Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus

The role of employment as a mediator in correctional education’s impact on

recidivism: A quasi-experimental study of multiple programs
Dror Walk a, *, Noam Haviv a, b, Badi Hasisi a, David Weisburd a, c
a
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
b
Ashkelon Academic College, Ashkelon, Israel
c
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There is ample evidence that prison-based educational programs reduce the rate of recidivism among formerly
Correctional education incarcerated individuals and increase their employment prospects. However, little empirical research has focused
Employment on examining the mechanism that links correctional education with these two outcomes. Moreover, the versatile
Recidivism
programs investigated to date make it difficult to distinguish between effective and less effective programs. Using
PSM
Mediator
propensity score matching, we compared post-release employment and recidivism among Israeli formerly
incarcerated individuals who participated in four different education programs. Findings demonstrated two
patterns: participants in the 12th grade and 8th grade programs showed better outcomes in both recidivism and
employment than non-participants, whereas participants in the 10th grade and 6th grade programs only showed
better employment outcomes. The mediating effect of employment on recidivism in the 12th grade and 8th grade
programs demonstrated the dramatic role of employment in the desistance process. Our study suggests that
education programs with more direct content or skills linked to employment would increase the overall impact of
education on successful reentry.

1. Introduction
The rate of illiteracy among incarcerated individuals is higher than in
the general population, and fewer of them have a high-school diploma or
academic degree (Creese, 2015; Vacca, 2004; Wolf Harlow, 2003). It
therefore comes as no surprise that correctional education programs
have been offered by correctional facilities since their inception. For
instance, in the United States, 84% of prisons offer some form of
educational program to their inmates, and 98% of federal correctional
facilities offer almost every kind of educational program available
(Brazzell et al., 2009). In federal facilities, 27% of incarcerated in­
dividuals participate in educational programs (Travis et al., 2014), and a
similar participation rate was found in surveys conducted by the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (Turner, 2018). In time, the variety of contents
offered by educational programs spanned from basic education and lit­
eracy through elementary and high-school level programs to vocational
training, life skill acquisition, and even higher education programs
(Cecil et al., 2000). They provide incarcerated individuals with disci­
plinary contents and normative values that aim to encourage partici­
pants to abandon crime, and engage in legitimate forms of occupation
and social interaction upon their release (Gordon & Weldon, 2003).
There is ample evidence that prison-based educational programs
reduce the rate of recidivism among formerly incarcerated individuals
and increase their employment prospects (Brazzell et al., 2009; Lahm,
2009; Vacca, 2004). However, a considerable portion of these studies
suffer from a weak methodology that prevents them from attributing the
positive effects reported to the program activities described (Wilson
et al., 2000). A recent meta-analysis carried out by Bozick et al. (2018)
tried to clarify the overall picture by using studies that employed quasi-
experimental designs where the treatment and comparison groups were
similar on baseline characteristics. They found that the rate of recidi­
vism among participants in correctional education programs was 32%
lower on average than that of comparison groups, and employment was
increased due to participation in corrective education programs by 12%
on average. Overall, the positive effect is true for all forms of education,
including Adult Basic Education courses, GED/high school courses,
vocational college courses, and college courses.
The rationale behind correctional education programs in prisons is
twofold. First, participants acquire normative values and ways of
thinking to help them cope with the moral dilemmas that had previously

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dror.walk@mail.huji.ac.il (D. Walk).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101815
Received 25 November 2020; Received in revised form 12 April 2021; Accepted 12 April 2021
Available online 4 May 2021
0047-2352/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Walk et al.
led them to crime (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; MacKenzie, 2008). Second,
incarcerated individuals who participate in educational programs and
vocational training acquire practical tools that may help to improve
their chances of finding honorable, profitable employment (Lockwood
et al., 2012). Yet very little empirical research has focused on examining
the mechanism that links correctional education with post-release
outcome measures in order to discern between these two rationales
(MacKenzie, 2006).
Similarly, very few studies have examined both outcome measures –
recidivism and employment. Perhaps some education programs affect
both outcome measures, while others only affect one. The interplay
between the two outcome measures has yet to become clear as well: do
education programs affect both recidivism and employment directly, or
do they only affect employment, which, in turn, affects recidivism?
Moreover, no study has examined this interplay by comparing several
education programs. There may, for instance, be two education pro­
grams that affect both outcome measures, but do so in different ways:
while one program affects both recidivism and employment indepen­
dently, the other affects the former vicariously through the latter.
The current study aims to overcome these limitations, while
attempting to encompass the aspects found scattered in the literature. To
accomplish this purpose, we analyze the impact of four correctional
education programs offered by the Israeli prison system on recidivism
and employment. To understand the program-employment-recidivism
interplay, we will employ mediating effect analysis, thereby
improving the understanding of the mechanisms explaining desistance
from crime. A better understanding of this interplay may enrich
knowledge on the mechanisms of desistance, and, in practical terms,
assist correction services to better design and prioritize their various
education programs.
2. The evidence on correctional education effectiveness
There is ample evidence that prison-based educational programs
reduce the rate of recidivism and improve employment status among
formerly incarcerated individuals (Adams et al., 1994; Anderson &
Moore, 1995; Brazzell et al., 2009; Duguid, 1982; Gerber & Fritsch,
1995; Lahm, 2009; Vaaca, 2004; Wilson et al., 2000). This impressive
impact is not trivial, since the conditions of incarceration provide a
learning environment that is far from ideal. Prisons are filled with every
kind of individual, whose varying needs and levels of education do not
render them equally motivated to participate in learning programs.
Moreover, prison classrooms tend to be small and crowded. Incarcerated
individuals’ movement, too, is limited by means of security and sur­
veillance, leaving very little time for actual learning in the classroom.
Finally, prison regulations prohibit individuals’ use of the internet,
limiting their access to online databases and libraries (MacKenzie,
2008).
A major concern when evaluating correctional program using non­
randomized designs is selection (or self-selection) bias. Participants’
pre-program advantages over non-participants may inflate outcome
measure estimates, thereby overstating the treatment effect. For
example, if those who participate in a program are more motivated to
make positive changes in their lives than those who do not participate in
such programs, they may also be less likely to re-engage in criminal
activity, and therefore the measured effect cannot be attributed solely to
the program but also to participants’ merits (Kim & Clark, 2013). Se­
lection bias may also shrink the outcome measure estimate whenever
incarcerated individuals choose to participate in a program as means of
retaining privileges instead of improving their skills, and are therefore
more likely to recidivate due to their other characteristics (Brewster &
Sharp, 2002). There are several ways of overcoming selection bias in
observational data studies. The most popular one is propensity score
matching (PSM), which will be presented in the method section of this
paper. This technique helps to select individuals for the comparison
group who share similar characteristics with members of the treatment
2
Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815
group. Another is to directly measure motivation and compare partici­
pants and non-participants with similar degrees of motivation (e.g.,
Steurer et al., 2001).
In a study conducted among 3170 inmates in Maryland, Minnesota,
and Ohio, US, 43.3% of respondents participated in correctional edu­
cation. Respondents’ outcome measures three years after their release
were better than non-participants’: 16% fewer arrests, 23% fewer con­
victions, and 31% fewer reincarcerations (Steurer et al., 2001). The
authors noted that their study structure did not control for self-selection,
and therefore the incarcerated individuals’ characteristics could also
explain some of the differences found between the two groups. The
authors tried to overcome this issue by handing out motivation ques­
tionnaires to all study participants, showing that no differences in
motivation were found between the correctional education participants
and control group. A study conducted in Canada found that, of 654
formerly incarcerated individuals who took part in an academic study
program, 25% were reincarcerated within 3 years of their release,
compared to some 50% among the general formerly incarcerated indi­
vidual population in Canada (Duguid & Pawson, 1998). The authors
attempted to solve the issue of self-selection by using a recidivism
assessment tool. According to this instrument, the likelihood of rein­
carceration among the program participants’ group was 42%, indicating
that, while this group was indeed less prone to returning to crime than
the general population of formerly incarcerated individuals, correc­
tional education had a beneficial effect that further reduced their risk of
recidivism.
It seems that most evidence points to correctional education’s posi­
tive effect; however, many studies rely on a structure that does not
optimally address prior differences between the program participants’
group and other formerly incarcerated individuals, failing to adequately
match control groups to participant groups. Moreover, the growing
number of studies conducted over the last few decades makes it harder
to obtain a clear overview of the literature. It is therefore becoming
increasingly more acceptable to base an understanding of the big picture
on meta analyses that summarize multiple studies.
Wilson et al. (2000) reviewed 33 studies with 53 comparisons, and
reported a general 22% decline in recidivism (measured in two-thirds of
the studies by reincarceration), as well as a certain improvement in
employment. When the data were analyzed by program type, findings
indicated an 18% drop in recidivism due to GED (general educational
development) and ABE (adult basic education) programs (grouped
together for reasons of size), a 26% decline due to PSE programs, and a
22% decrease due to vocational training. It should be noted that these
meta-analyses contained studies with varying degrees of methodological
rigor, including some where control groups were not matched to
participant groups. Under such circumstances, one cannot definitively
attribute the decline in recidivism to the programs’ effect, for it may be
explained, at least in part, by the different characteristics of the incar­
cerated individuals who participated in the programs, e.g., motivation
(Cecil et al., 2000). Wilson et al. (2000) put this simply: “These studies
rule in the plausibility that these programs have a casual impact but fail
to rule out plausible alternative explanations”. MacKenzie later updated
this meta-analysis, adding new studies, and restricting her overview to
studies published from 1980 onwards. She ultimately reviewed 22
studies, and reached a similar conclusion to that made by the original
meta-analysis, i.e., that on average, correctional education reduces
recidivism (MacKenzie, 2006).
Steve Aos and his team from the Washington State Institute for Public
Policy (WSIPP) published a meta-analysis of various incarcerated in­
dividuals’ rehabilitation programs, among them 21 educational ones.
They ensured that all studies included were either experimental or
quasi-experimental with matched control groups. The latter contained
respondents who either did not participate in educational programs or
received treatment as usual. The authors adjusted the effect size to the
methodological quality of the study, thus reducing it by certain per­
centages for studies that were not of the highest level: quasi-
D. Walk et al.
experimental studies; studies that examined demonstration programs; or
those that were self-evaluated by program providers. The effects found
were far more modest than those of previous meta-analyses, but
remained significant nonetheless: an average reduction of 7% in recid­
ivism (conviction for new offense) among participants of education
programs, and a 9% drop among those who underwent vocational
training (Aos et al., 2006).
Bozick et al. (2018) analyzed correctional education evaluations
published between 1980 and 2017. Their analysis was also restricted to
studies with both a participant and comparison group. It reviewed 57
studies (containing 81 comparisons) whose outcome measure was
recidivism, and 22 studies (containing 26 comparisons) with employ­
ment as their outcome measure. Upon selecting the participant group,
the authors applied the stricter intent-to-treat approach, regarding
incarcerated individuals as program participants if they signed up for
the program, whether they completed it, or even attended it, or not. This
approach is aimed at policymakers looking to examine the cost-
effectiveness of allocating resources to such programs on an organiza­
tional level, and is not restricted to identifying the effectiveness of the
treatment among graduates of the program alone. The Maryland Sci­
entific Methods Scale (SMS) (Farrington et al., 2002) was used to
overcome selection bias, and level 1 studies were eliminated. The
findings of this study indicated that the rate of recidivism among par­
ticipants in correctional education programs was 32% lower on average
than that of comparison groups. The effect was similar in size on all
quality levels of studies (levels 2 to 5). When effect was analyzed by
program type, findings indicated that all programs contributed to a
significant decline in recidivism, with PSE programs being the most
effective and reducing recidivism by 49%. As for employment as an
outcome measure, the authors concluded that, overall, employment was
significantly increased due to participation in corrective education
programs, although the effect size was more modest – an average of
12%. The authors noted that the level of confidence associated with the
findings on employment as an outcome measure was lower, since the
methodological quality of many of the studies reviewed was relatively
low. When effect was analyzed by program type, vocational training and
academic programs were significant contributors to post-release
employment, with the former being more effective in achieving this
outcome.
In order to limit the “file drawer problem” effect – the potential bias
of study findings in the absence of studies with non-significant findings –
Bozick et al. (2018) searched an array of sources in literature to obtain
official program evaluation reports not published in journals, working
papers, research briefs, theses, and dissertations. They revealed that,
even when other potential studies with a small effect size or no effect at
all are added, the positive effect of correctional education remains sig­
nificant both with regard to the decline in recidivism and the increase in
employment. An analysis of the possibility that studies with larger
numbers of respondents have greater impact on the general effect size
was examined using a leave-one-out method, and indicated that the
general finding is stable with respect to the positive effect of correctional
education on the outcome measures of formerly incarcerated individuals
(Bozick et al., 2018).
Interestingly, the economic analysis conducted by the WSIPP also
found that the cost-benefit ratio on PSE programs was exceptionally
high, in addition to such programs’ superiority, as indicated by the meta
analyses mentioned above: for every single USD spent on a PSE program,
there was a 19.74 USD return, making it the most cost-effective program
of the dozens offered by way of rehabilitation in the adult criminal
justice system examined by this organization (Washington State Insti­
tute for Public Policy, 2017).
3. Limitations in studies on education programs’ effectiveness
Although the general findings on correctional education programs’
effectiveness in reducing recidivism and increasing employment seem
3
Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815
stable, the vast majority of studies have examined specific types of ed­
ucation programs, thereby limiting their generalizability. Only a small
number of them had looked into several programs offered by the same
correctional system. Such a study has a methodological advantage over
meta-analyses describing the effect of studies conducted in different
prison systems, since the latter consist of differing operating practices,
thereby producing a biased estimate of the effect. The general conclu­
sion in recent years that “educational programs work”, or that of the
past, that “educational programs do not work”, may lead policymakers
to the wrong decisions. For instance, the general positive effect may, in
fact, reflect the remarkable effectiveness of certain programs, and the
complete ineffectiveness of others. Similarly, the absence of a general
positive effect does not rule out some programs’ possible effectiveness.
Batiuk et al. (2005) demonstrate such a scenario. Their study shows that,
although no overall positive effect on reducing recidivism was found for
the four programs it examined, the college program had significantly,
and rather remarkably, reduced recidivism by more than 60%; an effect
overshadowed by the absence of other programs’ effect, namely basic
education, secondary education, and vocational training.
Very few studies have examined both outcome measures – recidivism
and employment – in the same correction system. Recidivism is regarded
as the dominant measure when assessing successful rehabilitation, and
most rehabilitative efforts are directed at the minimization thereof. Its
dramatic impact not only affects the individual’s life, but the safety and
wellbeing of society as a whole. Nevertheless, this measure greatly limits
the perception of rehabilitation. Does the fact that a formerly incarcer­
ated individual is no longer involved in criminal activity (or, to be more
accurate, is no longer caught engaging in such activity) necessarily
indicate that he or she has successfully reentered society, and has been
satisfactorily rehabilitated (Lipton et al., 1975)? Alternatively, if a
formerly incarcerated individual manages to keep a day job for years
post-release, but is periodically arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor
(possibly due to excessive law enforcement among formerly incarcer­
ated individuals), has he necessarily failed to be rehabilitated? It seems
that a study that examines both employment and recidivism simulta­
neously is necessary to unveil the mechanism of desistance, since “the
mechanism that leads employment to declines in recidivism has become
increasingly questioned” (Bushway & Apel, 2012, p. 38).
A rare example of a study that combined examining various educa­
tional programs with different measures is that of Duwe and Clark
(2014). The authors investigated recidivism and employment among
more than ten thousand formerly incarcerated individuals who partici­
pated in GED and PSE programs in Minnesota. A variety of recidivism
measures were used in this study, as well as a range of employment
measures. The study findings indicated heterogenous effects for the
programs: the PSE program reduced three of the four recidivism mea­
sures; the most remarkable of them being a 24% drop in reincarceration.
The participants’ employment rate, however, was no higher than the
comparison group’s, although their total work hours and total wages
were higher. By contrast, the GED program did not reduce the recidivism
measures, but did improve the participation group’s employment rate
compared with the comparison group. Though this study tested various
programs against multiple outcome measures, it did not examine the
relationships between them.
Only a study that combines an examination of both recidivism and
employment as outcome measures while attempting to clarify the
interplay between them can allow for a true exploration into the
mechanism of rehabilitation and crime desistance. Judd and Kenny
(1981) stated this idea clearly: “When a treatment is judged effective…
it is usually informative to examine the mediating process that produces
those effects. Such a process analysis is an attempt to specify the causal
chain responsible for the observed treatment effects. With a process
analysis one asks not whether a treatment produced the desired effects,
but rather how it did so” (p. 603). Accordingly, we should ask: Was the
effect of correctional education on recidivism direct, i.e. do participants
desist from crime due to the pro-social values acquired while partaking
D. Walk et al.
in the program? Or, alternatively, is the effect of correctional education
on crime desistance mediated by improved employment in the sense that
program participants improve their chances of finding paid work, sub­
sequently minimizing their exposure to other individuals engaging in
crime, and are less tempted to break the law? Batiuk et al. (1997) sought
the answers to these questions in the heat of the Pell grant crisis that,
during the 1990s, denied incarcerated individuals the possibility of
participating in prison-based post-secondary education programs. The
rates of recidivism and employment among nearly 100 inmates in an
Ohio State facility who completed an academic prison-based program,
and received an associate’s college degree, were compared with incar­
cerated individuals from the same prison who had a secondary school
level education. Using a series of logistical regression analyses, the au­
thors concluded that the minimizing effect of the college program on
recidivism was mediated by employment, rather than being direct. In
other words, the educational program improved participants’ chances of
finding paid work following their release, which subsequently led to
reduced recidivism.
A study examining the interplay of different outcome measures
among various education programs is needed in this area of incarcerated
individuals’ rehabilitation. As we illustrate below, it can unveil the
possible heterogenous effects of these programs, help to better under­
stand the processes and mechanisms behind rehabilitation, and provides
a more complete version of the formerly incarcerated individuals’ story.
4. Method
4.1. Israel Prison Service
The Israel Prison Service (IPS) governs the imprisonment of all pre-
and post-trial incarcerated individuals in Israel. As data for the present
study was being collected, some 12,000 Israeli inhabitants1 were
incarcerated in IPS correctional facilities, 70% of whom were post-trial,
and 30% detained. The IPS views itself as a security organization with a
social agenda, therefore, during their incarceration, incarcerated in­
dividuals may partake in therapeutic, occupational, and educational
activities. The forms of therapy offered include drug and alcohol reha­
bilitation programs, and designated programs for individuals who were
incarcerated for committing a sex offense, domestic violence offense, or
white-collar offense. With regard to employment, there are IPS-operated
factories, as well as private ones operating within prison walls. Voca­
tional training programs in various areas are offered too.
As for education, there is a wide range of education programs on
offer that are compatible with individuals’ various levels of education,
as well as religious study programs. Many of the incarcerated individuals
had dropped out of school and did not complete their high-school edu­
cation. There is also an Arab minority in Israel comprising some 20% of
the population, the representation of which in the incarcerated popu­
lation is approximately 45%. These individuals often lack the Hebrew
language skills crucial for their professional and occupational integra­
tion into society. Thus, prison-based educational programs provide a
golden opportunity to complete one’s education, and acquire Hebrew
language skills, thereby improving one’s chances of finding a respect­
able, income-generating job post-release.
Below we describe the extent to which prison education programs in
Israel are similar to those offered in the United States. At the same time,
it is important at the outset to define similarities and differences be­
tween the American2 and Israeli correctional systems. Both systems offer
relatively developed educational and vocational programs within their
1
An additional 5000 individuals were incarcerated for involvement in terror
activities, the majority of which are inhabitants of the Palestinian Authority.
2
It appears to be somewhat superficial to present a unified correctional
American model since the differences between regional and state variations are
increasingly widening (Phelps, 2012).
4
Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815
facilities, as well as treatment programs for versatile offense types, such
as drug abuse, intimate violence, and sex offenses. Moreover, studies
indicate that both American and Israeli correctional officers support
education and treatment programs, both as a rehabilitative tool and an
organizing principle for prison management (Gideon et al., 2015;
Phelps, 2011). However, there are differences in the organizational
cultures of the two systems. The American model of running a correc­
tional facility is based on a disciplinary approach that combines clear cut
rules coupled with both spatial and psychological distance between staff
and incarcerated individuals. This practice may stem from a national
social deviance approach, but also has roots in a tough reality in which
gangs are attempting to gain control of prison management (Skarbek,
2014). The Israeli model, by contrast, is based on mutual respect be­
tween staff and incarcerated individuals, where disobedience is
discouraged by loss of privileges (Dervan, 2011). This practice may have
its roots in Jewish tradition, which is very dominant in prison-based
correctional activities, whereby correction is a profound principle, and
incarcerated persons are perceived as individuals worthy of human
dignity even before they undergo correction (Gideon et al., 2015).
As for the reentry process in Israel, several months prior to the
completion of two thirds of their sentence, every incarcerated in­
dividual’s case is brought before the parole committee (Assy & Menashe,
2014). Following the latter’s discussion, approximately 25% of appli­
cants are granted an early release with a detailed rehabilitation plan
comprised of full-time employment and group and individual weekly
therapy sessions. At the time the study was conducted, the three-years
recidivism rate in Israel was 34.1% (Walk & Berman, 2015).
4.2. Databases
The information contained in this paper was obtained from the IPS
operative database. This system includes information on incarcerated
individuals’ socio-demographics, criminal history, and the kind of
offense that led to their incarceration. It also contains information on
incarcerated individuals’ conduct while incarcerated, including visits,
furloughs, disciplinary hearings, and participation in employment and
educational programs (Hasisi et al., 2016; Haviv et al., 2019; Haviv &
Hasisi, 2019; Weisburd et al., 2017). The formerly incarcerated in­
dividuals’ employment and income measures were recovered from the
national tax authority’s database. The combination of IPS and tax au­
thority data was retrieved from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics. A
study based on Israeli data has a qualitative advantage as Israeli data­
bases are central, containing all official information on all Israeli citi­
zens. It can therefore avoid the inherent weakness of US-based studies
that rely on state-specific databases, and do not cover the criminal or
occupational activity of formerly incarcerated individuals in other US
states (Duwe & Clark, 2014).
The study was conducted on data on all post-trial male incarcerated
individuals who are Israeli inhabitants released from an IPS prison be­
tween 2004 and 2012 – a period of nine years. After eliminating all
individuals who did not report how many years of education they had
upon incarceration, or were sentenced to less than three months (and
subsequently were not eligible to participate in correctional education
programs), the file used in the present study consisted of 37,231 incar­
cerated individuals, of whom 8444 (23%) had participated in correc­
tional education programs between 2004 and 2012.
4.3. Education programs
The Israel Prison Service views education as a basis for integration
into employment and treatment activities in prison. The process of
identifying prospective participants in correctional education therefore
begins upon arrest. Detainees complete a test to ascertain their level of
education, the results of which are used to determine which educational
program they should attend. Since close to half of incarcerated in­
dividuals in Israel are members of the Arab minority, and do no list
D. Walk et al.
Hebrew as their mother tongue,3 many lack education on various levels.
The IPS offers the following five formal education programs based on the
curricula and examinations formulated by the Israeli Ministry of Edu­
cation’s Division of Adult Education: (1) a class for illiterate individuals
acquiring basic reading skills; (2) a class for 6th grade level education
teaching basic Hebrew and mathematics; (3) a class for 8th grade level
education, where participants must pass the Israeli Ministry of Educa­
tion’s tests for 8th grade (equivalent to ABE); (4) a class for 10th grade
level education teaching mathematics, reading comprehension, com­
puter skills, and geography, where participants must pass several exams
provided by the Israeli Ministry of Education; (5) a class for 12th grade
level education teaching reading comprehension, creative writing, civil
studies, computer skills, and geography, where participants must pass
internal and external examinations formulated by the Israeli Ministry of
Education (equivalent to GED as well as some exit exams). Incarcerated
individuals can also take post-secondary and academic studies, howev­
er, the number of participants in such programs is limited, and therefore
these programs were not evaluated in our study.
4.4. Analytical plan
To examine the possible interplay of different outcome measures
among various education programs, we employed a two-stage analysis.
During the first, we explored the main effects of the education programs
on post-release employment and recidivism. In order to minimize se­
lection bias, propensity score matching was used. During the second
stage, we employed a mediating analysis in order to understand the
possible role of post-release employment in reducing recidivism. In the
following sections we will elaborate on these two procedures.
4.4.1. Propensity score matching
Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match a comparison
group of individuals who did not attend correctional education to the
participants group (Austin, 2011; Jordan, 2012). Propensity scores for
each education program were calculated for both participants and
comparison group members. Both groups were considered eligible for
the specific program since they reported having completed the preced­
ing education level upon admittance to prison (e.g. 10 or 11 years of
schooling for the 12th grade program). For the participants group in the
beginner class, designed for illiterate individuals, no comparison group
could be established due to the absence of information on low education
levels. This program was therefore eliminated from the present study,
which ultimately contained four groups – 12th grade, 10th grade, 8th
grade, and 6th grade. Our approach to comparison groups is the intent-
to-treatment estimate, which is the accepted approach for simulating
experimental design effect. However, in practice, this approach could
inadvertently mask the treatment-on-the-treated estimate in correc­
tional programs due to high drop-out rates. Cho and Tyler (2010) had
pointed this issue out when they found an employment effect for ABE
programs only when their comparison group was comprised of high
school dropout inmates who participated in the said programs but
involuntarily dropped out within 21 days (because of reallocation or
release). Fortunately, this interesting point may be overlooked in the
present study since the dropout rates in the programs examined were
below 10%.
A considerable number of variables was used in the present study’s
propensity score models, some of which have been found to strongly
predict recidivism outcomes in previous correctional treatment evalu­
ation models (e.g., Kim & Clark, 2013; Langan & Levin, 2002), while
others seemed particularly important in the Israeli context (Weisburd
et al., 2017). The variables may be divided into three main groups: (1)
3
Most occupational and business activity in Israel is conducted in Hebrew,
and therefore the education required in order to integrate into society consists
first and foremost of knowledge in Hebrew.
5
Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815
Individuals’ basic socio-demographic characteristics: age and marital
status (married vs. non-married), and two measures specific to the Is­
raeli context – whether the individual was Jewish (i.e., a member of the
majority ethnic group comprised of 80% of the general population and
55% of the incarcerated population), and whether he was an immigrant
(vs. native). (2) A series of variables measuring the inmates’ criminal
backgrounds and the characteristics of their current offense: number of
prior incarcerations, length of current incarceration sentence, year of
release, and type of present offense individual was imprisoned for –
violent, sexual, drug or property. (3) two indicators specific to the IPS:
whether or not the offense of which individuals had been convicted fit
the court definition for violent offense, and whether or not they had
been evaluated by the IPS as having committed domestic violence.
Overall, 13 variables were used to determine the probability of incar­
cerated individuals’ participation in each education program.
To match comparison members to participants, a single match
approach was used with a caliper of 0.01, and without replacement.
Table 1 presents the PSM details of the various education programs
examined in this study.
The models’ assumption whereby both treatment and comparison
groups shared the same probability of participating in the education
programs is clearly supported by the almost-identical means of pro­
pensity scores found for these groups. Moreover, following matching, no
significant differences remained between participant and comparison
groups in the various variables. The bias measure, developed by Rose­
nbaum and Rubin (1985), has also dramatically decreased following
matching: none of the predictors exceeded 20, the value proposed by the
developers to signify an evident unbalance (see also Duwe & Clark,
2014). As shown, the PSM procedure produced groups that are balanced
on known included characteristics.
Indeed, unlike random assignment to treatment and comparison
groups, adjustment for the propensity score does little to balance un­
observed covariates such as relevant unreported background charac­
teristics and motivation to desist and find reputable employment;
however, this matching method was vastly superior to other matching
methods (Joffe & Rosenbaum, 1999). In turn, because PSM capitalizes
on prediction of the propensity and not on controls for specific variables,
unobserved covariates strongly related to included variables will in­
crease the validity of the propensity score outcome (Weisburd et al., in
press). To assess how robust the study results are to potential unob­
served confounding, we used one of the most common sensitivity ana­
lyses, the Rosenbaum method.
4.4.2. Mediating effect
The effectiveness of correctional education programs was examined
using two outcome measures: recidivism and employment. Recidivism
was measured using two parameters: reincarceration and rearrest within
three years of release from prison. Employment was measured by
number of months of employment, as well as a dichotomous measure
(worked/did not work) – both within the first tax year following release
from prison.
In an effort to understand the mechanism of desistance from crime,
the interaction between recidivism and employment was examined. We
explored whether the effect of correctional education was direct on both
recidivism and employment, or whether employment mediated the ef­
fect of correctional education on recidivism. Baron and Kenny (1986, p.
1177) set the basic practice for identifying a mediating effect using three
regression models: (1) regressing the mediator (employment in our
study) on the independent variable (education program in our study);
(2) regressing the dependent variable (recidivism in our study) on the
independent variable; and (3) regressing the dependent variable on both
the independent variable and on the mediator. If the effects of the first
two regressions are significant, and in the third, the effect of the program
will decrease while the effect of employment will increase, then
employment would be defined as a mediating factor. But, whereas in the
context of linear regression models, the comparison of estimated
D. Walk et al.
Table 1
Matching process for various education programsa
Education No. of participants (mean No. of non-participants No. of matched participants
program propensity score) (mean propensity score) (mean propensity score)
12th grade 526 (0.13) 9302 (0.06) 349 (0.12)
10th grade 435 (0.14) 6965 (0.07) 244 (0.13)
8th grade 2580 (0.69) 1729 (0.59) 677 (0.62)
6th grade 2537 (0.84) 714 (0.72) 270 (0.74)
a
The appendix lists the detailed matching process for the four education programs. It shows that, for all programs, the matching procedure achieved a balance
between the treatment and comparison groups in all variables.
coefficients is straightforward, comparing the effects of nested nonlinear
probability models, such as logit, is not. In these latter models, co­
efficients may differ not only because of confounding, but due to the
rescaling of the model too. Several solutions for this problem have been
proposed, and we employed the KHB method (in Stata), which, in fact,
extends the decomposability properties of linear models to nonlinear
probability models (Kohler et al., 2011).
5. Results
5.1. Observed outcome measures for the four education programs
Table 2 presents the outcome measures for the four education
programs.
In the 12th grade program participants showed significantly better
outcomes than non-participants in both recidivism and employment.
The odds ratios for reincarceration and rearrest among non-participants
are more than double those of participants, and the same is true for the
odds ratio for employment during the first year following release among
participants. Average months of employment was significantly higher
among participants compared to non-participants, with a medium effect
size. In the 10th grade program participants showed significantly better
outcomes than non-participants in their measures of employment but
not of recidivism. The odds ratio for employment during the first year
following release was about 1.5 times higher for participants compared
to non-participants, and the average months of employment was
significantly higher for them too, with a small effect size. In the 8th
grade program participants showed significantly better outcomes than
non-participants in both recidivism and employment. The odds ratio for
reincarceration and rearrest were about 30% higher for non-participants
compared to participants, and the odds ratio for employment during the
first year following release among the latter was more than double that
of the former. The average months of employment was also significantly
higher for participants compared to non-participants, with a medium
effect size. In the 6th grade program participants showed significantly
better outcomes than non-participants in measures of employment but
not of recidivism. The odds ratio for employment during the first year
following release was almost double among participants compared to
non-participants, and the average months of employment was signifi­
cantly higher among them too, with a small effect size.
5.2. Sensitivity analysis
Since one cannot estimate the magnitude of selection bias with
nonexperimental data, PSM, like other observational data analysis
methods, is constrained by the degree to which variables that differen­
tiate selection factors can be identified. In general, a large number of
relevant covariates may support the assumption of equivalence between
the groups (Shadish, 2013). However, if there are unobserved variables
that simultaneously affect assignment into treatment and the outcome
measures, a hidden bias may arise to which matching estimators are not
robust. To estimate the degree to which any significant results hinge on
the ignorability assumption (i.e., sensitivity), Rosenbaum (2002) pro­
posed the bounding approach, which is the most frequently used when
6
Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815
No. of matched non- No. of predictors found different
participants (mean propensity before and (following) matching
score)
349 (0.12) 4 (0) / 13
244 (0.13) 5 (0) / 13
677 (0.63) 4 (0) / 13
270 (0.75) 3 (0) / 13
the observed confounders have been dealt with using matching
methods. Nevertheless, other methods yield similar results (Liu et al.,
2013). This approach enables one to determine how strongly an un­
measured variable must influence the selection process to undermine
the treatment effect (Becker & Caliendo, 2007). The Gamma statistic
denotes the odds of differential assignment due to unobserved variables,
and the further its value is from 0, the more the model is insensitive, or
robust against bias. If, for example, the significant level of the bounds
falls between the Gamma values of 1.6 and 1.7, then bias may only arise
in the presence of an unobserved variable that increases the odds of
participating in the program by 60% to 70%. Where both treatment and
response variables are binary, the Mantel-Haenszel test is used to
compare the odds ratios (Aakvik, 2001; Mantel & Haenszel, 1959).
Table 3 presents the bounds for the outcome measures using a 0.10
marginal significance threshold across the various education programs.
Overall, our results remain significant, with gamma values between
1.5 and 1.8 (in the various outcome measures) in the 12th grade pro­
gram; between 1.1 and 1.2 in the 10th grade program; between 1.2 and
1.8 in the 8th grade program, and between 1.2 and 1.4 in the 6th grade
program. Despite the lack of clearly defined thresholds for a model to
meet a strong ignorability assumption, the results of the sensitivity test
conducted in this study are in line with other studies in the correction
field (Chen et al., 2020; Haviv & Hasisi, 2019; Weisburd et al., 2017).
However, the results also suggest that our models, like those of other
quasi-experimental studies, should be interpreted with some caution,
since they cannot account for unobserved covariates not included in the
models.
To sum up: the four educational correction programs we analyzed
demonstrated two patterns of effect – participants in the 12th grade and
8th grade programs showed significantly better outcomes than non-
participants in both recidivism and employment, whereas participants
in the 10th grade and 6th grade programs only showed significantly
better employment outcomes. The next step was to determine whether,
for the effective programs, the program and employment function
independently to decrease recidivism, or whether perhaps employment
mediated the program’s effect.
5.3. The mediating effect of employment
To determine the mediating effect of employment on recidivism, we
employed the KHB method for binary response models. Since both
recidivism measures (reincarceration and rearrest) and both employ­
ment measures (any employment during the first year, and number of
employment months during the first year following release) yielded very
similar effects (see Table 2), we employed reincarceration as the
dependent variable and any employment during the first year following
release as a mediator. Program participation served as the independent
variable.
Table 4 presents the parameters for the KHB method results for all
four education programs.
The mediating effects were found to be statistically significant for
three of the four education programs. However, since mediation is
meaningless unless the total effect is significant, only the mediating
effects for the 12th and 8th grade programs were established.
D. Walk et al. Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815

Table 3
Mantel and Haenszel bounds for outcomes measures of the four education

2.55** (0.22)
(OR) / t-test
programs

(Cohen’s d)

0.40 (0.89)

0.02 (10.3)
Chi-square

12.95***
12th grade 10th grade 8th grade 6th grade

(1.89)
program program program program

3 yrs. reincarceration 1.6–1.7 n.s. 1.2–1.3 n.s.

3 yrs. rearrest 1.5–1.6 n.s. 1.2–1.3 n.s.
participants

3.15 (4.58)
Any employment during 1.8–1.9 1.1–1.2 1.8–1.9 1.4–1.5
the first year following

34.6%

48.3%

41.0%
Non-

release
6th grade program

No. of employment 1.6–1.7 1.2–1.3 1.7–1.8 1.2–1.3

months1 during the first
Participants

4.20 (4.79)
year following release
1
For the sake of simplicity, we split the number of employment months into
31.9%

49.0%

56.8%
two categories according to the median value of each education program.
7.35*** (0.40)

Table 4
(OR) / t-test
(Cohen’s d)
Chi-square

KHB method results determining mediating effect of employment for the four
10.47***

10.33***

43.85***
(0.67)

(0.69)

(2.11)

education programs
Total effect Direct effect Mediating effect

12th grade program 0.65 (0.19)** 0.48 (0.19)** 0.17 (0.05)**

participants

2.82 (4.19)

10th grade program 0.33 (0.21) 0.24 (0.21) 0.09 (0.05)

8th grade program 0.46 (0.12)*** 0.31 (0.12)* 0.15 (0.03)***
36.6%

52.7%

42.7%
Non-

6th grade program 0.17 (0.19) − 0.03 (0.20) 0.20 (0.06)**

8th grade program

*p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001.

Participants

4.67 (4.84)

6. Discussion
27.8%

43.4%

61.1%

The current study aimed to overcome the shortcomings found in

literature on correctional education effectiveness. With very few studies
4.31* (1.47)

2.29* (0.21)

investigating several educational programs across various outcome

(OR) / t-test
(Cohen’s d)

0.76 (0.81)

0.62 (1.19)
Chi-square

measures relevant to reentry, the clear positive effect found may inad­
vertently be masking heterogenous effects, and inhibiting a look into the
mechanism of desistance. Indeed, the present study findings indicate
two patterns for different education programs: while the 12th and 8th
Recidivism and employment outcomes for participants and non-participants in four education programs

participants

2.93 (4.38)

grade programs demonstrated impressive effects on reducing recidivism

and increasing employment, the 10th and 6th grade programs had
33.3%

50.6%

41.7%
Non-
10th grade program

modest effects in increasing employment, and were found not to be

effective in reducing recidivism. The reduced recidivism effects of the
12th and 8th grade programs were found to be mediated by employ­
Participants

3.90 (4.71)

ment. Does this complicated picture enrich our understanding of the

28.9%

54.9%

51.3%

mechanism explaining formerly incarcerated individuals’ desistance

from crime?
5.27*** (0.45)
(OR) / t-test
(Cohen’s d)
Chi-square

6.1. The overall effect of education programs on employment and

13.00***

17.63***

26.86***

recidivism
(0.45)

(0.45)

(2.29)

The overall effect of the education programs examined on employ­

ment comes as no surprise, much like the effect some of them had on
participants

3.58 (4.64)

recidivism as well, since many previous studies indicated this positive

32.7%

53.5%

46.8%

impact (Bozick et al., 2018). However, it is impressive to realize that

Non-
12th grade program

these programs, which are neither therapeutic (e.g., drug treatment) nor
practical (e.g., employment programs) in their nature, demonstrate
Participants

5.79 (5.08)

positive effects. The robustness of these programs is a well-rooted

18.1%

34.2%

66.8%

insight in IPS practices, whereby every incarcerated individual with

* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001.

educational gaps must complete an education program before enrolling

for other programs. The superior effect found for two of the programs
Any employment during the
first year following release
No. of employment months

could serve the education branch to insist that individuals study until
following release (SD)

they complete the more potent programs, and only then move on to
during the first year
3 yrs. Reincarceration

psycho-social or employment programs.

Employment is an obvious starting point in the reentry process
3 yrs. Rearrest

because it is the major “routine activity” of most individuals released

from prison (Bucklen & Zajac, 2009; LeBel et al., 2008). The present
Table 2

study findings reveal that all four education programs examined had
considerably improved their participants’ employment status during

7
D. Walk et al.
their first year following release from prison. This is no small achieve­
ment as the said programs were theory-based, and not employment-
based, and in light of the latter’s effect, as demonstrated in literature,
being less than encouraging (Visher et al., 2005).
Bushway and Apel (2012) have suggested that incarcerated or
formerly incarcerated individuals’ participation in employment-based
programs serves as a low-risk indicator for employers, thereby sowing
the seeds for future integration into society. Every employer tries to
identify success indicators in prospective employees, and for formerly
incarcerated individuals, a history of success in rehabilitation programs
strongly suggests improved odds of successful work placement. While
the education programs examined by the present study are not directly
aimed at improving employment, they may serve employers as in­
dicators of their participants’ perseverance, as well as their ability to
complete given tasks, and accept authority – thereby improving their
chances of getting hired.
Nevertheless, only two out of the four education programs examined
in the present study have been shown as effective in both improving
employment and lowering recidivism. The program data used here only
attests to a medium negative effect size between employment and
recidivism (r between − 0.18 to − 0.34). Indeed, studies have shown that
correlations between employment and recidivism are not simple,
particularly since many formerly incarcerated individuals are only
employed part-time in low-paying jobs (Geller et al., 2006), making
integration into society as proud, independent members more difficult.
It may therefore be suggested that employment is of substantial
importance beyond its effect on reducing recidivism. It is an expression
of released individuals’ return to normative life, and thus any significant
effect achieved due to program participation may prove to be of
considerable value. In that sense, incarcerated individuals are among
“people from all walks of life [who] pursue education for much the same
reason: because it provides opportunity” (Brazzell et al., 2009, p. 41).
6.2. The certification effect of the 8th and 12th grade programs
The various levels of education programs appear to be of a linear
nature, since they merely reflect students’ baseline level. For example,
individuals who completed 10 or 11 years of schooling will be offered a
12th grade program, whereas individuals who completed 8 or 9 years of
schooling will be offered a 10th grade program. How, then, can the
impressive potency of the 8th and 12th grade programs be explained? It
seems that these programs’ added value lies in the formal certification
from the Ministry of Education they grant, serving not only a bureau­
cratic entity, but probably having a significant psychological effect on
program graduates as well, with some practical subsequences. Prison
education officers who were asked to explain the study findings
confirmed the notion of a “certification effect”. Graduates from the 8th
and 12th grade programs were very proud and excited to receive their
formal diplomas, that were often the first they had ever obtained. Thus,
a bureaucratic gesture serves as a signal of their competence, and of their
being successful individuals in normative society. No less importantly,
the diploma enables owners to apply to many jobs offers for which they
would otherwise not have been eligible.
The impact of certified education programs may be viewed through
the prism of Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory (SDT).
They maintain that behaviors driven by external motivation cover a
spectrum of motivation levels that are distinguishable by the in­
dividual’s level of autonomy. It seems that individuals’ participation in
certified education programs is a manifestation of external motivation’s
level of autonomy. However, the diploma has symbolic value – it con­
firms graduates’ competence, and rehabilitates their self-worth –
thereby amounting to a more autonomous and self-determined form of
extrinsic motivation. At the same time, the certification also improves
graduates’ chances of integrating into the labor market, thereby meeting
the beneficial aspect of external regulation.
8
Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815
6.3. The mediating effect of employment
This complex understanding of the impact of certified prison edu­
cation programs serves to explain not only their positive effect due to
both their symbolic (the certificate) and instrumental (employment)
values, but their interaction too, i.e., the mediating effect employment
has on the link between the program and lower recidivism rates. Indeed,
the program itself has a significant impact on reducing recidivism,
however, when employment (achieved in part due to program partici­
pation) is taken into consideration as well, weight shifts from the edu­
cation program to employment. In other words, when the program’s
instrumental value (employment) is introduced, the magnitude of its
independent symbolic value’s (the diploma) contribution to reduced
recidivism lessens. Thus, for example, in the 8th grade program, the rate
of recidivism among non-participants is 1.35 higher than that of par­
ticipants (36.6% vs. 27.8% respectively), however, when only the un­
employed are taken into account (thereby reducing the effect of
employment on recidivism), the difference between the two groups
drops almost entirely, reaching a mere 1.05 (44.4% vs. 42.1%
respectively).
This complex connection therefore appears to have some practical
implications on the development and offering of prison education pro­
grams. By nature, such programs are not designed to improve partici­
pants’ employment status, as they were originally intended for 14-year-
olds (in the 8th grade program example, equivalent to ABE) and 18-year-
olds (in the 12th grade program example, equivalent to GED). This is
certainly true for the prison program consisting of basic subjects such as
Hebrew, English, and mathematics, as opposed to subjects with practical
value such as technology and computers. The insight emerging by the
present study, whereby the greater impact on reduced recidivism can be
traced to employment, requires program providers to increase the
instrumental value of their offering, by focusing, for example, on the
necessary skills in the labor market today. Even prison programs must be
adapted to this dynamic world in which information and communica­
tion technology is transforming the nature of how work is conducted, as
well as the meaning of social relationships, subsequently requiring the
successfully employed to have different skills (Binkley et al., 2012).
These changes are not only limited to jobs with a high educational
profile, but certainly apply to the lower-level jobs for which formerly
incarcerated individuals are often hired. It is therefore important to
incorporate language and information skills into these education pro­
grams, such as writing emails, using word processor and electronic
spreadsheet software, as well as encourage participants to share infor­
mation with colleagues and enhance their creativity, as these are
necessary skills in employment today (Van Laar et al., 2017).
6.4. Between the 12th and 8th grade programs
Both 12th and 8th grade programs had a significant effect on
reducing recidivism and increasing employment prospects. However,
while the magnitude of the mediator is quite similar in both programs
(reducing the log odds of recidivism by 0.17 and 0.15 for 12th and 8th
grade programs respectively), there is a tremendous difference in the
direct effect of the program on recidivism (reducing the log odds of
recidivism by 0.48 and 0.31 for 12th and 8th grade programs respec­
tively – more than 1.5 times). It seems that, compared with the 8th grade
program, the 12th grade program is much more potent in reducing
recidivism on its own, independently of the extra effect of employment.
Thus, when only unemployed participants are taken into account
(thereby excluding employment’s contribution to reduced recidivism),
the rate of recidivism among non-participants in the 12th grade program
is 1.24 times that of participants (37.5% vs. 30.2% respectively),
whereas the difference between the two groups in the 8th grade program
is small, just 1.05 times (44.4% vs. 42.1% respectively). How, then, can
the difference in significant effect between the two programs be
explained?
D. Walk et al.
One could suggest that the 8th grade program contains very basic
academic content and therefore does not share the same independent
potential to reduce recidivism. However, how can such a basic program
even lead to employment, lacking any content designed to achieve such
an effect? Perhaps one could suggest that this program contains all the
surrounding components of a normative life, and in fact trains partici­
pants for normative settings. Despite its basic content, participants in
this program experience all stages encountered by individuals in
normative, achievement-oriented society: coping with authority (the
teacher); experiencing frustration due to lack of understanding; and
making an effort prior to an exam. Such training teaches individuals
upon their release to speak the cultural language of the labor market,
thereby increasing their chances of integrating into it.
The impact of the 12th grade program, by contrast, is much more
powerful in reducing recidivism regardless of employment. What is it
about this program that leads to this effect? Seemingly, the program
consists of basic high-school subjects that cannot directly impact desis­
tence from crime in themselves. However, having a 12-year education
diploma does open up many options for climbing the social ladder and
gaining social status. Program graduates can take part in advanced
vocational training, and even attend college or university. Perhaps the
very availability of so many options, whether realized or not, improves
self-worth, and serves as an advantage in many other areas as well, such
as partner choice and even improved health (Zimmerman et al., 2015).
It seems that, beyond the practical benefit derived from the program,
it is attended by individuals that had already acquired basic skills, such
as verbal communication and abstract conceptualization, thereby
enabling a richer, and more profound discussion of formal subjects in
class. As part of this program, current affairs are presented, and
discourse on ethics and values ensues in a manner allowing participants
to associate content with their life circumstances, and the decisions that
led them to crime and incarceration. Moreover, since the 12th grade
program is the last of the formal education programs, graduates that
have yet to be released from prison may go on to join enrichment pro­
grams in which subjects such as criminology and psychology are taught
on a popular level, thereby enabling inmates some introspection, as well
as an understanding about what went wrong on their way to becoming
engaged in crime. In that sense, this program follows the twofold
rationale behind correctional education mentioned earlier in this paper:
acquiring normative values to help participants cope with moral di­
lemmas they may face outside prison (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; MacK­
enzie, 2008) alongside practical tools that may help to improve their
chances of finding honorable, profitable jobs (Lockwood et al., 2012).
Understanding the added value of the 12th grade program, possibly
due to the in-depth content it contains, should encourage program de­
velopers to enhance those parts of the programs during which a moral
and ethical discussion relevant to participants’ lives is held. But can
improved moral conduct be expected following ethical studies, partic­
ularly when participants are convicted of a crime? A 16-lesson formal
cognitive-moral training program was offered in a North Carolina
correction facility, introducing topics such as “How can one make good
ethical decisions? Right versus wrong decisions, and moral courage”
(based on the program by Leming & Bom, 2000). The effectiveness of
this program was examined using the change in individuals’ self-
reported moral factors, among which were empathy, social re­
sponsibility, confidence, and reflectiveness. The reported changes
among program participants compared to the control group were non-
significant on most metrics, and the authors admit that it may have
been naïve of them to expect these individuals to undergo a fundamental
shift in ethical thinking following a short intervention (Kropp, 2006).
More encouraging findings emerged from an effectiveness analysis of
religious rehabilitation programs offered by the Israel Prison Service.
These programs involve some analysis of Jewish religious texts that are
linked to incarcerated individuals’ life circumstances, and whose
running motifs include: choosing between right and wrong; social
accountability, and the importance of moral integrity. Haviv et al.
9
Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815
(2019) examined two Jewish religious programs offered in Israeli
prisons, and reported that inmates who participated in both consecu­
tively displayed reduced recidivism. It seems, therefore, that something
about the 12th grade program gives it added value in reducing recidi­
vism; however, what that something is remains unclear. A more pro­
found analysis of its content, as well as more comprehensive information
provided by teachers and participants during in-depth interviews, may
reveal the sources of this program’s powerfulness.
6.5. Study limitations
The present study is based on PSM analysis, and is therefore subject
to the limitations associated with this technique. Propensity score
analysis assumes that all variables related to treatment assignment are
included in the vector of observed covariates, or are accounted for
through strong correlation with observed covariates (Rosenbaum &
Rubin, 1985). For example, we were unable to assess the level of par­
ticipants’ motivation before they began any of the programs, and we did
not have access to additional in-prison information such as furloughs
and disciplinary hearings, or participation in other programs. To assess
the possible bias due to unobserved covariates, Rosenbaum’s bounding
approach was employed. Despite the sensitivity test’s reasonable results,
these study findings should be interpreted with some caution.
Moreover, the employment outcome measure used in this study –
employment in the year following release – is not necessarily the best
economic index for reflecting successful reentry. Studies have shown
that the wages earned by formerly incarcerated individuals, more than
employment itself, predicts reduced recidivism (Grogger, 1998; Visher
et al., 2008), for insufficient wages may make it more difficult for
formerly incarcerated individuals to stay on the straight and narrow
(Visher et al., 2011).
The present study found that the average number of employment
months among study participants during the first year following their
release was 3–6 months. This finding implies low and insufficient in­
come, making desistance more challenging. After all, it makes sense that
formerly incarcerated individuals, even those who have a 12-year edu­
cation certificate, will be more likely to find short-term, low-paying
work. More detailed and sensitive earning measures, such as hourly
wages and total wages earned (e.g., Duwe & Clark, 2014), as well as
subjective measures like work commitment (Apel & Horney, 2017), may
clarify the role played by the household economy and work experience
in formerly incarcerated individuals’ rehabilitation.
Finally, this study was conducted using Israeli data, and the rele­
vance of its insights to other prison systems and national cultures re­
quires further examination. We believe that the Israeli system described
in the method section shares a similar approach and practices with many
Western prison systems, rendering the outcomes of this study highly
relevant to them as well. At the same time, the collaborative rather than
disciplinary approach to corrections in Israel may have enhanced the
impacts of education programs.
7. Conclusion
One of the concluding sentences of the round table on correctional
education held by John Jay College and Urban Institute members is that
“education’s power to transform lives in both tangible and intangible
ways makes it one of the most valuable and effective tools we may have
for helping people rebuild their lives after incarceration” (Brazzell et al.,
2009, p. 42).
Our findings reinforce earlier studies showing that education pro­
grams can be effective in reducing recidivism and increasing employ­
ment. Such twofold effects appeared in two of the four programs
evaluated in the present study. Moreover, in them, employment was
found to mediate the impact of the program on recidivism, with the
strongest impact being for individuals who gained employment
following release. Prison systems to date provide educational
D. Walk et al. Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815

programming as a general intangible benefit, irrespective of its impacts Acknowledgements

on employment. Our study suggests that a more tangible link to
employment would increase the impact of these programs on successful This study was supported by a grant no. 352/2010 from the Israel
reentry. Prison Service to the Institute of Criminology, The Faculty of Law at the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Appendix
Table A
12th grade program – characteristics of treatment and comparison groups before and after PSM.

Treatment group Comparison group Bias before Treatment group Comparison group Bias after

N = 526 N = 9302 N = 349 N = 349

Demographic Characteristics
Married 33.6% 33.4% 0.6 34.7% 38.4% − 7.9
Nationality (Jewish) 59.7% 59.1% 1.3 59.9% 53.0% 14.0
New immigrant 21.9% 18.8% 7.7 20.3% 20.3% 0.0
Criminal Background
No. of prior incarcerations 0.16 0.42*** 32.0- 0.16 0.12 5.3
Present Incarceration
Age at start of incarceration 33.9 33.7 2.3 33.8 33.7 1.5
Length of sentence (months) 29.7 15.1*** 68.1 30.8 27.8 14.2
Violent offense 43.3% 44.3% − 1.9 41.5% 37.8% 7.5
Drug offense 24.1% 23.4% 1.7 23.8% 25.2% − 3.4
Property offense 35.6% 34.4% 2.4 38.1% 36.4% 3.6
Sex offense 6.3% 5.0% 5.3 6.6% 6.6% 0.0
Year of release 2009.2 2008.0*** 50.1 2009.0 2009.1 − 6.9
Crime Profile
Violence 10.8% 20.8*** − 27.6 12.9% 12.6% 0.8
Domestic Violence 0.19% 0.24% − 1.2 2.9% 5.7% − 6.1
***
p < .001.

Table B
10th grade program – characteristics of treatment and comparison groups before and after PSM.

Treatment group Comparison group Bias before Treatment group Comparison group Bias after

N = 435 N = 6965 N = 244 N = 244

Demographic Characteristics
Married 35.4% 32.8% 5.5 34.4% 29.5% 10.4
Nationality (Jewish) 61.6% 59.6% 3.1 62.3% 61.1% 2.5
New immigrant 20.9% 19.5% 3.5 22.5% 24.6% − 5.1
Criminal Background
No. of prior incarcerations 0.28 0.75*** − 42.5 0.29 0.36 − 6.7
Present Incarceration
Age at start of incarceration 33.1 33.6 − 4.9 33.1 33.0 − 0.8
Length of sentence (months) 26.8 15.7*** 50.9 26.2 26.7 − 2.5
Violent offense 41.4% 43.8% − 4.9 38.1% 38.5% − 0.8
Drug offense 28.7% 23.7%* 11.4 31.1% 30.3% 11.4
Property offense 32.0% 36.1% − 8.8 29.5% 28.3% 2.6
Sex offense 5.5% 4.0% 7.2 4.9% 3.3% 7.7
Year of release 2009.2 2007.9*** 59.9 2009.0 2009.0 − 5.5
Crime Profile
Violence 13.1% 20.8*** − 20.7 13.9% 15.2% − 3.3
Domestic Violence 0.0% 0.5% − 9.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0
* p < .05 *** p < .001.

Table C
8th grade program – characteristics of treatment and comparison groups before and after PSM.

Treatment group Comparison group Bias before Treatment group Comparison group Bias after

N = 2580 N = 1729 N = 677 N = 677

Demographic Characteristics
Married 33.1% 34.2% − 2.4 38.8% 35.2% 7.8
Nationality (Jewish) 58.8% 59.1% 0.6- 58.6% 58.8% 0.3-
New immigrant 19.0% 19.8% − 2.1 20.8% 20.7% 0.4
Criminal Background
No. of prior incarcerations 0.33 0.84*** − 42.1 0.53 0.45 6.2
Present Incarceration
Age at start of incarceration 33.8 33.9 − 0.5 34.2 33.8 3.3
Length of sentence (months) 25.0 15.5*** 46.6 18.1 17.2 4.6
(continued on next page)

10
D. Walk et al. Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815

Table C (continued )
Treatment group Comparison group Bias before Treatment group Comparison group Bias after

N = 2580 N = 1729 N = 677 N = 677

Violent offense 46.1% 44.4% 3.4 41.7 43.9% − 4.5

Drug offense 24.5% 24.2% 0.7 24.7% 24.5% 0.3
Property offense 35.1% 34.1% 2.1 31.3% 35.4% − 8.7
Sex offense 4.9% *3.6% 6.3 3.4% 4.0% − 2.9
Year of release 2008.3 2007.9 19.7 2007.4 2007.6 − 10.5
Crime Profile
Violence 17.8% 20.6* − 7.0 23.2% 21.7% 3.8
Domestic Violence 0.2% 0.2% − 1.7 0.1% 0.3% − 3.4
* p < .05 *** p < .001.

Table D
6th grade program – characteristics of treatment and comparison group before and after PSM

Treatment group Comparison group Bias before Treatment group Comparison group Bias after

N = 2537 N = 714 N = 270 N = 270

Demographic Characteristics
Married 31.1% 32.8% − 3.6 40.4% 37.8% 5.6
Nationality (Jewish) 60.0% 58.5% 2.9 54.1% 57.0% − 6.0
New immigrant 18.5% 19.2% − 1.8 17.4% 19.3% − 4.7
Criminal Background
No. of prior incarcerations 0.29 0.88*** − 47.7 0.65 0.63 1.5
Present Incarceration
Age at start of incarceration 34.0 33.5 3.7 34.5 33.4 9.8
Length of sentence (months) 23.6 16.2*** 38.7 18.9 19.5 − 2.9
Violent offense 44.6% 47.2% − 5.2 45.2% 45.9% − 1.5
Drug offense 23.5% 21.4% 4.9 18.9% 20.7% − 4.4
Property offense 36.8% 33.3% 7.2 25.6% 27.4% − 3.9
Sex offense 5.3% 4.1% 6.0 7.8% 5.6% 10.5
Year of release 2009.0 2007.9*** 48.2 2007.2 2007.4 − 8.5
Crime Profile
Violence 20.9% 21.6% − 1.6 23.3% 25.2% − 4.5
Domestic Violence 0.2% 0.3% − 1.7 0.7% 0.4% 7.6
***
p < .001.

References Brazzell, D., Crayton, A., Mukamal, D. A., Solomon, A. L., & Lindahl, N. (2009). From the
classroom to the community: Exploring the role of education during incarceration and
reentry. Urban Institute.
Aakvik, A. (2001). Bounding a matching estimator: The case of a Norwegian training
Brewster, D. R., & Sharp, S. F. (2002). Educational programs and recidivism in
program. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63(1), 115–143.
Oklahoma: Another look. The Prison Journal, 82(3), 314–334.
Adams, K., Bennett, K. J., Flanagan, T. J., Marquart, J. W., Cuvelier, S. J., Fritsch, E., &
Bucklen, K., & Zajac, G. (2009). But some of them don’t come back (to prison!): Resource
Burton, V. S. (1994). A large-scale multidimensional test of the effect of prison
deprivation and thinking errors as determinants of parole success and failure. The
education programs on offenders’ behavior. The Prison Journal, 74(4), 433–449.
Prison Journal, 89, 239–264.
Anderson, S. V., & Moore, E. A. (1995). Evaluation of the impact of correctional education
Bushway, S. D., & Apel, R. (2012). A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry
programs on recidivism. Bureau of Planning and Evaluation: Ohio Department of
programming. Criminology & Public Policy, 11, 21–50.
Rehabilitation and Correction.
Cecil, D. K., Drapkin, D. A., MacKenzie, D. L., & Hickman, L. J. (2000). The effectiveness
Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Anderson
of adult basic education and life-skills programs in reducing recidivism: A review
Publishing.
and assessment of the research. Journal of Correctional Education, 55, 207–226.
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future
Chen, M. Y., Liu, Y., & Zumbo, B. D. (2020). A propensity score method for investigating
prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Washington State Institute
differential item functioning in performance assessment. Educational and
for Public Policy.
Psychological Measurement, 80, 476–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316441
Apel, R. J., & Horney, J. (2017). How and why does work matter? Employment
9878861.
conditions, routine activities, and crime among adult male offenders. Criminology,
Cho, R. M., & Tyler, J. H. (2010). Does prison-based adult basic education improve
55, 307–343.
postrelease outcomes for male prisoners in Florida? Crime & Delinquency, 59,
Assy, R., & Menashe, D. (2014). The catch-22 in Israel’s parole law. Criminal Justice and
975–1005.
Behavior, 41(12), 1422–1436.
Creese, B. (2015). An assessment of the English and maths skills levels of prisoners in England.
Austin, P. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity-score methods for reducing the effects
UCL Institute of Education (Centre for Education in the Criminal Justice System).
of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46,
Dervan, L. E. (2011). American prison culture in an international context: An
399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786.
examination of prisons in America, the Netherlands and Israel. Stanford Law & Policy
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
Review, 22, 413–428.
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Duguid, S. (1982). Rehabilitation through education: A Canadian model. Journal of
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Offender Counseling Services Rehabilitation, 6(1–2), 53–67.
Batiuk, M. E., Lahm, K. F., McKeever, M., Wilcox, N., & Wilcox, P. (2005). Disentangling
Duguid, S., & Pawson, R. (1998). Education, change, and transformation: The prison
the effects of correctional education: Are current policies misguided? An event
experience. Evaluation Review, 22(4), 470–495.
history analysis. Criminal Justice, 5(1), 55–74.
Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2014). The effects of prison-based educational programming on
Batiuk, M. E., Moke, P., & Rountree, P. W. (1997). Crime and rehabilitation: Correctional
recidivism and employment. The Prison Journal, 94(4), 454–478.
education as an agent of change – A research note. Justice Quarterly, 14(1), 167–180.
Farrington, D. P., Gottfredson, D. C., Sherman, L. W., & Welsh, B. C. (2002). The
Becker, S. O., & Caliendo, M. (2007). Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects.
Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh,
The Stata Journal, 7, 71–83.
& D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 13–21). Routledge.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M.
Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., & Western, B. (2006). The effects of incarceration on employment
(2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.),
and wages: An analysis of the fragile families survey. Center for Research on Child
Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer.
Wellbeing. Working Paper 2006-01-FF.
Bozick, R., Steele, J., Davis, L., & Turner, S. (2018). Does providing inmates with
education improve postrelease outcomes? A meta-analysis of correctional education
programs in the United States. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(3), 389–428.

11
D. Walk et al.
Gerber, J., & Fritsch, E. J. (1995). Adult academic and vocational correctional education
programs: A review of recent research. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22(1–2),
119–142.
Gideon, L., Walk, D., & Carmel, T. (2015). Israeli maximum-security prisons (pp. 238-
258). In S. C. Richards (Ed.), The Marion experiment: Long-term solitary confinement &
the supermax movement. Southern Illinois University Press.
Gordon, H. R., & Weldon, B. (2003). The impact of career and technical education
programs on adult offenders: Learning behind bars. Journal of Correctional Education,
54, 200–209.
Grogger, J. (1998). Market wages and youth crime. Journal of Labor Economics, 16,
756–791.
Hasisi, B., Shoham, E., Weisburd, D., Haviv, N., & Zelig, A. (2016). The "care package,"
prison domestic violence programs and recidivism: A quasi-experimental study.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(4), 563–586.
Haviv, N., & Hasisi, B. (2019). Prison addiction program and the role of integrative
treatment and program completion on recidivism. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(15–16), 2741–2770.
Haviv, N., Weisburd, D., Hasisi, B., Shoham, E., & Wolfowicz, M. (2019). Do religious
programs in prison work? A quasi-experimental evaluation in the Israeli prison
service. Journal of Experimental Criminology. Advance online publication https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11292-019-09375-0.
Joffe, M. M., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1999). Invited commentary: Propensity scores.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 150, 327–333.
Jordan, K. L. (2012). Juvenile transfer and recidivism: A propensity score matching
approach. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(1), 53–67.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment
evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602–619.
Kim, R. H., & Clark, D. (2013). The effect of prison-based college education programs on
recidivism: Propensity score matching approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(3),
196–204.
Kohler, U., Karlson, K. B., & Holm, A. (2011). Comparing coefficients of nested nonlinear
probability models. The Stata Journal, 11, 420–438.
Kropp, E. H. (2006). The effects of a cognitive-moral development program on inmates in a
correctional educational environment. Unpublished dissertation, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville.
Lahm, K. F. (2009). Educational participation and inmate misconduct. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 48(1), 37–52.
Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. United States
Department of Justice.
LeBel, T., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. D. (2008). The "chicken and egg" of
subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of
Criminology, 5, 131–159.
Leming, J., & Bom, P. (2000). Preliminary evaluation of the effect of ethical reasoning
program on the socio-moral development of offenders (preliminary evaluation). The
Institute for Global Ethics.
Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A
survey of treatment evaluation studies. Praeger.
Liu, W., Kuramoto, S., & Stuart, E. (2013). An introduction to sensitivity analysis for
unobserved confounding in nonexperimental prevention research. Prevention Science,
14, 570–580.
Lockwood, S., Nally, J. M., Ho, T., & Knutson, K. (2012). The effect of correctional
education on postrelease employment and recidivism: A 5-year follow-up study in
the state of Indiana. Crime & Delinquency, 58(3), 380–396.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of
offenders and delinquents. Cambridge University Press.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2008, March 31). Structure and components of successful educational
programs. Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
New York.
12
Journal of Criminal Justice 74 (2021) 101815
Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from
retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22(4),
71–748.
Phelps, M. (2011). Rehabilitation in the punitive era: The gap between rhetoric and
reality in U.S. prison programs. Law and Society Review, 45(1), 33–68.
Phelps, M. (2012). The place of punishment: Variation in the provision of inmate services
staff across the punitive turn. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 248–357.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies (2nd ed.). Springer.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate
matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American
Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.
Ryan, R. L., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55,
68–78.
Shadish, W. R. (2013). Propensity score analysis: Promise, reality and irrational
exuberance. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(2), 129–144.
Skarbek, D. (2014). The social order of the underworld: How prison gangs govern the
American penal system. Oxford University Press.
Steurer, S. J., Smith, L., & Tracy, A. (2001). Three state recidivism study. Correctional
Education Association.
Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United
States: Exploring causes and consequences. The National Academies Press.
Turner, S. F. (2018). Multiple faces of reentry. In J. Wooldridge, & P. Smith (Eds.), Oxford
handbook on prisons and punishment. Oxford University Press.
Vacca, J. S. (2004). Educated prisoners are less likely to return to prison. Journal of
Correctional Education, 55, 297–305.
Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & De Haan, J. (2017). The
relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review.
Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588.
Visher, C. A., Debus, S. A., & Yahner, J. (2008). Employment after prison: A longitudinal
study of releasees in three states. Urban Institute.
Visher, C. A., Debus-Sherrill, S. A., & Yahner, J. (2011). Employment after prison: A
longitudinal study of former prisoners. Justice Quarterly, 28, 698–718.
Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2005). Ex-offender employment
programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1,
295–315.
Walk, D., & Berman, E. (2015). The recidivism of Israeli prisoners. Research & Strategic
Planning Department, Planning Administration, Israel Prison Service. Publication
No. RR-03-2015.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2017). Benefit-cost results for adult
criminal justice. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/BenefitCost?topicId=2.
Weisburd, D., Hasisi, B., Shoham, E., Aviv, G., & Haviv, N. (2017). Reinforcing the
impacts of work release on prisoner recidivism: The importance of integrative
interventions. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13, 241–264.
Weisburd, D., Wilson, D., Wooditch, A., & Britt, C. (in press). Advanced statistics in
criminology and criminal justice. Springer.
Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of
corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 347–368.
Wolf Harlow, C. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Bureau of Justice
Statistics Special Report No. NCJ 195670. U.S. Department of Justice.
Zimmerman, E. B., Woolf, S. H., & Haley, A. (2015). Understanding the relationship
between education and health: A review of the evidence and an examination of
community perspectives. In R. M. Kaplan, M. L. Spittel, & D. H. David (Eds.),
Population health: behavioral and social science insights (pp. 347–384). Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (Publication No. 15-0002).