12 prison to work western
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
1/38
HAMILTONTHE
PROJECT
Advancing Opportunity,
Prosperity and Growth
The Brookings Institution
From Prison to Work:A Proposal for a NationalPrisoner Reentry Program
D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R 2 0 0 8 - 1 6 D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 8
Bruce Western
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
2/38
The Hamilton Project seeks to advance Americas promise o
opportunity, prosperity, and growth. The Projects economic
strategy reects a judgment that long-term prosperity is best
achieved by making economic growth broad-based, by
enhancing individual economic security, and by embracing a
role or eective government in making needed public
investments. Our strategystrikingly dierent rom the
theories driving economic policy in recent yearscalls or fscal
discipline and or increased public investment in key growth-
enhancing areas. The Project will put orward innovative
policy ideas rom leading economic thinkers throughout the
United Statesideas based on experience and evidence, not
ideology and doctrineto introduce new, sometimes
controversial, policy options into the national debate with
the goal o improving our countrys economic policy.
The Project is named ater Alexander Hamilton, the
nations frst treasury secretary, who laid the oundation
or the modern American economy. Consistent with the
guiding principles o the Project, Hamilton stood or sound
fscal policy, believed that broad-based opportunity or
advancement would drive American economic growth, and
recognized that prudent aids and encouragements on the
part o government are necessary to enhance and guide
market orces.
HAMILTONTH E
PROJECT
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
3/38
DECEMBER 2008
HAMILTONTHE
PROJECT
Advancing Opportunity,
Prosperity and Growth
NOTE: Thi dicion paper i a propoal rom the athor. A emphaized in The Hamilton
Project oriinal tratey paper, the Project wa deined in part to provide a orm or leadin
thiner acro the nation to pt orward innovative and potentially important economic policy
idea that hare the Project broad oal o promotin economic rowth, broad-baed partici-
pation in rowth, and economic ecrity. The athor are invited to expre their own idea in
dicion paper, whether or not the Project ta or adviory concil aree with the pecifc
propoal. Thi dicion paper i oered in that pirit.
From Prison to Work:A Proposal for a NationalPrisoner Reentry Program
Brce Wetern
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
4/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
2 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
Copyriht 2008 The Brooin Intittion
Aac
Around seven hundred thousand mostly low-income and minority men and women are released rom
prison each year. Returning to lives o low wages and high rates o unemployment, about two thirds
will be rearrested within three years. I propose a national prisoner reentry program whose core ele-
ment is up to a year o transitional employment available to all parolees in need o work. Transitional
jobs are supplemented by substance-abuse treatment and housing ater release, expanded work and ed-
ucational programs in prison, and the restoration o eligibility or ederal benets or those with elony
records. The program costs are oset by increased employment and reduced crime and correctional
costs or program participants. By shiting supervision rom custody in prison to intensive programs
in the community, the national reentry program improves economic opportunity and reduces prison
populations.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
5/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008
C
Introdction 5
1. The Problem o Ma Imprionment and Pot-Prion Employment 6
2. Evidence on Prioner Reentry Proram 10
. A Propoal or a National Prioner Reentry Proram 14
4. Cot and Beneft 2
5. Objection and Alternative 27
6. Conclion 28
Appendix: Cae stdie 29
Reerence 2
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
6/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
4 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
7/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008 5
In the current era o mass incarceration, low-in-
come young men with little schooling are per-vasively involved in the criminal justice system.
Those returning rom state or ederal prison ace
high rates o unemployment and recidivism. Both
these measuresunemployment and recidivism
refect the acute challenge o reentering society and
assuming mainstream social roles.
I propose a national prisoner reentry program
whose main element is a year o community service
employment buttressed by transitional services and
in-prison education. The national prisoner reentryprogram aims to increase employment among re-
leased prisoners while reducing prison populations.
Achieving these objectives will yield a sustainable
public saety that overcomes the long-term nega-
tive consequences o criminal punishment and pro-
motes the economic improvement o poor commu-
nities.
idc
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
8/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
6 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
The growth o the penal system over the past
thirty years has redrawn the landscape o ur-ban poverty in America. Prison and jails now
hold 2.25 million inmatesmostly minority and
poorly educated young men. Swelled largely by
drug oenders and parole violators, state and ed-
eral prisons return more than seven hundred thou-
sand prisoners each year to inner-city communities
across the country. Although growth in the prison
population has helped reduce crime rates over the
past decade, todays penal system presents two re-
lated challenges or public policy.
First is the problem o prisoner reentry. In the late
1970s around one hundred and ty thousand in-
mates were released rom state or ederal prison
each year. Today, that number is about ve times
as large. These enlarged cohorts o released pris-
oners return overwhelmingly to inner-city neigh-
borhoods o concentrated poverty where jobs are
scarce, crime rates are high, and social disorganiza-
tion is itsel deepened by the population turnover
associated with mass incarceration. Under these
conditions, the benets to impoverished amiliesand communities o post-prison employment are
potentially large.
Frequently returning to social and economic ad-
versity, ormer prisoners themselves are poorly
equipped to lead productive lives. Mostly minorites
and aged in their thirties or older, prisoners aver-
age about a tenth-grade education (Table 1). Sur-
vey data show that about one-third o state prison
inmates were jobless and two-thirds had a history
o heavy drug or alcohol use at the time o theirincarceration (U.S. Department o Justice 2004).
The disadvantage o prisoners is also indicated by
chronic health problems, high rates o mental ill-
ness, and cognitive scores well below grade level.
Further, prisoners have very little work experience,
even compared to others with similar schooling and
demographic characteristics.
1. th P ma ip ad P-Pep
Ater returning home, ex-prisoners are out o work
about hal the time, earn on average around $9,000
a year, and experience virtually no growth in earn-
ings (Western 2006, ch. 5). Prison time itsel may
impede successul reintegration into society; studies
show that incarceration is associated with reduced
earnings and employment rates, and increased rates
o divorce and separation (Western 2006). Perhaps
ailure ater release rom prison is indicated most
vividly by recidivism rates: the 1994 national re-cidivism study showed that more than two thirds o
ormer state prisoners were rearrested within three
years o release, and hal o those rearrested were
back in prison within that time (Langan and Levin
2002).
Whereas the problem o prisoner reentry has grown
tAble 1.
Daphc, idca s ad ep-a, ad Pa Pacpa saP
1991 2004
Demographics
Blac (percent) 47.5 4.2Latino (percent) 15.5 19.4Median ae (year) 0.0 4.0
Skills and employability
Averae choolin (year) 10.4 10.4Employed beore
imprionment (percent) 67.2 72.4Reportin heavy dr e
(percent) 62.2 69.1Program participation
sbtance-abe treatment
(percent) 6.4 71.2Wor or edcation proram(percent) 44.2 25.
sorce: srvey o Inmate o state Correctional Facilitie, 1991 and 2004
(Brea o Jtice statitic 199, 2007).
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
9/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008 7
with the incarceration rate, assistance or prisoners
and their amilies has contracted. Resources or ed-
ucational and other rehabilitative programming in
prison have shrunk, and social services ater release
vary substantially across jurisdictions. Despite the
acute human capital decits o prisoners, participa-tion in work and education programs has declined
rom 44 percent in 1991 to 25 percent in 2004. Be-
cause o these changes, released prisoners may be
less prepared or the labor market than they were
in the past. Adding to the challenge o prisoner re-
entry, the labor market or low-skilled men has de-
teriorated. Earnings among men with only a high
school education have stagnated and joblessness
among young non-college-educated blacks remains
persistently high.
The second public policy challenge o todays penal
system is presented by the scale o correctional ex-
penditures in state budgets. The growth o the pris-
on population has changed the unctions o state
governments. For most o the twentieth century,
the imprisonment rate in the United States hovered
around one hundred per one hundred thousand
(Figure 1a). From 1975 to 2005, the raction o the
population in prison grew ve-old, and the costso corrections ballooned. In 2005, total correctional
spending was $70 billion, up rom $19 billion (in
2007 dollars) in 1982. This represents an average
annual cost o about $27,000 per prison inmate.
Increased spending on prisons means ewer re-
sources or other budget priorities. Spending on
corrections as a share o states general unds in-
creased about 40 percent rom 1987 to 2007 (Fig-
ure 1b). Over this same period, spending on higher
education as a share o state spending declined byabout 30 percent. These gures indicate a shit in
priorities away rom human capital investment to-
ward criminal punishment.
Figure 1(A)
ip ra, 19252005 (p 100,000 u.s. ppa)
Fire 1(a): Imprionment per one hndred thoand o the u.s. poplation, 1925 to 2005
1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
ImprisonmentRate(per100,0
00)
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
10/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
8 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
The policy problems o reentry and rising cor-rectional budgets are the most visible signs o the
challenge to social justice created by extraordinary
rates o incarceration among young black men.
Black men are seven times more likely to be incar-
cerated than white men, and large racial disparities
can be seen or all age groups and at dierent levels
o education. The large black-white disparity in in-
carceration is unmatched by most other social indi-
cators. Racial disparities in unemployment (two to
one), nonmarital childbearing (three to one), inant
mortality (two to one), and wealth (one to ve) areall signicantly lower than the seven-to-one black-
white ratio in incarceration rates. Among black men
under age orty, around one in nine is currently be-
hind bars in prison or jail. Among black male high
school dropouts under orty, one in three is incar-
cerated. Over a lietime, about one in ve black men
born since 1965 will serve time in prison. Indeed,
black men are now more likely to go to prison thanto graduate rom college with a our-year degree
(Western 2006, p. 29). At the very bottom o the edu-
cation distribution, a third o non-college-educated
black men and two-thirds o black male high school
dropouts born since 1965 will go to prison at some
point in their lives.
The historically novel normality o imprisonment
or young black men with little schooling was pro-
duced by a newly punitive criminal justice policy
applied most zealously in poor urban neighbor-hoods that oered ew legitimate economic oppor-
tunities. Mandatory minimum sentencing, truth in
sentencing, and habitual oender enhancements
or those on their second and third strikes in-
creased prison commitments among those arrested,
and increased time served among those in prison.
Through the 1990s the growth in the incarceration
Figure 1(b)
sa Cca ad Hh edcaa spd, 19872007 (pc)
Fire 1(b): state pendin on correction and hiher edcation a a percentae o tate eneral nd, 1987 to 2007.
sorce: National Aociation o state Bdet Ofcer (1996, 2007); Patore and Maire (2008).
1987 1992 1997 2002 2007
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
GeneralFundSpending(%)
Higher EducationCorrection
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
11/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008 9
rate was swelled by increasing rates o parole revo-
cation (Blumstein and Beck 2005). As the criminal
justice system became more punitive, high levels o
joblessness exposed young low-skill men in inner
cities to the scrutiny o the police, the lure o il-
legal income, and the disorder o chronic idleness(Western 2006, ch. 3). Harsh punishment and the
jobless ghetto combined to produce the mass im-
prisonment o young black men with no more than
a high school education.
The penal system now refects the contours o se-
vere disadvantage among young men, and deepens
inequality by diminishing the lie chances o those
with prison records. In the long run, public saety
itsel is threatened by mass incarceration because
those released rom prison have trouble joining themainstream o social lie. Increasing employment
and reducing crime among those released rom
prison has become central to improving economic
opportunity among todays urban poor, and central
to reducing the scale o a penal system that now
shapes the lie path or a generation o young black
men.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
12/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
10 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
The problem o prisoner reentry is an active
area o policy interest; many programs orimproving employment and reducing recidi-
vism have been proposed. For example, the Reen-
try Policy Council (2005) provides an encyclopedic
discussion and makes dozens o policy recommen-
dations. A wide variety o work, training, and educa-
tion programs, in prison and ater release, orms an
uneven patchwork o services that requently oper-
ate with only limited success.
Recent reviews oer a mixed assessment o the
eects o reentry programs on employment. DanBloom (2006) observes that there have been ew
randomized evaluations, although ex-prisoners
were sometimes included in studies o programs
that were more broadly designed to assist disadvan-
taged workers. Visher, Wintereld, and Coggershall
(2005) review eight random-assignment studies o
employment-based programs and nd that the av-
erage eect on recidivism is small and insignicant.
Conversely, a broad survey by the British Depart-
ment o Education and Skills concludes that well-
designed programs successully promoted employ-ment among ex-prisoners, although evidence or
the eects on recidivism is weaker (Hurry, Brazier,
Parker, and Wilson 2006).
Despite conficting reviews, policy lessons can be
drawn rom a small number o well-designed stud-
ies (see Table 2). Many evaluations o programs or
prisoners report large reductions in recidivism, but
these results are oten artiacts o weak research de-
signs. In particular, selection into programs is oten
poorly controlled and program dropouts are otenignored. The evaluations on which I ocus are all
based on experimental or strong matching or re-
gression designs and report eects or all program
participants and not just program graduates.
Four kinds o programs have tried to increase
employment and reduce crime among those with
2. evdc P r Pa
criminal records: (1) transitional employment pro-
grams, (2) residential and training programs ordisadvantaged youth, (3) prison work and educa-
tion programs, and (4) income supplements or the
unemployed.
Transitional employment programs provide sub-
sidized work to parolees who work in small crews
under close supervision. An early randomized ex-
periment, the National Supported Work (NSW)
Demonstration (197578), placed parolees and
probationers in construction industry jobs. Three
years ater entry to the program, about 42 percento NSW clients over the age o twenty-six had
been rearrested, compared with 54 percent in the
control group (Uggen 2000). NSW participants
over age twenty-six were also less likely to report
illegal earnings. There were no signicant dier-
ences between program and control groups among
those aged twenty-six and younger. The value o
transitional employment or ex-prisoners is also
indicated by recent evaluations o the two transi-
tional jobs programs rom New York. An evaluation
o the CEO program (200405) ound that parol-ees entering transitional jobs experienced increased
employment and were 19 percent less likely to be
rearrested ater a year. However, this eect was only
ound or those entering the program within three
months o release rom prison (Bloom, Redcross,
Zweig, and Azurdia 2007). Because o small sample
sizes, these program eects were not signicant.
The ComALERT program (200406) in Brook-
lyn, New York, provides up to a year o subsidized
employment in combination with housing and sub-
stance-abuse treatment. Program participation wasassociated with signicant improvements in em-
ployment and a 18 percent reduction in arrest rates
compared to a matched control group with simi-
lar demographics and criminal history (Jacobs and
Western 2007). In sum, transitional employment
or up to six to twelve months immediately ater
prison release is associated with reduced recidivism
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
13/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008 11
Pa sap z Dcp mhd Pa c
Transitional employment
NsW (197578) 1,497 Minimm wae Random 22% on arret i
contrction job ainment over ae twenty-ix;in mall pervied +6% (n..) on arretcrew or ex-prioner i ae twenty-ix or
releaed le than yonerix month
CEO (200405) 977 Minimm wae Random 19% (n..) on
manal job, job ainment arret or thoereadine trainin, enterin proram
and placement within three monthor parolee o prion releae,
+6% (n..) on arretor thoe enterinproram ater three
month o prion releae;+144% on employment
over a year
ComALERT (200406) 996 Minimm wae Matchin 18% on arret;manal job, dr +45% on uI
treatment, and hoin employment (N = 128)mandated to drtreatment
Other residential and training programs
OPTs (199497) 98 Family conelin, Random 16% (n..) on dr e,hoin aitance, ainment 7% (n..) on arret, +9%
job readine, and (n..) on ll-timeplacement or employment
probationer and parolee
Job Corp (199496) 2,450 Reidential edcation Random -% (n..) amonand trainin or hih ainment nonerio arretee,chool dropot aed 8% (n..) amon erio
ixteen to twenty-or, arretee on arret;bample with prior +10% or nonerio
arret arretee, -2%
(n..) or erioarretee onorth-yearemployment
JTPA (198789) 416 Claroom trainin, Random +6% (n..) on arret;on-the-job trainin or ainment no eect on uI earnin
job earch aitance,
incldin a bampleo male yoth arretee
tAble 2.
r ep ad ta Pa ex-P
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
14/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
12 THEHAMILTONPROJECT | THEbROOkINgs INsTITuTION
Pa sap z Dcp mhd Pa ffc
Prison Work and Education
PREP(198385) 750 Vocationaltraininor Matchin 24%onreincarceration atleat6month ater8to12yearor inmotlyclericalor inmateinprion
manalaricatin indtrie,33%or andrepairjo inmateinvocational
traininorapprentice- hip,23%(n..)or
inmateinprion indtrieandtrainin
FloridagED(199499) 12,956 In-priongEDclae Rereion +6%(n..)onqarterly andexam;gED uIearninaterone
radatecompared year;eectlihtly tohihchooldropot larer,thoh
withgED temporary,ornonwhite.
3-statestdy(199798) 3,170 In-prionproramin Matchin 16%onarret;+5% aicedcation,gED (n..)onemployment
preparation,lieill ateroneyearand andconitiveill, 30%onearnin; econdaryandpot- 3-yearprorameect
econdaryedcation orearninand employment
notinifcantIncome supplement programs
LIFE(197274) 432 unemployment Random 13%onarret;
eneft($252weely) ainment +12%onll-time orparolee employment
TARP(197577) 3,982 unemployment Random +3%(n..)onarret, eneft($250weely) ainment 25%onearnin andplacementor parolee
sorce:EvalationarereportedyManpowerDevelopmentReearchCorporation(1980)orNsW;uen(2000)ordierenteectyae;bloom,Redcro,Zwei,
andAzrdia(2007)orCEO;JacoandWetern(2007)orComALERT;Roman,sridharan,govi,bc,andMorley(1999)orOPTs(drtreatmentaloormedpart
oOPTs,tcontrolaloreceivedtreatment);schochet,brhardt,andglazerman(2001)orJoCorp;bloom,Orr,bell,Cave,Doolittle,Lin,andbo(1997)orJTPA;
saylorandgae(1997)orPREP;klinandTyler(2007)orFloridagED;andsterer,smith,andTracy(2001)orThree-statestdy;MallarandThornton(1978)orLIFE
(proramincldedjoplacementwhichwaineective);Roi,ber,andLenihan(1980)orTARP.
n..=Nottatiticallyinifcant.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
15/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg | DECEMbER 20 08 13
and increased employment, at least or the frst year
or two ater release. (CEO and ComALERT are
described in greater detail in the appendix.)
Whereas transitional employment or ex-prisoners
yields positive results, public service employmentprograms have improved employment and earnings
or other populations with only mixed success (Ell-
wood and Welty 2000, pp. 322331). Many large
employment and training programs involving crim-
inal oenders are ocused on youth. Most youth
involved in serious crime, however, are unlikely to
desist while they are still in late adolescence. The
eectiveness o transitional employment or those
in their late twenties and older is encouraging or a
reentry program or released prisoners, 80 percent
o whom are at least twenty-fve years old.
Other programs have combined several supportive
services like housing and drug treatment, though
not transitional employment, to move ex-prisoners
into the labor market. The Opportunity to Succeed
(OPTS) program (199497) provided mandatory
substance-abuse treatment in intensive residential
placements, as well as job readiness training. A year
ater random assignment, the treatment group had
accumulated an extra month o ull-time employ-
ment and were 9 percent more likely to have helda ull-time job. Recidivism was also modestly lower
in the treatment group, although the program eect
was not signifcant (Rossman, Sridharan, Gouvis,
Buck, and Morley 1999). Job Corps, targeting high
school dropouts under age twenty-fve, also provided
housing in combination with education and training
programs. Perhaps because participants were rela-
tively young, Job Corps ailed to produce signifcant
reductions in one-year arrest rates or to produce
signifcant increases in employment among those
with prior serious arrests (Schochet, Burghardt, andGlazerman 2001). The Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA, 198789) provided training and job search as-
sistance similar to Job Corps, but in a nonresidential
setting. This less-intensive intervention had no eect
on the earnings and rearrest rates o male youth with
arrest records (Bloom, Orr, Bell, Cave, Doolittle,
Lin, and Bos 1997).
Three large-scale studies suggest the importance o
prison education. The PREP study (198385) ound
that participation in vocational training and work
programs was associated with reduced rates o rein-
carceration in ederal prison as long as twelve years
ater release (Saylor and Gaes 1997). The Three-State Recidivism Study (199798), named or study
groups in Maryland, Minnesota, and Ohio, exam-
ined a variety o educational programs, including ba-
sic education, GED preparation, and secondary and
postsecondary schooling. Although the study did not
distinguish the eects o dierent types o educa-
tional programs, those who participated in classes
in prison had only a 48 percent rearrest rate ater a
year, compared with a 57 percent rearrest rate or the
comparison group (Steurer, Smith, and Tracy 2001).
Program participants had higher earnings in the frstyear ater release, but this earnings advantage disap-
peared ater three years. Similar to the Three-State
Recidivism Study, the Florida GED study (199499)
ound no enduring gains to earnings or employment
or those who obtained a GED in prison. Still, some
immediate improvements in earnings were ound,
particularly or nonwhite GED holders (Kling and
Tyler 2007).
The main alternative to improving economic op-
portunities through work, housing, and educationhas involved paying unemployment benefts to re-
leased prisoners. Beginning in 1971, the Baltimore
LIFE (Living Insurance or Ex-Prisoners) experi-
ment (197274) randomly allocated released state
prisoners to a thirteen-week treatment consisting o
weekly $252 payments and job placement in some
cases, while a control group received no treatment.
Ater twelve months, 49.5 percent o the treatment
group had been rearrested, compared with 56.9 per-
cent o the controls (Mallar and Thornton 1978).
The LIFE program was replicated on a larger scalein Texas and Georgia in the TARP (Transitional Aid
or Released Prisoners) experiment (197577). The
TARP participants had higher rates o unemploy-
ment than the control group, however, and were no
less likely to recidivate (Rossi, Berk, and Lenihan
1980).
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
16/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
14 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
The striking result rom this survey o correc-
tional programming is the substantial uneven-ness o the programs eects. The programs
vary greatly in their content and in their clients.
Less-intensive interventions such as the income
supplements o TARP or the training o JTPA and
interventions directed at male youth have been un-
successul. More-intensive interventions tend to be
more successul, particularly i they target adult o-
enders who may be more motivated than younger
oenders to desist rom crime. The results rom
CEO and ComALERT also suggest that timely in-
terventions ocused on the period immediately aterprison release have a greater chance o success.
Timely and relatively long-term transitional em-
ployment appears promising because it addresses
perhaps the key barrier to steady post-prison em-
ployment: the very low level o work experience
among released prisoners. In many cases, men and
women coming out o prison have never held a reg-
ular, legitimate job. As a result, the rudimentary lie
skills o reliability, motivation, and sociability with
supervisors and coworkers are undeveloped. Otenwe think o these characteristics as noncognitive
skills that are ormed in childhood (Carneiro and
Heckman 2004). These noncognitive skills are as
important or success in the labor market as are the
more amiliar cognitive skills o math and verbal
ability (Heckman, Stixrud, and Urzua 2006). The
evaluation results or transitional jobs suggest that
the habits o everyday work and the noncognitive
skills on which they are based can be developed in
adulthood by the daily rehearsal o the routines o
working lie. Encouraged by the successul resultso timely and large-dose transitional jobs programs,
I propose up to a year o subsidized community ser-
vice employment or all parolees in need o work
as the centerpiece o a national prisoner reentry
program.
3. A Ppa a naa P r Pa
To oster work habits and tackle the problem behav-
iors o ormerly incarcerated men, several addition-al supports are needed. First, transitional housing
and substance-abuse treatment may enhance the
eectiveness o transitional jobs or the homeless
and drug addicted. Second, parole reorms that cur-
tail the reimprisonment o technical parole viola-
tors will acilitate the learning process in which new
noncognitive skills o reliability and persistence are
being developed. Third, prison education programs
should be expanded to improve readiness or tran-
sitional employment and work in the open labor
market. Finally, eligibility or ederal welare andeducation programs should be extended to those
with elony convictions.
In contrast to the prolieration o numerous small-
scale measures to assist ex-prisoners, the national
prisoner reentry program consists o a small num-
ber o large-scale measures that are intended to
work together as a system, moving prisoners out o
custody into the community. Unlike many reentry
proposals, my proposed program has the reduction
in prison populations as an explicit policy objective.The proposal also takes a realistic view o program
eectiveness. Transitional employment by itsel will
only modestly reduce recidivism and improve em-
ployment, and these eects may be short lived. Still,
the impact o transitional jobs can be enhanced by
supplementary services and supportive parole su-
pervision.
We can think o the national reentry program as a
sequence o stages that prepares people or work
in the open labor market. In this sequence, prisoneducation and discharge planning is preparatory or
transitional jobs and other services in the commu-
nity. The eectiveness o transitional jobs is sup-
ported by parole reorm, and the expansion o eli-
gibility or ederal programs.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
17/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008 15
i P: edca, W, adDcha Pa
To be prepared or transitional employment, pris-
oners must be equipped with basic literacy, job skills,
and rudimentary job readiness. Prisons have been,historically, a graveyard or rehabilitative criminal
justice. As correctional administrators know well,
the prisons main job is the sae and secure custody
o its inmates. As a result, even orderly and well-run
prisons can be unriendly contexts or teaching pro-
social behaviors. I we must choose between in-pris-
on and community programs, we should probably
spend our money in the community where program
eects or the ormerly incarcerated are larger and
the social benets distributed more widely.
Although the imperatives o custody may compro-
mise rehabilitation, the modest goals o literacy and
basic job skills may be achievable. State prisoners
average a tenth-grade education and score below
their grade level on cognitive tests. Improving the
cognitive skills o prisoners is thus an important
part o a post-prison employment program. In ad-
dition to providing work and education programs,
prisons can also play an important role at the time o
release by connecting inmates to their post-release
social supports.
By setting universal standards or adult education,
the Federal Bureau o Prisons oers a good model
or schooling in custody. Federal prisoners who are
unctionally illiterate or who lack a high school di-
ploma or GED are required to enroll in 240 hours
o educational programs. In 2004 about 40 percent
o new ederal prisoners were enrolled in education
programs, compared to 20 percent o new state pris-
oners. I propose a national minimum standard or
correctional education based on the ederal stan-dard. As in the ederal system, the national mini-
mum standard would aim to achieve a twelth-grade
level o unctional literacy or state prisoners. Such a
standard would help prepare prisoners or the labor
market, GED exams, and postsecondary schooling.
Compulsory correctional education throughout a
state prison system would require the availability
o basic education in virtually all acilities. Widely
oered standard programs would help inmates re-
main in class as they moved rom prison to prison.
Meeting the national standard would require a sig-
nicant expansion o state correctional education.
In most states, schooling is mandated only or pris-
oners under age twenty. States signing on to the na-
tional education standard would receive ederal aid
to make up the shortall between current spending
on correctional education and the level required to
meet the goal o 240 hours o basic education or
unctionally illiterate prisoners.
We can estimate the cost o this eort by using the
current levels o ederal spending on correctional
education and survey data on program participa-
tion by low-education state prisoners. Precise g-
ures are hard to determine, but it appears that the
annual per pupil spending o the Federal Bureau
o Prisons on educational programs roughly equals
the national per pupil average or secondary school,
or about $9,000 in 2007 dollars. A 240-hour literacy
or secondary school program would thus cost about
$2,000 per prisoner.1 About one ourth o state pris-oners lacks a high school diploma or GED and is
not currently involved in any school program. In
line with a national standard or state prisoners, 240
hours o basic education or these three hundred
orty thousand inmates would cost $680 million.
For inmates not enrolled in education programs,
correctional acilities could oer work in prison
industries making products used or state and lo-
cal governments (e.g., oce urniture). Again, the
ederal prison system provides a model. Federalprison industries employ prisoners in clerical, sales,
and manual semiskilled occupations. The program
is entirely sel-unding and employs about 17 per-
cent o ederal inmates, about twice the percent-
1. An average secondary school year is about 180 days o about 6.5 hours each, so 240 hours o correctional education is equal to about 20percent o a school year.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
18/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
16 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
age o state prisoners in work programs. Earnings
vary rom $0.25 to $1.15 an hour, and are applied
to unpaid nes, victim restitution, and child sup-
port. The PREP evaluation, described above, ound
that six months work in ederal prison industries
was associated with a 24 percent reduction in re-incarceration rates at least eight years ater release
(Saylor and Gaes 1997). Deciencies in research
design probably account or some o this estimated
eect. Operating prison industries on a large scale
will likely reduce the benets we see or ederal
prisoners. Still, the PREP evaluation suggests that
modest reductions in recidivism can be obtained at
modest cost.
Although I propose mandatory participation in
education programs and an expansion o prisonindustries, participation in work and school pro-
grams could be handled in several ways. First, work
or school could be required o all prisoners in need,
just as the ederal system requires education o all
prisoners, and just as some policy analysts have ar-
gued or work programs or all prisoners. In addi-
tion to building the skills o prisoners, mandatory
work and education programs could be seen as a
way to demand more accountability rom prisoners
(Travis 2005). Second, programs could be volun-
tary and linked to reductions in time served. Goodtime is already provided or successul program
participation in many jurisdictions. Adopting this
approach nationally would allow expanded educa-
tion and work programs to reduce prison popula-
tions through early release.
In addition to work and education programs in pris-
on, I also propose national standards or discharge
planning that readies prisoners or release rom in-
carceration. Released prisoners are at highest risk
o recidivism immediately ater release rom prison(Langan and Levin 2002; Visher and Kachnowski
2007). In many jurisdictions, prisoners are released
with a little gate money and no real direction until
their rst parole appointment, which is sometimes
weeks ater reentry into society. During this period,
prisoners are at high risk o rearrest or drug relapse,
particularly i they have uncleared legal obligations
and lack work or housing. Discharge planning helps
released prisoners move quickly into employment,
housing, and substance-abuse treatment. National
guidelines or discharge planning would recom-
mend that departments o correction prepare or a
prisoners release by resolving uncleared warrants,nes, and child support obligations, and providing
a state-issued identication card.
Prisoners would also receive a risk and needs assess-
ment to provide reerrals or employment, hous-
ing, and treatment to ensure the transition to a sup-
portive social context in the rst days out o prison.
The needs assessment would take account o skills,
schooling, employment history, and employment
opportunities o parolees, as well as the many risk
actors associated with recidivism. Discharge plan-ning would regulate entry into transitional jobs and
treatment, ensuring that only those with real needs
would receive reerrals.
We currently have little systematic inormation
about the eectiveness o discharge planning, al-
though it is widely recommended by policy analysts
(Petersilia 2003; Travis 2005). A recent randomized
experiment evaluating the New York prerelease
program, Project Greenlight, ound no reductions
in recidivism or prisoners receiving discharge plan-ning (Wilson and Davis 2006). More evaluations o
discharge planning are needed. National standards
or discharge planning cost relatively little and rep-
resent a modest but realistic step toward enlisting
prisons in a more active role in ex-prisoners reen-
try into ree society.
taa ep, H, adsac-A ta
Sobriety and the habits o regular work oer thebest chance o improving employment among re-
leased prisoners. The path to a steady job will be
prepared by a bundle o intensive transitional ser-
vices (employment, housing, and substance-abuse
treatment), weighted to support the rst months
back in ree society.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
19/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008 17
The national program or transitional employment
assigns prisoners to a post-release job as part o their
discharge plan i they have no guaranteed employ-
ment prior to release. Those assigned to the pro-
gram would be required to report or work within
a week o prison release, as a condition o parole.Transitional employment would last up to twelve
months, although job placement services would
aim to quickly move ex-prisoners into the open
labor market. Employment would consist o ull-
time minimum-wage work in a small crew under
the direction o a supervisor. Program participants
would work in community service jobs maintaining
parks, roads, or public buildings and grounds. The
states would develop these programs to best t local
conditions. Transitional jobs might be directly or-
ganized by public agencies, or put under contract tononprot organizations. Administered in this way,
the transitional employment program resembles
the National Supported Work (NSW) Demonstra-
tion o the 1970s, or contemporary welare-to-work
initiatives.
Figures on the parole population and employment
rates among prisoners help us estimate the scale
o the transitional jobs program. At current levels,
about 70 percent o annually released prisoners
our hundred ninety thousand ex-inmatesareon some kind o supervised release and would be
eligible or transitional employment. (Those re-
leased without supervision cannot be mandated to
programs, and would all outside the scope o the
initiative.) A third o all prisoners were unemployed
at prison admission; data on released prisoners in-
dicate one hal to three quarters are out o work in
their rst months ater release (Sabol 2007; Visher
and Kachnowski 2007). I one hal o all parolees
need work immediately ater release rom custody,
the transitional employment program would needto supply two hundred orty-ve thousand jobs an-
nually.
Supplementing the employment program, states
would also provide transitional housing or home-
less ex-prisoners. There are no national statistics on
homelessness among ex-prisoners, but gures rom
major jurisdictions suggest 10 to 20 percent o pa-
rolees are homeless or some period in the two years
ater release (Metraux and Culhane 2004). Around
one hundred thousand additional beds would be
needed to guarantee housing to homeless parolees.
To promote sobriety and the habits o regular work,homeless parolees would be assigned to support-
ive housing that combines accommodations with
substance-abuse treatment and other counseling
services. Such supportive housing, like transitional
employment, would be provided or up to a year.
Because homeless ex-prisoners are likely to have
the most acute needs, supportive housing oers a
promising path to stable and independent housing.
Supportive housing or homeless parolees will also
provide the social benet o reducing the numbers
o ex-prisoners in city shelters or illegally residingin public housing.
Finally, to support employment I propose expand-
ing resources or substance-abuse treatment or
parolees. Around two-thirds o state and ederal
prisoners reported a history o heavy drug or al-
cohol use prior to incarceration. In many jurisdic-
tions, parolees with substance-abuse problems are
mandated to attend treatment programs. We lack
national gures or parolees, although 40 percent
o probationers attend drug or alcohol treatmentas a condition o their supervision. These gures
suggest that around 30 percent o paroleesabout
two hundred thousandmay need treatment and
are currently without a treatment mandate. I hal
o these prisoners were already in some kind o
substance-abuse program, then about one hundred
thousand parolees would require additional treat-
ment.
A national program or transitional employment,
housing, and drug or alcohol treatment would rep-resent a signicant commitment to the economic
and social reintegration o ex-prisoners. The gross
cost o transitional employment depends on how
many parolees will move to unsubsidized work
within a year. Post-release surveys suggest hal o
all program participants obtain employment a-
ter six months. Thereore, two hundred orty-ve
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
20/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
18 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
thousand parolees would enter the program but the
cost would be based on one hundred eighty-our
thousand annual equivalent participants. Using the
NSW Demonstration as a guide to gross costs, each
participant would be paid $14,300 in annual wages
(in 2007 dollars), and the service provider wouldreceive $15,400 in overhead to cover the costs o
supervision and administration (Bartik 2001, p.
194). These costs are similar to those o the New
York CEO and ComALERT programs reviewed
above. The relatively high New York minimum
wage on which CEO and ComALERT costs are
based suggests average national costs may be lower
in practice. Supportive housing would annually cost
about $10,000 or each o one hundred thousand
beds. One year o substance-abuse treatment in
a nonresidential program costs about $4,900 oreach o one hundred thousand parolees (Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
[SAMHSA] 2003). In total, the gross annual cost o
transitional programs would be about $7 billion.
Outside a correctional setting, this type o program
might subsidize those who could be sel-sucient
in the open labor and housing markets. As part o
a reentry program, however, released prisoners
would not voluntarily enroll. Instead, transitional
jobs, housing, and treatment would be assigned byprison and parole authorities using a needs assess-
ment at discharge. Participation in the programs
would not be voluntary at the discretion o ex-pris-
oners, but mandatory as a condition o supervised
release. There is oten a tension in the allocation o
program services between helping those who are
likely to do well and helping those who are most in
need. Assigning transitional services on the basis o
a ormal risk and needs assessment at discharge will
tend to channel services to parolees who are more
needy and at higher risk.
Pa r
The eectiveness o services or released prisoners
is reduced by the harshness o criminal punishment.
Imprisonment reduces employment and disrupts
the amily relationships that might otherwise sup-
port desistance rom crime. Although mass incar-
ceration prevents crime in the short run by incapac-
itating criminals, it undermines public saety in the
long run by expanding the population o ex-pris-
oners with ew economic prospects or amily sup-
ports. Correctional budgets also divert resourcesrom public saety investments in police or social
services. An eective plan or prisoner reentry that
builds a sustainable public saety must also reduce
the heavy reliance on imprisonment as the main in-
strument o criminal punishment. To develop this
sustainable public saety, the conditions o parole
supervision and revocation must become less puni-
tive. In particular, or transitional services to sup-
port reentry parole agencies must signicantly limit
reimprisonment or technical violations.
What are technical violations? Parolees are general-
ly required to remain drug ree, gainully employed,
and diligent in reporting to treatment and their pa-
role ocers. In addition to imprisonment or new
crimes, parolees can also be incarcerated or violat-
ing these so-called technical conditions o release.
Failing a drug test, losing a job, or missing appoint-
ments can all trigger reimprisonment or technical
violations. Recommitment o parole violators has
been a signicant driver o state imprisonment rates
through the 1990s (Blumstein and Beck 2005). Bythe early 2000s, parole violators accounted or a
third o state prison admissions. About hal o pa-
role violators were drug oenders (Blumstein and
Beck, p. 63). Unlike a conviction or a new crime,
parole revocation or technical violations is oten
more an administrative than a law enorcement de-
cision. Revocation decisions are oten guided by the
exigencies o parole caseloads and prison capacity
(Jacobson 2005). The role o managerial actors in
revocation decisions is refected in large dierences
in revocation rates across states. Some states, likeFlorida and Illinois, reimprison relatively ew tech-
nical violators, whereas Caliornia revokes nearly 60
percent o parolees or technical violations. Revok-
ing technical violators in response to administra-
tive pressures can result in overincarceration, where
the prison detains those who pose little danger to
the community. This recommendation or parole
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
21/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008 19
reorm ollows a number o similar proposals by Ja-
cobson (2005), Travis (2005), and Petersilia (2003)
to reduce the recommitment o parolees to prison.
In these proposals, and mine, parolees committing
new crimes should o course be prosecuted in the
courts and sentenced to prison i necessary.
While policy experts proposed limits on parole re-
vocation mostly to control prison populations, cur-
tailing reimprisonment for technical violators promotes
public safety by enhancing the effectiveness of transitional
services. I we view transitional programs as build-
ing the lie skills or successul reintegration, we
should expect ailurerelapse into drug use, job
loss, missed parole appointmentsto be a common
part o the process o reentry. Relapse is part o a
learning process in which new noncognitive skills oreliability and persistence are acquired. I ailure is a
likely stop on the path to steady work, parole super-
vision must also tolerate drug relapse or unemploy-
ment without automatic return to prison. Sending
parolees back to prison or ailing drug tests or
other technical violations truncates the acquisition
o prosocial behaviors that transitional services are
designed to oster. I drug relapse and other kinds
o ailure are common but are ultimately ollowed
by steady employment and other positive behavior,
a reintegrative system o parole release should al-low or ailure within a context o community-based
sanctions. Keeping parolees in the community will
allow them more access to transitional services and
greater chances or success.
Restricting parole revocation will increase the dose
o transitional services, but unchecked technical
violations oten indicate problem behaviors that
lead to crime and other serious ailures. To avoid
this path, technical violators should ace a range o
graduated sanctions designed to control problembehaviors and maintain participation in transitional
services. Instead o reimprisoning technical viola-
tors, graduated sanctions apply more-intensive pa-
role supervision or more-intensive programming
or those who ail to comply with a treatment plan.
Day reporting centers, or example, can require
technical violators to sign in or substance abuse
and other treatment, and or community service.
Attendance at day reporting centers or up to seven
days a week intensies supervision in a way that also
intensies programming. At a higher level o super-
vision, residential acilities strictly monitor parolees
while allowing their participation in community-based programs. Stricter supervision in these ways
oers greater access to services, not just greater ex-
posure to the detection o violations. Persistent vi-
olators would ace disciplinary hearings combined
with short jail stays, up to several weeks. A system
o graduated sanctions oers line ocers a wider
array o responses to parole violations than revoca-
tion and reimprisonment alone. Incarceration re-
mains available, but more in the orm o short jail
stays than extended periods o imprisonment. This
approach reduces the overincarceration o thoseposing little risk to public saety while increasing
parolees use o community programs.
To promote the integrated development o parole
and transitional services, states access to transi-
tional employment unds will be conditional on re-
stricting reimprisonment or technical violations.
Replacing reimprisonment or technical violators
with a fexible range o graduated sanctions rede-
signs parole supervision to work smoothly with
a large-scale transitional employment program.Linking transitional services to restrictions on re-
commitment or technical violators helps shit pub-
lic costs rom custody to services and supervision
in the community. The transitional service package
provides a unied approach to promoting the dual
goals o post-prison employment and a reduction
in prison populations. Though punishment is re-
duced, the prospects or a sustainable public saety
are improved.
Though parole reorm will enhance the eective-ness o transitional programs, restrictions on parole
revocation may increase crime among some parol-
ees. Some technical violators who would otherwise
be reimprisoned would be let in the community
threatening public saety. Three pieces o evidence
suggest that restricting reimprisonment o techni-
cal parole violators in combination with graduated
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
22/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
20 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
sanctions and transitional services poses a small risk
to public saety. First, data rom the 1994 Bureau
o Justice Statistics (2002) show that the criminal
involvement o parole violators, counted by the
number o arrests, is no greater than the criminal-
ity o those who successully complete parole, andsubstantially less than the criminality o parolees
who are recommitted or new crimes. Certainly,
technical violations by themselves oten all short
o new imprisonable oenses. Drug use without
any aggravating circumstances, or example, does
not rise to the level o a misdemeanor and attracts
only a citation in many jurisdictions. Second, the
Bureau o Justice Statistics recidivism study also
shows that recently released prisoners account or
a small raction, about 5 or 6 percent, o all arrests
(Langan and Levin 2002). Reducing parole revoca-tion rates would reduce the overall level o public
saety by a very small raction. Restricting parole
revocation or technical violators would increase
the pool o recently released prisoners by about 20
percent, which would add 1 percent to the arrest
rate, assuming no reduction in recidivism due ei-
ther to programs or reormed parole supervision.
However, programs and parole reorm are likely
to reduce arrest rates, and the contribution o pa-
role revocation to overall arrest rates is likely to be
smaller.
Finally, several states have recently experimented
with community-based sanctions and reductions
in parole revocation with no great adverse impact
on crime. Analysis o Oregon parolees ound 20 to
75 percent less reoending among those receiving
community-based sanctions than those receiving
incarceration, controlling or scores on a risk-as-
sessment instrument (Oregon Department o Cor-
rections 2002). A preliminary evaluation o a Geor-
gia program suggests parolees who are allocated tograduated sanctions with a risk-assessment instru-
ment are no more likely to be rearrested than is a
control group (Meredith and Prevost 2008). More
inormally, large cuts in parole revocation rates in
Kansas (50 percent rom 200406) and New Jersey
(32 percent rom 200107) coincided with signi-
cant declines in index crime rates. In short, several
states have begun to adopt the kinds o parole re-
orms suggested here without negative eects on
crime, and evaluations suggest technical violators
who are sanctioned in the community or receiving
very short jail stays do better than those who are
reimprisoned.
How much will crime increase by restricting re-
imprisonment or technical violators? There were
about six hundred thousand arrests or violent
crimes in 2007. Recidivism statistics suggest that
about 6 percent o those arrested, or thirty-six thou-
sand, were recently released prisoners (Roseneld,
Wallman, and Fornango 2005, p. 87). Parolees have
a relatively low rearrest rate compared to unsuper-
vised releasees (Roseneld et al., p. 93), suggest-
ing that about 40 percent, or teen thousand, othose arrested or violence were on parole. Leaving
technical violators in the community increases the
parole population by about 30 percent (Glaze and
Bonczar 2007, p. 7). This implies that parole reorm
would increase violent arrests by two thousand ve
hundred each year, assuming higher arrest rates
among those committing new crimes and assuming
transitional services and graduated sanctions had no
crime-reducing eect. However, we expect the new
programs and the graduated sanctions together
will reduce crime by about 25 percent, a conserva-tive summation o the eects o prison education,
transitional jobs, and community-based sanctions.
Parole reorm under the reentry program thus will
add about one thousand seven hundred arrests or
violence each year. Calculations below will weigh
this eect against the gross reduction in recidivism
produced by the national reentry program. As we
will see, the gains to public saety substantially out-
weigh the costs.
Caa Cqc
To provide a supportive context or reentry and re-
integration, I also propose the elimination o bans
on ederal benets or people with criminal records.
Some classes o elony oenders can be denied Tem-
porary Assistance or Needy Families (TANF), ood
stamps (now the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
23/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008 21
Program, SNAP), postsecondary educational assis-
tance, and housing benets. In 1996, ederal welare
reorm created a lietime ban on TANF and ood
stamps or elony drug oenders, although states
could narrow the ban or opt out. Eighteen states,
including Caliornia and Texas, retain the ban onex-elons or drug-related crimes. Another twenty-
two states operate a modied ban, typically exempt-
ing ex-elons who are in substance-abuse treatment.
The Government Accountability Oce estimates
that about 15 percent o released drug oend-
ers would otherwise be eligible or TANF or ood
stamps (Government Accountability Oce [GAO]
2005). This would include at least orty thousand
parolees released in 2006, and a larger group o ex-
prisoners who are no longer under supervision.
Federal postsecondary educational benets are also
denied to prisoners and drug oenders. Prisoners
have been ineligible or Pell Grants since 1994,
greatly reducing the number o prison college
programs. Felony and misdemeanor drug convic-
tions also disqualiy students rom Pell Grants and
student loans. It is dicult to estimate how many
would apply or Pell Grants i the restriction on
drug oenders were to be removed. From 2001 to
2003, one hundred orty thousand applicants unsuc-
cessully applied or benets ater reporting a drugconviction or reusing to answer a question related
to drug convictions (GAO 2005). This gure does
not count those with drug convictions who did not
apply because they assumed they were ineligible.
Federally assisted housing benets are also restricted
or those with criminal records or drugs or violence.
Public housing tenants evicted or drug-related ac-
tivity also are given a mandatory ban or three years.
Public housing agencies are given wide discretion
to screen and evict tenants who have engaged indrug-related or violent criminal activity. Around 80
percent o public housing agencies surveyed by the
Department o Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) in 1999 reported that they conducted some
kind o background check, whether by sel-reports
rom applicants or, more commonly, by searching
a criminal record database (Devine, Haley, Rubin,
and Gray 2000). In 2002 and 2003, three thousand
one hundred public housing agencies surveyed by
HUD reported denying orty-nine thousand ap-
plications each year or criminal activity, which is
about 4.2 percent o all applications (GAO 2005,
p. 67). These gures likely understate the impacto rules against ex-prisoners because those coming
out o prison are less likely to apply or ederally
assisted housing.
Policymakers oer a punitive motivation or the
bans on welare and educational assistance, ex-
tending punishment by withholding help rom the
undeserving. This motivation should be balanced
by considerations o public saety and reintegra-
tion. People coming out o prison will be better
equipped to resume normal lie i they have accessto social supports. All bans on educational and wel-
are benets should be dropped, but there might be
a stronger argument or excluding some ex-prison-
ers rom ederal housing benets on the grounds o
public saety. Although current rules or excluding
drug oenders may be too wide, unless we under-
stand the public saety risk posed by ex-prisoners in
public housing we have no sound basis or policy.
The eects o restrictions on ex-prisoners on rates
o crime in ederally supported housing should be
evaluated beore a policy decision is made.
bad h Pa
The national prisoner reentry program ocuses on
one specic strategy or improving employment
among people released rom prison: transitional
jobs in the context o supportive programs and su-
pervision. A national reentry eort could be broad-
ened to advance the main goal o steady employ-
ment or ex-prisoners. Supplementary measures
might include community-based education andtraining. Therapeutic measures such as motivation-
al interviewing or a cognitive behavioral program
designed to develop impulse control might support
the object o developing the noncognitive skills o
reliability, motivation, and sociability.
Finally, the program might also target employers.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
24/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
22 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
Training bonuses or employers and additional or
automatic bonding o paroled workers might in-
crease employers incentives or hiring workers
with criminal records. To prevent job applicants
rom being screened out, states might also relax hir-
ing restrictions on workers with criminal records.Opening employment to job seekers with criminal
records in the health-care industry, or example, or
restricting criminal background inormation may
reduce the stigma o incarceration or those leaving
subsidized jobs or the open labor market. Although
we have little concrete evidence rom existing eval-
uation research, supplementary measures such as
these may improve the eects o transitional jobs.
These measures would also broaden the test-bed
or program evaluation.
A Pah a naa Pa
While the national prisoner reentry program out-
lined here suggests the scale o the eort needed
to improve employment among released prisoners,
wholesale reductions in state prison populations
and large increases in post-release services can-
not be adopted overnight. Detailed eatures o the
programs are unspecied. States ace a wide variety
o challenges in adapting programs to local condi-
tions. A easible path or moving to a national plan will require incremental change in which policy
knowledge about implementation is accumulated
and disseminated.
The rst step to adopting a national prisoner re-
entry program will thus involve establishing a rela-
tively small number o demonstration states. These
states would adopt the three key elements o the
program: (1) transitional jobs and other services,
(2) parole reorm, and (3) expanded correctional
programs. The demonstration states would be se-lected through a competition in which applicants
would detail the programs and then demonstrate
their easibility.
Evaluation will be central to the demonstration.
States must build rigorous plans or data collec-
tion and analysis to evaluate the programs. The
evaluations will gauge the programs success at re-
ducing recidivism, and at increasing employment
and earnings. Standard reporting requirements
will help ensure that the program evaluations will
contribute to a cumulating body o results that can
easily be interpreted across jurisdictions. Althoughmany studies have evaluated programs or released
prisoners, only a ew are based on randomization
or similarly strong designs. The implementation o
the program thus provides a signicant opportu-
nity or dramatically expanding policy knowledge
through randomized evaluations. Prior evaluations
o reentry programs have relied heavily on admin-
istrative data to measure employment and earnings.
These data are likely quite inaccurate or those with
criminal convictions. Data collection should thus
draw widely rom dierent sources, including romsurveys o the parolees themselves. Reporting on
the evaluation should be prompt, and reports wide-
ly disseminated. In this way, policy learning will be
built into the implementation.
Implementation across states will proceed incre-
mentally. Several demonstration states will be und-
ed initially, and more states will be brought online
over time in successive competitions or ederal re-
entry unds. Program implementation will generate
a growing body o evaluation results, and this newknowledge should be refected in successive appli-
cations. The program will thus grow across juris-
dictions, producing a common and increasing und
o policy knowledge.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
25/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008 2
Table 3 summarizes the key components o the
national prisoner reentry program. These g-ures indicate that the total gross cost o the
program will equal about $8.5 billion dollars, with
transitional employment accounting or more than
hal. The unding scheme is guided by two consid-
erations. First, the reentry program is partly con-
ceived to reduce prison populations and shit cor-
rectional costs rom custody (which is expensive) to
community supervision and programming (which
is inexpensive). Second, there is great variability be-
tween the states criminal justice and social service
agencies, so states must have fexibility to apply re-entry unds to their own local conditions.
4. C ad bf
In the national prisoner reentry program, ederal
reentry unds are distributed to states that adoptnational standards or discharge planning, inten-
sive reentry programming, and parole supervision.
These measures will reduce incarceration rates
by reducing recidivism and parole revocations or
technical violations. To apply or ederal reentry
unds, states would develop local plans or transi-
tional services, parole supervision, and prison pro-
grams. States may opt out o the guidelines and still
obtain unds i they can otherwise link the expan-
sion o post-release services to a reduction in prison
populations. Depending on local conditions, states would then distribute unds to local authorities,
Annal Annal Annal ro cot
cot per participant participant (million $)
Decription
Tranitional ervice ater prionEmployment, p to one year $14,00/$15,400a 184,000 $5,464Hoin, p to one year $10,000 100,000 $1,000
Dr treatment $4,900 100,000 $490In-prion prorammin
240 hor o baic edcation $2,000 40,000 $680Wor in manal and clerical job n/a n/a
Elimination o collateral coneqenceRetore TANF eliibility $4,200 100,000 $420Retore Pell grant $2,800 140,000 $92
Total $8,446
sorce: Athor.
Note: Prion wor proram are amed to be el-ndin; cot will be incrred in ettin p the proram. TANF fre are calclated amin an averae monthly
beneft o $50. Pell grant are amed to provide an averae beneft o $2,800. All fre are in 2007 dollar.
a. Wae/overhead.
n/a = Not applicable.
tAble 3.
Dcp ad C h naa P r Pa
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
26/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
24 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
departments o correction, workorce development
agencies, and so on.
Are the benets o these measures greater than the
costs? The gross costs o the program are oset in
our main ways (Table 4). First, the employmentprogram provides benets in the orm o improve-
ments in inrastructure, cleaner parks, streets, pub-
lic grounds, and so on. The NSW Demonstration
valued the output o similar subsidized employ-
ment at about 45 percent o program costs (Kem-
per, Long, and Thornton 1984). I the output o
parolees is valued at 45 percent o its cost, the net
cost o transitional employment is reduced by about
$2.5 billion.
Second, the program also has large individual and
social benets or the people released rom prison,
their amilies, and their communities. By helping
ex-prisoners develop social and job skills, the pro-
gram will make them more employable even ater
the one-year employment placement has ended,increasing their uture earnings. To estimate that
aggregate post-program eect, we assume that
the transitional employment raises earnings by 15
percenta conservative estimate compared to the
ComALERT evaluation aboveand value untreat-
ed earnings at about $9,000 annually, approximately
the level o earnings o ex-prisoners in survey data.2
Under these assumptions, the annual aggregate
benet o the program is around $250 million each
tAble 4.
sca bf h naa P r Pa
Pv pac Annal beneft(million $)
Quantifable Benefts
Prodctivity rom tranitional employment 2,460
Increaed earnin rom the reentry proram (annally) 250[increaed pport to children o releaed prioner] [140]
Redction in crime amon proram participant 2,500Redction in correctional cot . . .
de to redction in crime 1,510
de to redction in parole revocation 4,050Total 10,770
Hard-to-quantiy benefts
Lietime increae in earnin
Lietime redction in crimeImproved child well-bein de to increaed earnin and redced crime
sorce: Athor.Note: Increaed pport to children in bracet i not conted amon the total beneft becae it i already conted in the annal increaed earnin. All fre are in
2007 dollar.
2. ComALERT participants earned 37 percent more than a matched comparison group with earnings measured by unemployment insurancerecords, and 29 percent more than a matched comparison group with sel-reported earnings.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
27/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008 25
year. The program eects may well decay, but even
over a three-year period total eect may exceed hal
a billion dollars.
Importantly, a portion o these wages will fow to
amilies o ex-prisoners. About 80 percent o stateprisoners are athers, so ertility estimates suggest
around two hundred ty thousand children would
obtain some economic benet rom these subsi-
dized wages. Some children may benet because
wages rom transitional jobs will make ex-prisoners
more-attractive partners or the mothers o their
children. Additional wages may thus contribute
to higher rates o coresidence and greater nan-
cial contributions o athers to children (e.g., Blau,
Kahn, and Waldogel 2000; Homan and Duncan
1995). In other cases, the wages o transitional jobsmay contribute to athers child support payments.
Beston (2006) estimates that 25 percent o household
spending is spent on the child in single-child ami-
lies, and recent analyses (Geller, Western, and Gar-
nkel 2008) suggest that ormerly incarcerated par-
ents contribute about $2,000 annually to each child.
I a ather in transitional employment contributes a
quarter o his earnings o $10,200 to his child, this
will yield an increase o $550 annually over his un-
subsidized contribution, passing on in the aggregate
around $140 million each year to poor children. Inaddition to increased earnings, ex-prisoners would
become more supportive spouses and parents due to
improved literacy and sobriety. These amily eects
are hard to quantiy but should be counted among
the social benets o the reentry program.
Third, the national reentry program will reduce
crime. The sequence o interventions proposed
here, including prison education, transitional ser-
vices, and parole reorm have not been evaluated
in combination. Evaluation studies show that tran-sitional jobs by themselves reduce recidivism by
20 percent (Bloom et al. 2007; Jacobs and Western
2007; or prisoners over age twenty-six see Uggen
2000). I we consider the eects o expanded prison
education and program eects under a system o
graduated parole sanctions, the national prisoner
reentry program could reasonably reduce arrests
by 25 percent. Arrest rates among released prison-
ers suggest new parole cohorts account or our
hundred ty-ve thousand arrests each year, so
the national reentry program would produce a 25
percent reduction o one hundred teen thousand
arrests and a somewhat smaller number o prisonadmissions each year.
The reentry program yields a reduction in crime,
but parole reorm may increase crime by expanding
the number o released prisoners in the community.
Above, I estimated that the increased number o
recently released prisoners would increase violent
arrests by one thousand seven hundred, which im-
plies an increase in total arrests o thirty-our thou-
sand. (Arrests or violence are about 5 percent o
all arrests.) The net eect o the reentry programon arrests is thus one hundred teen thousand less
thirty-our thousand, a reduction o about eighty
thousand arrests. Levitts (1996) estimates suggest
one out o seven crimes results in an arrest, suggest-
ing the reentry program will avert about ve hun-
dred sixty thousand crimes annually, given current
levels o crime and parole supervision.
Estimates o the economic costs o crime vary widely,
though a common estimate accounts or pecuniary
loss, medical costs, lost working time, and pain andsuering. Considering these actors yields an aver-
age cost o crime o $4,500 in 2007 dollars (DiIulio
and Piehl 1991; Freeman 1996; Levitt 1996). At this
price, the social benet o reduced crime is about
$2.5 billion.
About a third o those rearrested return to prison
or a new oense, suggesting that the eighty thou-
sand arrests averted will eliminate correctional costs
or twenty-our thousand ex-prisoners. Given me-
dian time served o twenty-eight months, reducedcrime will yield an incarceration reduction o ty-
six thousand prison years at the cost o $27,000 a
year. The total savings is $1.51 billion.
Finally, the program links the expansion o services
to reductions in the prison population through the
elimination o imprisonment or parole violations.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
28/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
26 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
Parole violations account or more than a third o
state prison admissions, or two hundred thirty-two
thousand out o six hundred seventy-ve thousand
in 2005 (Sabol, Minton, and Harrison 2007). About
two thirds (or one hundred ty thousand) o these
parolees are returned to prison or technical viola-tions (Glaze and Bonczar 2007). Figures or specic
states suggest parole recommitments add an addi-
tional ourteen months o incarceration (Blumstein
and Beck 2005). The annual cost o a prison bed is
about $27,000, so annually diverting one hundred
ty thousand parolees saves about $4 billion each
year in correctional costs. (O course, average costs
o incarceration are not equal to marginal costs, so
departments o correction would need to distribute
the reductions in incarceration to reduce correc-
tional budgets.)
A list o the programs social benets is reported in
Table 4. Program benets slightly exceed the costs.
The social benets may be larger than those report-
ed here because the combined eects o new pro-
grams on earnings and crime reduction may well be
larger than assumed. Under current assumptions,
program eects on recidivism and employment are
short-lived, but they may be persistent and produce
large lietime gains in earnings and reductions in
crime. Finally, the analysis takes no account o the
reentry programs likely positive eect on childrenswell-being and lie chances.
The costs o the national reentry program are in-
curred by the ederal government, but the benets
fow to states (in reduced correctional costs) and
individuals (through reductions in crime and in-
creased employment). When costs and benets are
separated by levels o government there is a danger
o crowding out, where states spend less in antici-
pation o ederal support. In this scenario, prison-
er reentry measures would come to resemble theederal welare program, which takes the orm o
block grants to states. Despite this institutional re-
semblance, the eect o crowding out is likely to be
very small, because so little state spending currently
goes to prisoner reentry programs.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
29/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORg|
DECEMBER 2008 27
Critics may object that a national prisoner re-
entry program will displace private sectoremployment and is likely politically inea-
sible. Alternative proposals emphasizing a dierent
mix o services may oer more promise.
W h aa p pa
dpac pva-c p?
Transitional employment programs displace work in
the public sector and may crowd out private sector
employment by raising wages (Ellwood and Welty
2000). These disemployment eects appear to be
largest when public service employment broadly re-cruits rom the labor orce and when program em-
ployment is used to counter recession. The national
prisoner reentry program is unlikely to negatively
aect employment. In this case, the transitional em-
ployment is highly targeted and is not broad-based.
The program would not treat parolees as a whole,
but would treat only those who have trouble nding
work. There are ew competitors or these workers
in the open labor market. The employment pro-
gram is also conceived as a standing eature o the
process o reentry, paying minimum wages throughexpansions as well as recessions. As a result, the la-
bor-displacing eects o the national prisoner reen-
try program are likely to be small.
i pca a xpad vc
x-p?
Although transitional employment, on balance, will
positively aect the economic opportunities o pa-
rolees, any measure that provides social services to
criminal oenders is politically vulnerable. Few re-
cipients would seem less deserving. Traditional re-habilitation programs were built on a philosophy o
remediation, mending criminal oenders or return
to society. In contrast, the national reentry program
has as its key objective sustained public saety. The
program aims to reduce crime by expanding eco-
nomic opportunity while developing the rudimen-
tary skills o motivation, reliability, and sociability.
5. ojc ad Aav
By keeping parolees out o prison and providing
benets that will fow to amily members, the pro-gram also strengthens poor, high-crime commu-
nities. Finally, by oering a path back rom mass
incarceration, the program also provides states with
an alternative to mounting correctional budgets.
Public saety, community investment, and scal
prudence all recommend the national reentry pro-
gram as an improved and politically viable model
or criminal punishment.
Wha a aav appach?
Vocational education, job readiness training, and job placement eature in other, less-expensive, re-
entry programs. The largest obstacles to employ-
ment among ex-prisoners are the human capital
decits that are refected in noncognitive as much
as in cognitive skills. Because the work histories o
ex-prisoners are generally so poor, development o
basic job skills such as maintaining a regular work
schedule, ollowing directions, and cooperating
with coworkers can be enormously dicult. Pro-
grams that emphasize improving vocational skills
or connecting job seekers with employers oten ailto address these undamental deciencies o non-
cognitive skills. As a result, transitional employ-
ment provides more promising results than either
job placement or vocational training. Because the
decits o ex-prisoners are so acute, and programs
in many cases must undo the eects o the prison
time, a larger dose is needed to produce reductions
in unemployment and recidivism.
-
8/3/2019 12 Prison to Work Western
30/38
From Prison to Work: A ProPosAl For A nAtionAl Prisoner reentry ProgrAm
28 THE HAMILTON PROJECT|
THE BROOkINgs INsTITuTION
The American penal system has grown contin-
uously or the past thirty-ve years. Spend-ing on corrections now totals $70 billion
each year. Among men born since the late 1960s,
30 percent o blacks without college education and
6 percent o whites without college education have
spent time in prison, over hal serving more than
two years or a elony conviction. Ater release,
ex-prisoners experience reduced rates o employ-
ment, wages, and wage growth, and elevated risks
o divorce and separation. Two-thirds are rearrested
within three years, and one-ourth return to prison
during that time.
The emergence o mass incarceration presents pol-
icymakers with two challenges. First is the social
challenge o averting the ormation o a large class
o outsiders who have little contact with mainstream
institutions and who are deeply and enduringly in-
volved in the criminal justice system. Second is the
scal challenge o reining in correctional budgets
that divert resources rom education and other so-
cial investments.
The large decline in crime rates through the
1990swidely shared by other countries that did
6. Cc
not double their incarceration ratesoers an op-
portunity to meet the social challenge o reentryand the scal challenge o mounting correctional
costs. My proposal or a national prisoner reentry
program aims to link the social reintegration o ex-
prisoners to a reduction in prison populations. In
this proposal, the choice or policymakers is not
whether or not to spend money on reentry pro-
grams, but rather whether to spend money on re-