Canadian prisons attempt to balance the need to control offenders with “assisting and encouraging offenders to become law-abiding citizens.”[1] Employment-related programming is typically part of the assistance provided to help inmates re-integrate with society. Connell, Birken, Carver, Brown, & Greenhalgh’s systematic review and meta-analysis of the research on employment interventions for prisoners asks and very tentatively answers the question of whether these interventions work. They point out that over 10 million people are in prisons worldwide and that most will be released. It is important that society knows the effectiveness of rehabilitation.
A meta-analysis involves finding, evaluating, and pulling together the results of research studies. Meta-analyses involve very complex methods because of the tremendous variation in studies being reviewed (e.g., measures of success, interventions used). Connell et al. searched databases for peer reviewed (i.e., studies that other experts reviewed before being published) randomized controlled trials (i.e., studies in which participants were randomly assigned to a control/comparison group or the intervention group) in which participants were minimally 18 years old. Their search identified 2,332 possible studies, which were screened at a surface level according to the above criteria, leaving 118 studies, all based in the U.S. These studies were reviewed in detail, leaving only 12 studies that met the criteria.
The 12 studies involved 2,875 participants. Studies varied a great deal. For example, some focussed on participants with severe mental illness or substance users; some tested Individual Placement and Support (IPS); some included employment programming combined with wider support; some had programming in the prison and some in the community; and some had control groups to a comparison intervention or to no intervention. Further variation was found in how employment outcomes were measured. The 12 studies included 36 employment outcomes, none of which included the type of work obtained. Some included any employment (even one day) as an outcome and some measured employment at various time intervals.
Below are Connell et al.’s main findings:
- Employment intervention participants were 2.5 times more likely to work than those in control groups (but the work may have been for just one day).
- Employment intervention participants worked more hours/days than those in control groups.
- At 6-month and 12-month follow-ups of those who became employed, there was no difference between intervention and control groups.
In short, employment interventions help people released from prison to gain employment but there is no evidence they help people achieve stable employment past the first few months. The key takeaways for those in career development are that (a) employment programming is helpful for those leaving prison to gain employment, (b) more work needs to be done to help ex-inmates maintain work, and (c) far more research is needed in this area.
[1] Correctional Service Canada. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/sb-go/02-eng.shtml
Responses