Employment programs that successfully improve offender employment rates do not necessarily reduce recidivism. While there is a strong link between employment and recidivism generally, this link does not neatly transfer to offender employment programs that correctional educators design to help offenders find employment. For some research on this topic, check out this article by Marilyn Moses who looked at a number of employment placement programs, each of which were relatively successful at producing employment outcomes, yet their impact on recidivism was not very promising.
So the question arises: how can employment be such an important criminogenic risk factor, yet employment programs that improve employment outcomes sometimes fail to reduce recidivism? While the answer to this question isn't fully known, we do have some very strong clues. Of the eight known criminogenic factors, employment is understood to be in the "lesser four", meaning that while problems obtaining and retaining employment is an important measured risk factor, the correlation between employment and recidivism is somewhat lower than other factors such as antisocial behavior, anti-social thinking, anti-social personality (impulsive, pleasure seeking), and anti-social associates.
In fact, many researchers believe that the reason employment is a known criminogenic risk factor is because those who have trouble maintaining employment are often engaging in other criminogenic risk factors, such as anti-social thinking and behavior. This leaves us with a chicken or egg type question: which comes first, problems with employment or problems with anti-social thinking/behavior? What we have learned in recent years is that anti-social thinking errors used by high-risk offenders are a major cause of offender employment problems.
Two common thinking errors offenders employ are: 1) I don't need to do things the normal way (legal, conventional) to make money, and 2) I deserve a job that caters to my personality and interests. Obviously these two thinking errors can decrease an offender's chances of finding and maintaining employment. The problem with these antisocial thoughts/behaviors is not necessarily their ends (making money and employment satisfaction), rather it's the method by which the offender chooses to obtain them. Essentially, they take shortcuts, which often take the form of risky or illegal behaviors.
So this presents another question: can we improve employment outcomes among offenders by focusing on other criminogenic factors such as criminal thinking and behavior? The answer is yes. In fact, this is exactly what I am doing at my agency: thought restructuring, goal setting, problems solving, and pro-social skills practice are all directly related to the most important criminogenic needs of high-risk offenders. Correctional educators should be addressing offender employment by focusing on the underlying reasons why employment problems are occurring (anti-social thinking/behavior). Providing offenders employment opportunities without addressing these underlying factors is tantamount to providing a hungry man a fish without teaching him how to fish.
When considering the context of the article by Marilyn Moses, it's worth noting that this study looked at "employment placement programs". While there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a "placement" program, these types of programs typically focus on job placement, often providing felons job skills training and employment opportunities without necessarily placing much focus on the underlying risk factors that are the cause of chronic unemployment among high-risk offenders (anti-social thinking/behavior).
It's within this context that we can begin to see what may be causing the discrepancy between "employment placement programs" and recidivism. If our goal is to increase employment outcomes in a way that also reduces recidivism, then we should be focusing on the fundamental reasons behind the employment problems, such as anti-social thinking and behavior, because these criminogenic factors are also directly related to other pro-social outcomes, including success on probation and a decrease in recidivism.
So the question arises: how can employment be such an important criminogenic risk factor, yet employment programs that improve employment outcomes sometimes fail to reduce recidivism? While the answer to this question isn't fully known, we do have some very strong clues. Of the eight known criminogenic factors, employment is understood to be in the "lesser four", meaning that while problems obtaining and retaining employment is an important measured risk factor, the correlation between employment and recidivism is somewhat lower than other factors such as antisocial behavior, anti-social thinking, anti-social personality (impulsive, pleasure seeking), and anti-social associates.
In fact, many researchers believe that the reason employment is a known criminogenic risk factor is because those who have trouble maintaining employment are often engaging in other criminogenic risk factors, such as anti-social thinking and behavior. This leaves us with a chicken or egg type question: which comes first, problems with employment or problems with anti-social thinking/behavior? What we have learned in recent years is that anti-social thinking errors used by high-risk offenders are a major cause of offender employment problems.
Two common thinking errors offenders employ are: 1) I don't need to do things the normal way (legal, conventional) to make money, and 2) I deserve a job that caters to my personality and interests. Obviously these two thinking errors can decrease an offender's chances of finding and maintaining employment. The problem with these antisocial thoughts/behaviors is not necessarily their ends (making money and employment satisfaction), rather it's the method by which the offender chooses to obtain them. Essentially, they take shortcuts, which often take the form of risky or illegal behaviors.
So this presents another question: can we improve employment outcomes among offenders by focusing on other criminogenic factors such as criminal thinking and behavior? The answer is yes. In fact, this is exactly what I am doing at my agency: thought restructuring, goal setting, problems solving, and pro-social skills practice are all directly related to the most important criminogenic needs of high-risk offenders. Correctional educators should be addressing offender employment by focusing on the underlying reasons why employment problems are occurring (anti-social thinking/behavior). Providing offenders employment opportunities without addressing these underlying factors is tantamount to providing a hungry man a fish without teaching him how to fish.
When considering the context of the article by Marilyn Moses, it's worth noting that this study looked at "employment placement programs". While there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a "placement" program, these types of programs typically focus on job placement, often providing felons job skills training and employment opportunities without necessarily placing much focus on the underlying risk factors that are the cause of chronic unemployment among high-risk offenders (anti-social thinking/behavior).
It's within this context that we can begin to see what may be causing the discrepancy between "employment placement programs" and recidivism. If our goal is to increase employment outcomes in a way that also reduces recidivism, then we should be focusing on the fundamental reasons behind the employment problems, such as anti-social thinking and behavior, because these criminogenic factors are also directly related to other pro-social outcomes, including success on probation and a decrease in recidivism.