as their birth certificate or social security card. Employers in the formal labor
market who must submit employment records to the state and federal govern-
ment require these types of identification during the hiring process. Thus, indi-
viduals who lack identification may have additional difficulties finding
employment.
Former prisoners are likely to have other risk factors that may hinder their
prospects for employment after release, including criminogenic attitudes and
behaviors. Former prisoners who admit a willingness to continue criminal behav-
ior or drug use after release are unlikely to be committed to a conventional life-
style and legitimate employment. Further, individuals who view the legal system
as irrelevant or unfair (i.e., “legal cynicism”) appear more likely to continue
involvement in criminal behavior after release (Sampson & Bartusch, 1998) and
may be less likely to find and hold a job. As discussed previously, many employers
are disinclined to hire individuals who have criminal records, even if the criminal
activity was many years in the past. Furthermore, a serious criminal history may
be an indicator of poor self-control and, hence, a general disinclination to
engage in sustained prosocial behavior that is normally required to maintain
legitimate employment (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Other personal risk factors
6 VISHER ET AL.
that may exist shortly after release such as relapse to alcohol or drug abuse, and
physical or mental health conditions may restrict employment options, and make
it difficult for individuals to sustain employment (Greifinger, 2006). Many men
exiting prison are also facing thousands of dollars in debt from child support
orders, court-ordered restitution, or other unpaid obligations. This debt could
motivate individuals to seek employment after release. However, child support
regulations in some states may discourage men from working because of laws
that require child support arrears to be shared between the state and the child’s
mother (Holzer, Offner, & Sorensen, 2005).
Finally, an individual’s marital status, attachment to children, and support
from family may influence post-release employment outcomes. Marriage and
children may encourage former prisoners to seek work to strengthen these

personal ties and to further establish themselves on a path to successful reinte-
gration after release (Laub et al., 1998; Uggen et al., 2005). Exiting prisoners
also rely heavily on other family members in the initial months after release for
housing, financial help, and emotional support (Braman, 2004; Travis, 2005).
This assistance could provide individuals with cash, clothing, and transportation
that are often needed for a successful job search. Alternatively, too much
support could reduce motivation and permit exiting prisoners to postpone
employment.
With this prior research in mind, we examine the employment experiences of
740 exiting prisoners in the first eight months after their release from prison,
with specific attention to the personal and situational factors that may facili-
tate or impede employment. This study uses self-reported data on employment
experiences at multiple points in time. These data may more accurately capture
all legal work experiences, whether or not such experiences are reported by
employers to state agencies. In studies which use unemployment insurance
data, substantially fewer former prisoners have documented job experience
(Holzer, 2009).
Data and Methods
The data for this analysis were collected as part of a larger longitudinal study of
exiting prisoners in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas conducted by the Urban Institute in
Washington, DC. The study targeted prisoners serving at least one year in state
prison and returning to the city and county areas of Chicago, Cleveland, and
Houston. Potential respondents were identified either through compulsory pre-
release programs where prisoners were already convened (Illinois and Texas) or
from lists of individuals who were within 60 days of release (Ohio). A member of
the research team provided an overview of the study and details of informed
consent to assembled groups of potential respondents. Individuals who agreed
to participate (over 80%) were given consent forms and asked to complete a
self-administered survey. Research procedures ensured that correctional offi-
cials were not aware of whether or not individuals agreed to participate in the
study. More than 1,200 men about to be released from state prisons were
recruited into the study in 2002-2003 in Illinois and in 2004-2005 in Ohio and
Texas. The pre-release samples of prisoners in each state were generally repre-
sentative of all prisoners being released to the study areas in the previous year
in terms of race, sentence length, and time served.
The pre-release survey was designed to obtain data on the respondents’
characteristics and pre-prison experiences, as well as incarceration experiences
and services received since admission to prison. This survey also obtained data
on the respondents’ post-release plans and expectations about reentry. After
each prisoner’s release, experienced interviewers conducted up to three
personal interviews within 15 months, including interviews with those who were
in jail or had been returned to prison. The number and schedule of the inter-
views varied by site due to logistical and budgetary factors. The post-release
interviews were similar in content across waves and obtained data on reentry
experiences, housing, employment, family and community integration,
substance abuse, physical and mental health, and criminal behavior. During
their post-release interviews, respondents also completed screening instru-
ments for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Individuals were paid
25 dollars for each interview in the community.
After release, locating the respondents was sometimes difficult; yet, 60.5% of
the 1,238 males surveyed prior to release were located for two different post-
release interviews—one at about two months out and the other at an average of
eight months out. Nine respondents who were reincarcerated before their first
interview were excluded, creating an analysis sample of 740. To correct for
differences between the final sample analyzed and the original sample inter-
viewed before release, inverse probability weights (IPW) were used within each
state. The factors included in the attrition weights adjusted for differences
between respondents and attriters on items such as sentence length, offense
type, detention as a juvenile, past substance use, intentions to commit crime
post-release, pre-prison employment, health conditions, age, race/ethnicity,
marital status, and pre-release self-esteem. Increasingly popular among econo-
mists and statisticians, IPW methods provide an intuitive approach to correcting
for non-representation by weighting sample members by the inverse probability
of their being selected. In this way, IPW methods can be used to correct general
forms of sample selection, attrition, and stratification problems (Hirano,
Imbens, & Ridder, 2003; Woolridge, 2002). When the final weights were
applied, the analyzed sample showed comparability to the initial sample across
a broad range of pre-release characteristics and on official reincarceration data
at 12 months.
The study gathered substantial data about respondents’ workforce participa-
tion, including information on their employment history before prison, experi-
ences during prison, and experiences after release. Employment history
information was collected during the self-administered pre-release survey
approximately 30 days before release and asked prisoners about their work
experiences during the six months prior to their current prison term. During
8 VISHER ET AL.
one-on-one interviews conducted after release, respondents were asked more

extensive questions about job experiences. The two-month interview asked
about job training received during prison, and specifically whether respondents
were offered or participated in employment readiness, job training classes, or
work release. Both the two- and eight-month interviews included questions
about respondents’ experiences looking for work since release, and how their
criminal record may have affected their job search. They were asked whether,
for how long, and in what capacity they were working, as well as how many
hours per week they worked and how much money they earned. In addition,
they were asked how they found their current job (if employed), how far their
job was from where they lived, and how they traveled to their job.
The dependent variable in this analysis is the percentage of time employed

since release in months, as of the interview at eight months. In the post-release
interviews, a calendar-based data collection method was used to obtain
monthly employment data. These self-reported data on monthly employment do
not include “casual” or “under the table” work that the respondent may have
done on an ad-hoc basis. These monthly reports were then aggregated over the
approximately eight months from release to the second post-release interview
to construct the dependent measure. The distribution of this measure ranged
from 35% of the sample who were never employed to 11% of the sample who
were employed every month from release to the second interview. Another one-
third of respondents (35%) were employed for more than half of the post-release
period but less than 100% (see Table 1).
To identify potential causal predictors of time employed since release, inde-
pendent variables were constructed either from questions asked on the pre-
release survey or during the initial post-release interview conducted at two
months. Thus, all variables are based on self-reported information and can be
considered causally prior to the employment measure which spans the entire
eight-month post-release period. Following previous reentry research as
discussed earlier, potential predictors of employment are grouped into four
theoretically relevant categories: demographic and personal characteristics,
preparation for employment, personal risk factors, and family relationships and
support. Table 2 provides definitions, coding, and means of the variables.
Detailed descriptions of scales and other variables are provided in the Appendix.
Table 1 Distribution of percent of time employed at eight months after release
Percent of time employed since release Percent of respondents
0% 35%
1–25% 7%
26–50% 13%
51–75% 14%
76–99% 20%
100% 11%
Total 100%
Table 2 Descriptive statistics
Variable1 Coding Mean
Demographics
Illinois 1 = yes, 0 = no .312
Ohio 1 = yes, 0 = no .412
Texas 1 = yes, 0 = no .276
Age at release Continuous, 19 = min, 73 = max 35.7
Nonwhite/biracial race 1 = yes, 0 = no .837
High school graduate/GED pre-prison 1 = yes, 0 = no .516
Worked pre-prison 1 = yes, 0 = no .677
Longest time worked 1 = <6 months, 2 = 6 months–1 year, 3 = 1– 3.320
2 years, 4 = 2–5 years, 5 = 5+ years

Control over life post-release Continuous scale, 1 = very weak, 2 = 3.171
weak, 3 = strong, 4 = very strong
Preparation for employment
Improved education in prison 1 = yes, 0 = no .205
Job training in prison 1 = yes, 0 = no .205
Prison work experience 1 = yes, 0 = no .530
Job arranged pre-release 1 = yes, 0 = no .235
Contacted prior employer post- 1 = yes, 0 = no .169
release
Photo ID post-release 1 = yes, 0 = no .778
Personal risk factors
Prior prison term 1 = yes, 0 = no .675
Legal cynicism pre-release Continuous scale, 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 2.229
= high, 4 = very high
Intended to commit crime or use Continuous scale, 1 = very unlikely, 2 = 1.542
drugs post-release unlikely, 3 = likely, 4 = very likely
Frequent drug use pre-prison 1 = yes, 0 = no .591
Any drug use post-release 1 = yes, 0 = no .131
Number of crimes or parole violations Continuous, 0 = min, 94 = max 1.086
post-release
Chronic physical health condition 1 = yes, 0 = no .460
Mental health condition 1 = yes, 0 = no .337
Owed debt post-release 1 = yes, 0 = no .542
Violent offense 1 = yes, 0 = no .195
Drug offense 1 = yes, 0 = no .391
Family relationships and support
Married with partner post-release 1 = yes, 0 = no .149
Number of children post-release Continuous, 0 = minimum, 11 = maximum 1.088
Attachment to children post-release Continuous scale, 0 = none/no kids, 1 = .450
some, 2 = high
Family tangible support post-release Continuous scale, 1 = very weak, 2 = 3.328
weak, 3 = strong, 4 = very strong
1Seethe Appendix for list of items in scales and details about variable measurement. Post-release
measures refer to data collected two months after release.
10 VISHER ET AL.
In addition to the theoretical variables of interest, we controlled for the state in

which respondents were imprisoned, their age at release, race/ethnicity, and
conviction offense type. The multivariate analysis was conducted using ordinary
least squares (OLS) regression and the inverse probability weights described
earlier.
Results
The sample of 740 men was ethnically and racially diverse (74% black, 16%
white, and 9% Hispanic). The mean age was about 36 years. About half of the
respondents had at least a high school education prior to prison. Consistent with
national data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Lynch & Sabol, 2001), about
two-thirds (68%) had worked in the six months before their incarceration. For a
majority of the respondents, the longest time they had worked in one job was
less than two years. At two months after release, most respondents scored high
on a nine-item scale measuring self-efficacy or control over their life (3.2 of 4).
Regarding pre-release preparation for employment, about half of the respon-
dents (53%) reported holding a job during their incarceration and one in five
improved their education in prison and received some type of job training.
About one-quarter (24%) had a job arranged prior to their release and 17% had
made contact with a prior employer. And at two months after release, over
three-quarters of the men had obtained a photo identification card.
In terms of personal risk factors, most respondents had a significant history of
criminal activity before their current incarceration. Over two-thirds (68%) had
served a previous prison term (28% had served three or more prior prison
terms). The largest share of the sample (39%) was serving time for a drug
offense (either possession or sales) for their current prison term; about 20%
were serving time for a violent offense. About three in five respondents (59%)
reported using illegal drugs more than once a week in the six months leading up
to their imprisonment, with marijuana and cocaine each accounting for about a
third of reported drug use. At two months after release, 13% reported that they
had engaged in illegal drug use. Moreover, respondents reported committing an
average of one crime or one parole violation at the two-month interview.
Substantial numbers of respondents reported a chronic physical health condition
such as asthma, diabetes, or heart disease (46%) or had responses indicative of a
mental health condition, including depression or post-traumatic stress disorder
(34%). Over half (54%) reported that they had sizeable debts. Finally, prior to
release, the sample had low average scores on scales of legal cynicism (2.2. of
4) and criminal intentions (1.5 of 4). As discussed previously, legal cynicism is a
measure of the respondent’s view that the legal system is irrelevant or unfair.
The criminal intentions scale combines four questions about respondents’ future
intentions to use drugs or commit crime.
Only a minority of respondents (15%) were married or with a long-term
intimate partner at the two-month post-release interview. Nevertheless, over
half of the men reported having minor children; overall, respondents had an
average of one child. A seven-item scale of attachment to children which
measured aspects of respondent’s interaction with their children (see the
Appendix) was collapsed into scores of 0 (none/no kids), 1 (some attachment),
and 2 (high attachment); the mean score was .45, indicating low overall attach-
ment to children among the men in this sample (in part because not all respon-
dents had children). Finally, at two months after release, the average
respondent reported a high level of tangible support (e.g., housing, food, cash
assistance) from family members (3.3 of 4).
Table 3 presents additional descriptive information about the employment
experiences of respondents at two and eight months after release from prison.
Finding a job was an important goal for most of the former prisoners. Over
three-quarters (79%) spent time searching for a job after being released.
However, many respondents had difficulty finding employment, and the major-
ity (70%) felt that their criminal record had affected their job search. Two
months after being released, 43% of respondents had been employed at some
point since leaving prison, but only 31% were currently employed. Many were
working several jobs and more than 40 hours per week. Hourly wages for all jobs
ranged from $2 to $80 with a median wage of $8 per hour and a total monthly
income from all sources of about $410. Besides employment, respondents
reported a variety of other sources of income, including informal work (28%).
Two-thirds received financial assistance from friends and family, and about one
in five also relied on public assistance. The percentage of former prisoners who
Table 3 Employment experiences of respondents, two and eight months after release
Men two months Men eight months

after release after release
Employment
Actively searched for a job* 79% 74%
Feels criminal record has affected job search 71% 71%
Any employment since release** 43% 65%
Currently employed** 31% 45%
Median hourly wage for all jobs combined†* $8.00 $8.95
Median number hours works per week† 40.00 40.00
Types of income sources
Total monthly income (median)** $410.63 $700.00
Legal employment** 30% 41%
Informal work** 28% 47%
Family and friends** 66% 48%
Public assistance 22% 19%
Illegal activities** 2% 6%
Notes. Z tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were conducted to identify statistically significant
differences across time. A single asterisk (*) denotes differences with a p-value <.05 and a double
asterisk (**) denotes differences with a p-value <.01. The symbol † denotes the subsample of
respondents who were employed.
12 VISHER ET AL.
reported illegal activities as a source of income two months after release (2%)
decreased considerably from pre-prison levels (35%).
When respondents were interviewed approximately eight months after release,
most were still searching for a job. The majority (71%) again said that their crim-
inal record affected their ability to obtain a job, although more respondents had
successfully found employment than at two months post-release. Sixty-five
percent had been employed at some point since release; however, less than half
were actually employed at the time of the interview. While the majority reported
that their criminal history made the job hunt more difficult, 80% of employed
respondents said their employer knew about their criminal history. Most employed
respondents worked at least 40 hours per week, although 40% reported working
more than 40 hours and 15% said they worked 60 or more hours each week. Hourly
wages for all jobs ranged from $2 to $90 with a median hourly wage of $9.
Respondents continued to find other means aside from formal, legal employ-
ment to supplement their income. About half (47%) had performed some type of
informal work such as automotive repairs, carpentry work, and lawn mainte-
nance. With the higher rates of formal and informal employment eight months
after release (compared with two months post-release), reliance on other forms
of financial support decreased. However, almost half of former prisoners (48%)
continued to rely on family and friends for financial support. Also, the portion
with income from illegal activities increased slightly from 2% to 6%. The median
monthly income from all sources increased to $700 eight months after release.
Thus, while respondents experienced substantial gains in employment
outcomes between two and eight months after release from prison, most men
could not be characterized as having found a steady job with sufficient income
to support themselves and any dependent family members. This leads us to ask
which men were able to find regular employment; or rather, which personal and
situational characteristics of the type discussed earlier predicted better
employment outcomes after incarceration?
Results from our multivariate analysis to answer this question are presented
in Table 4. As shown by the R-square statistic, the model explained approxi-
mately 30% of the variation in post-prison employment, an impressive outcome
when compared to other research in the social sciences. A number of theoreti-
cal variables of interest emerged as significantly predictive of the percentage of
time employed after prison release.1 Looking at the size of the standardized
coefficients shown in Table 4, it is clear that the strongest predictors of working
more time after prison release were:
• the state in which respondents were imprisoned (Texas and Ohio respondents
found more work after release than those from Illinois);
• working before prison, at all, and having worked a longer amount of prior
time;
1. Statistical significance was defined using a probability of less than .05, meaning less than 5%
chance of error in identifying true-population predictors of time employed after release.
Table 4 OLS regression model predicting percent of time employed since release
Unstandardized
coefficients Standardized coefficients
Standard
Variable Beta error Beta t Significance
Demographics
Ohio .150 .044 .192 3.446 .001
Texas .291 .046 .335 6.308 .000
Age at release −.004 .002 −.093 −2.035 .042
Nonwhite/biracial race −.147 .041 −.139 −3.551 .000
High school graduate/GED pre-prison −.012 .032 −.016 −.386 .700

Worked pre-prison .137 .033 .160 4.154 .000
Longest time worked .026 .012 .091 2.121 .034
Control over life post-release1 .064 .031 .083 2.023 .044
Preparation for employment
Improved education in prison .014 .037 .015 .379 .705
Job training in prison .051 .035 .055 1.450 .148
Prison work experience .079 .030 .101 2.667 .008
Job arranged pre-release .107 .035 .116 3.068 .002
Contacted prior employer post-release .068 .038 .067 1.822 .069
Photo ID post-release .088 .036 .093 2.428 .016
Personal risk factors
Prior prison term .045 .033 .055 1.380 .168
Frequent drug use pre-prison −.006 .030 −.008 −.203 .839
Legal cynicism pre-release −.027 .026 −.042 −1.041 .298
Intended to commit crime or use drugs −.013 .023 −.023 −.566 .571
post-release
Any drug use post-release −.089 .044 −.075 −2.002 .046
Number of crimes or parole violations −.003 .002 −.057 −1.527 .127
post-release
Chronic physical health condition −.076 .031 −.098 −2.482 .013
Mental health condition −.100 .034 −.121 −2.972 .003
Owed debt post-release .060 .034 .076 1.760 .079
Violent offense .023 .039 .025 .602 .547
Drug offense −.008 .033 −.010 −.232 .817
Family relationships and support
Married with partner post-release .076 .042 .069 1.813 .070
Number of children post-release −.013 .012 −.049 −1.131 .259
Attachment to children post-release .047 .026 .078 1.779 .076
Family tangible support post-release −.016 .024 −.027 −.682 .495
(Constant) .146 .171 .854 .393
Observations = 603 (81%)
R-square = .298
1Post-release measures refer to data collected two months after release.

14 VISHER ET AL.
• working while in prison;

• arranging for a job before release;
• having photo identification at or soon after release; and
• expressing higher levels of control over one’s life.
In addition, having contact with a prior employer after release predicted a

higher percentage of time worked and was close to significant at the conven-
tional level (p = .07). Thus, respondents who had a greater amount of prior and
in-prison work experience and those who took a more active role in preparing
for their post-release employment worked a significantly higher percentage of
time in the eight months after release than those without such experience.
Three other variables of theoretical interest approached statistical significance:

owing debt, having stronger levels of attachment to one’s children, and being
married to a partner (as of two months post-release) were associated with
higher percentages of time worked.
On the other hand, the strongest predictors of working a lower percentage of
months after release were:
• being of nonwhite racial/ethnic identity (which included 84% of respon-

dents);
• suffering from a mental health condition;
• having a chronic physical health condition;
• being older at release; and
• using illegal drugs within two months after release.
Respondents with mental or physical impairments and those who self-reported

substance use soon after release worked fewer months during the eight months
after incarceration, as did those who were older and nonwhite.
Notably, several variables were not significant predictors of post-prison
employment in the multivariate model, although they had significant bivariate
correlations with post-release employment. These variables included pre- and
in-prison education; receipt of job training while in prison; criminal history, as
measured by prior prison term and current offense type; substance abuse before
prison; expressed legal cynicism and intent to continue antisocial behavior after
prison; self-reported crimes and parole violations committed since release; and
tangible support (e.g., money, housing, clothes) from one’s family after
release. The next section summarizes these results and discusses the policy
implications of these findings.
Discussion and Policy Implications
Employment is an important component of the reentry process. Even more than

a steady source of income, jobs can provide a sense of structure and responsibil-
ity to former prisoners as they return to the community. Unfortunately, many
will face a difficult path in finding and keeping employment. One important
finding of this study is the particular vulnerability of those without recent or
consistent work experience. These individuals worked significantly fewer
months after release in formal employment than those with such experience.
Also, respondents who did not hold a regular job while incarcerated had worse
employment outcomes after release than those who did.
Several personal risk factors also had significant effects on employment
outcomes for respondents in this study. Most exiting prisoners in the sample had
an extensive history of substance abuse, and those who turned to drugs early
after their release—within the first two months—were employed fewer months
during the eight-month follow-up period. One-third to almost half of the respon-
dents in the study had a chronic physical or mental health condition and these
individuals also worked fewer months than those without such risk factors.
However, individuals with debt obligations worked more months after release
than those without debt. It is also important to remember that individuals need
to desire a change in their lives. In this study, respondents who felt that they
were in control of their lives and could solve their own problems had better
employment outcomes.
The hiring process itself is a large hurdle for most former prisoners. Most
respondents looking for a job after release used multiple strategies in their
search, but the most successful one was returning to a previous employer to find
work. However, this again exemplifies the vulnerability of individuals without
previous employment. Restrictions on convicted persons working in certain types
of jobs impedes the process of finding a job, and the majority of respondents felt
that many potential employers did not feel comfortable hiring individuals with a
criminal record. Similar to previous research, nonwhite ex-prisoners in this
sample had poorer employment outcomes and may have experienced discrimina-
tion in their search for jobs after release. Having to provide criminal history infor-
mation before the interview process eliminates many job opportunities for former
prisoners. Some states, such as Texas, have recently decided to stop asking about
criminal records on applications for certain job positions. (This decision occurred
after the end of this study and, hence, had no effect on the study’s results.) Giving
employers the opportunity to meet and speak with job applicants before discov-
ering their criminal history has the potential to improve job outcomes for former
prisoners (Pager, Western, & Sugie, 2009). Another important but sometimes
overlooked factor is having a source of identification at release that is not
affiliated with the department of corrections. Holding some form of identifica-
tion, either at the moment of release or acquiring one soon after, was related to
better job outcomes in this study.
Once exiting prisoners find a job, there is an additional challenge of main-
taining employment. Eight months after release, 65% of respondents said they
had been employed at some point since their incarceration but less than half
were currently employed. About two in five respondents resorted to working
over 40 hours a week to earn more money. Many respondents relied on family
and friends and, to a lesser extent, on government programs for financial
16 VISHER ET AL.
support after release. Although this reliance decreased over time, 48% of
respondents were still relying on their family and friends as sources of income
eight months after release.
Indeed, family relationships are important factors in successful reintegration
and appear to be related to employment outcomes, although not as strongly as
employment experiences and personal risk factors. In this study, former prison-
ers who were married and those with strong attachment to their children shortly
after release were employed for more months in the follow-up period. Marriage
and attachment to children can be indicators of a commitment to a prosocial
lifestyle, and these family obligations may serve as informal social controls on
deviant behavior; thus, it is not surprising that such individuals would have
better employment outcomes. However, tangible support from family members

had no impact on the number of months respondents worked after release.
After considering all sources of income, the median monthly income eight
months after release for these respondents was only $700 per month. Preliminary
findings of the relationship between employment and recidivism in this sample
indicate that individuals who had higher wages in the early months after release
were more likely to avoid a return to prison (Visher, Debus, & Yahner, 2008). Two
months after release, unemployed individuals were three times more likely to be
returned to prison one year after release (23%) than individuals making more than
$10 an hour (8%). This finding supports research by Grogger (1998) and others that
it is not simply employment that reduces recidivism, but how much individuals
are compensated for their work. A salary that is inadequate to support oneself or
one’s family may propel individuals back into criminal behavior.
The results from the analysis presented in this paper suggest that, as a
group, pre-prison characteristics of respondents including prior work experi-
ence, age, and race were very strong predictors of post-release employment
success. Yet, a variety of experiences during prison and shortly after release
were also quite important in finding and maintaining stable employment—hold-
ing a prison job, arranging employment before release, a positive attitude after
release, good physical and mental health status, acquiring photo identification,
and abstaining from illegal drug use. Other post-release circumstances, includ-
ing having debt, being married, and having a strong attachment to their chil-
dren had modest relationships with employment after release. Thus, successful
employment outcomes appear to result from a combination of fixed and
dynamic characteristics, providing hope that former prisoners’ employment
outcomes can be improved by focusing services on addressing the factors that
are changeable.
In prioritizing services for exiting and released prisoners, correctional practi-
tioners and policymakers and community service providers should consider that
individuals with weak employment histories will require additional assistance
finding a job after prison. Moreover, substance abuse treatment in prison and
after release will likely assist former prisoners in resisting substance use and
should ultimately help them find employment (only 39% of respondents in this
study had received substance abuse treatment while in prison). Similarly,
former prisoners with serious physical or mental health conditions need access
to medical care after release which may improve their employment outcomes.
Corrections officials can also improve the chances for employment and thus,
successful reintegration, of exiting prisoners by helping individuals maintain
family relationships, facilitating access to employers before release, and
arranging for photo identification.
While finding and maintaining employment is only one among a number of
challenges for exiting prisoners, it can have an enormous impact on their
success in avoiding recidivism and in improving their quality of life after
release. However, there are a number of obstacles to obtaining and maintaining
employment, including the reluctance of employers to hire those with criminal
records, the lack of previous education or employment history for some individ-
uals, and the gap in work history during the prison term. Addressing the employ-
ment status of these individuals is thus key to increasing their chances for a
successful return to the community. With the knowledge provided through this
and other studies on reentry, policymakers and service providers should be
better equipped to assist individuals who are ready and willing to make the life
changes necessary to successfully negotiate reentry challenges.
References
Braman, D. (2004). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life. Ann Arbor,
MI.: University of Michigan Press.
Buck, M. (2000). Getting back to work: Employment programs for ex-offenders.
Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Bushway, S., & Reuter, P. (2002). Labor markets and crime. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia
(Eds.), Crime: Public policies for crime control (pp. 191–224). San Francisco, CA: ICS
Press.
Bushway, S., Stoll, M. A., & Weiman, D. F. (2007). Introduction. In S. Bushway, M. A. Stoll,
& D. F. Weiman (Eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in
post-industrial America (pp. 1–25). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Good, J., & Sherrid, P. (2005). When the gates open: Ready4work, a national response to
the prisoner reentry crisis. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Greifinger, R. (2006). Public health behind bars: From prisons to communities. Dobbs
Ferry, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Grogger, J. (1998). Market wages and youth crime. Journal of Labor Economics, 16,
756–791.
Harris, P. M., & Keller, K. S. (2005). Ex-offenders need not apply. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 21, 6–30.
Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., & Ridder, G. (2003). Efficient estimation of average treat-
ment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica, 71, 1161–1189.
Holzer, H. J. (2001). Racial differences in labor market outcomes among men. In N.
Smelser, W. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.), American becoming: Racial trends and their
consequences (pp. 98–123). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Holzer, H. J. (2009). Collateral costs: The effects of incarceration on employment
and earnings of young men. In S. Raphael & M. Stoll (Eds.), Do prisons make us safer?
18 VISHER ET AL.
The benefits and costs of the prison boom (pp. 239–265). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Holzer, H. J., Offner, P., & Sorensen, E. (2005). Declining employment among young
black men: The role of incarceration and child support. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 24, 329–350.
Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. (2004). Will employers hire former offenders?
Employer preference, background checks and their determinants. In M. Pattilo, D.
Weiman, & B. Western (Eds.), Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass
incarceration (pp. 205–243). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. (2006a). Perceived criminality, criminal back-
ground checks and the racial hiring practices of employers. Journal of Law and
Economics, 49, 451–480.
Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. (2006b). The effect of an applicant’s criminal history
on employer hiring decisions and screening practices: New evidence from Los Angeles.
In S. Bushway, M. Stoll, & D. Weiman (Eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor market for
released prisoners in post-industrial America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 (NCJ
193427). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal
offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review,
63, 225–238.
Legal Action Center. (2004). After prison: Roadblocks to reentry. Retrieved February 10,
2010, from http://www.lac.org/roadblocks-to-reentry
Lynch, J., & Sabol, W. (2001). Prisoner reentry in perspective (Justice Policy Center).
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
MacKenzie, D. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of
offenders and delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108,
937–975.
Pager, D. (2007). Two strikes and you’re out: The intensification of racial and criminal
stigma. In S. Bushway, M. Stoll, & D. Weiman (Eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor
market for released prisoners in post-industrial America (pp. 151–173). New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Pager, D., Western, B., & Sugie, N. (2009). Sequencing disadvantage: Barriers to
employment facing young black and white men with criminal records. Annals, 623,
195–213.
Raphael, S. (2007). Early incarceration spells and the transition to adulthood. In S. Danz-
inger, F. Furstenberg, & C. Rouse (Eds.), The price of independence (pp. 278–306).
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Rosenfeld, R., Wallman, J., & Fornango, R. (2005). The contribution of ex-prisoners to
crime rates. In J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America
(pp. 80–104). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rossman, S., & Roman, J. (2003). Case-managed reentry and employment: Lessons from
the Opportunity to Succeed program. Justice Research and Policy, 5, 75–100.
Sabol, W. (2007). Local labor-market conditions and post-prison employment experiences
of offenders released from Ohio state prisons. In S. Bushway, M. Stoll, & D. Weiman
(Eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial
America (pp. 257–303). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sampson, R., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of
deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review,
32, 777–804.
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points
through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shover, N. (1985). Aging criminals: Changes in the criminal calculus. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Solomon, A. L., Johnson, K. D., Travis, J., McBride, E. C. (2004). From prison to work:
The employment dimensions of prisoner reentry (Justice Policy Center). Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute.
Terry, C. M. (2003). The fellas: Overcoming prison and addiction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
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, 65, 529–546.
Uggen, C., Wakefield, S., & Western, B. (2005). Work and family perspectives on reentry.
In J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 209–243).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Visher, C. A., Debus, S., & Yahner, J. (2008). Employment after prison: A longitudinal
study of releasees in three states (Justice Policy Center Research Report). Washing-
ton, DC: The Urban Institute.
Western, B. (2002). The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. American
Sociological Review, 67, 526–546.
Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Western, B. (2007). The penal system and the labor market. In S. Bushway, M. A. Stoll, &
D. F. Weiman (Eds.), Barriers to re-entry? The labor market for released prisoners in
postindustrial America (pp. 335–360). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Woolridge, J. M. (2002). Inverse probability weighted M-estimators for sample selection,
attrition, and stratification. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1, 117–139.
20 VISHER ET AL.
Appendix. Measures
Control Over Life
Control over life included the following nine items (some were reverse-coded): I
have little control over the things that happen to me; what happens to me in the
future mostly depends on me; there is little I can do to change many of the
important things in my life; my life has gone out of control; there is really no way
I can solve some of the problems I have; I can do just about anything I really set
my mind to; sometimes I feel like I’m being pushed around in my life; I often feel
helpless dealing with the problems of life; and my life seems without meaning.
Legal Cynicism
Legal cynicism included the following five items: laws are made to be broken;
it’s okay to do anything you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone; to make
money, there are no right and wrong ways, only easy and hard ways; fighting
with friends or families is nobody else’s business; and these days a person has to
live pretty much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself.
Drug/Crime Intentions
Drug/crime intentions included the following four items: how likely is it, if you
thought you would not get caught, that you would use drugs in the next six
months; how likely is it, if you thought you would not get caught, that you
would commit a crime in the next six months; if you thought you would be
arrested for it, how likely is it that you would use drugs in the six months after
release; and if you thought you would be arrested for it, how likely is it that you
would commit a crime in the six months after release.
Chronic Physical Health Condition
The respondent reported having asthma, diabetes, a heart condition, high blood
pressure, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, or any other physical illness (not counting sexu-
ally transmitted diseases), when asked at two months post-release. For Illinois,
respondents were simply asked if they had any of these illnesses. In Ohio/Texas,
they were asked if a doctor had told them they have any of these illnesses.
Mental Health Condition
The respondent self-reported depression or other mental illness, and/or had

responses indicating depression or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on scales
measuring each. The depression scale used in this study consisted of 20 items
from the NIMH Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), with
scores of 16 or more qualifying respondents as likely suffering from depression.
The PTSD scale consisted of 17 items measuring the degree to which respondents
suffered from PTSD following their incarceration experience (e.g., had repeated
disturbing dreams of prison, felt irritable or had angry outbursts). Scoring to
determine the likelihood of PTSD followed that described in the Illinois Criminal
Justice Information Authority, Women’s Health Risk Study, 1997.
Attachment to Children
Attachment to children included the following seven items: how often have you
played with or spent time with any of your children; how often have you spent
time talking with or listening to any of your children; how often have you placed
limits on how late any of your children could stay up (i.e., bed times) or stay out
(curfews); how often have you known where any of your children were playing
or hanging out when they weren’t at home; how often have you placed limits on
who any of your children could spend time with; how often have you helped any
of your children with homework or school projects; and how often have you
participated in school events with any of your children.
Family Tangible Support
Family tangible support included the following five items: someone in your
family who would provide help or advice on finding a place to live; someone in
your family who would provide help or advice on finding a job; someone in your
family who would provide support for dealing with a substance abuse problem;
someone in your family who would provide transportation to work or other
appointments, if needed; and someone in your family who would provide you
with some financial support.
View publication stats

Employment After Prison

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employment After Prison

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Employment After Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Former Prisoners

Article in Justice Quarterly · October 2011

Christy A. Visher Jennifer Yahner

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Returning Home View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Employment After Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Former Prisoners

First published on: 10 December 2010

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Employment After Prison: A

Christy A. Visher, Sara A. Debus-Sherrill and

Finding sustained employment is an important component of the transition from

Keywords prisoner reentry; employment; prisoners

ISSN 0741-8825 print/1745-9109 online/10/000001-21

Finding sustained employment is an important component of the transition from

finding jobs after release. However, little systematic information is available

Individual and Contextual Factors Influencing Employment

experienced during incarceration, or exemplify circumstances prisoners faced

children may encourage former prisoners to seek work to strengthen these

Data and Methods

one-on-one interviews conducted after release, respondents were asked more

The dependent variable in this analysis is the percentage of time employed

Table 1 Distribution of percent of time employed at eight months after release

Percent of time employed since release Percent of respondents

Table 2 Descriptive statistics

Variable1 Coding Mean

2 years, 4 = 2–5 years, 5 = 5+ years

In addition to the theoretical variables of interest, we controlled for the state in

Men two months Men eight months

High school graduate/GED pre-prison −.012 .032 −.016 −.386 .700

1Post-release measures refer to data collected two months after release.

• working while in prison;

In addition, having contact with a prior employer after release predicted a

Three other variables of theoretical interest approached statistical significance:

• being of nonwhite racial/ethnic identity (which included 84% of respon-

Respondents with mental or physical impairments and those who self-reported

Discussion and Policy Implications

Employment is an important component of the reentry process. Even more than

better employment outcomes. However, tangible support from family members

Control Over Life

Chronic Physical Health Condition

Mental Health Condition

The respondent self-reported depression or other mental illness, and/or had

Family Tangible Support

View publication stats

You might also like