Correctional Service Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.


Offender Employment Programming


Offender employment has played a pivotal role in corrections since the introduction of institutions (Funke, Wayson, & Miller, 1982; Gaes, Flanagan, Motiuk, & Stewart, 1999; Guynes & Greiser, 1986; Miller & Greiser, 1986; Townsend, 1996), although the purpose of employment has changed with prevailing correctional ideologies. Even though employment is an important rehabilitative tool, little is known about the factors and processes that contribute to employment stability among offenders (Gillis, 1998; Ryan, 1998), as few systematic empirical studies have been conducted in this area (Gaes et al., 1999; Pearson & Lipton, 1999; Ryan, 1998). Recent meta-analyses provide empirical verification of employment as a moderate risk factor for recidivism among offenders (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Gendreau, Goggin, & Gray, 1998). This finding reiterates the importance of enhancing our understanding of the employment construct in order to provide effective assessment and to assist in the reduction of this need through appropriately directed intervention strategies.

This chapter describes current employment measurement techniques and proposes modified measurement strategies. Research findings regarding program effectiveness are then applied to the exploration of employment as a correctional intervention aimed at increasing the likelihood of successful community reintegration among offenders. It also introduces a conceptual framework for the systematic exploration of community employment stability, and its impact on offender reintegration; and provides recommendations regarding directions for future employment research and interventions with offenders.


Employment is a prevalent need among incarcerated Canadian offenders, with approximately 75% of offenders (76% of men, and 74% women) identified with employment needs at the time of entry to a federal institution (Motiuk, 1997). Moreover, offenders have indicated that they perceive employment deficits as contributing to their criminal behaviour (Erez, 1987).

Empirical support substantiating the link between offender employment deficits and recidivism was provided in a meta-analytic review of the literature by Gendreau et al. (1996). In their quantitative review, Gendreau and colleagues identified unstable education and employment (subsumed within the broader “social achievement” domain) as a contributing factor to recidivism among offenders (r = 0.15). An expansion of the meta-analysis was con-ducted as part of a larger review of the Correctional Service of Canada Dynamic Factors Identification and Analysis (DFIA) protocol, from the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process (see Gendreau et al., 1998). The OIA process, used to evaluate offenders' criminogenic needs upon entry to federal correctional institutions, incorporates employment as one of the seven major offender need areas in the DFIA (Motiuk, 1997; Taylor, 1997). In their meta-analysis Gendreau et al. reported education/ employment (r = 0.26), employment needs at discharge (r = 0.15), and employment history (r = 0.14) as some of the most powerful predictors of recidivism within the employment domain. The average correlation with recidivism of the 200 effect sizes from 67 studies was r = 0.13.

Although employment deficits are firmly entrenched as a moderate predictor of recidivism, the impact on recidivism may be underestimated due to oversimplified definition and measurement of the construct. Employment risk factors have traditionally been assessed in a dichotomous manner (i.e., presence/absence of employment deficits), thereby potentially reducing their predictive ability. In addition, many items are historical in nature, limiting the utility of this information for directing current interventions.

The employment domain in the DFIA is more comprehensive in its assessment of static and dynamic employment risk factors. It is therefore useful not only in predicting an individual's risk for recidivism, but also for guiding the level of employment intervention required to decrease an individual's risk level in accordance with the risk principle. Moreover, items from the DFIA employment domain may be used to suggest specific areas requiring attention, consistent with the need principle.2

The advent of dynamic risk assessment tools such as the DFIA has contributed not only to our ability to more effectively appraise offender needs and competencies, but also to our ability to track change in employment needs as a function of treatment participation. Nonetheless, there is a need to progress toward improved dynamic assessment of competencies, attitudes, values, beliefs and satisfaction with employment, as proposed by Gendreau and colleagues (1998). Gendreau advocated the enhancement of dynamic assessment within the DFIA, using a compilation of scales such as those proposed in Gillis (1998). In accordance with the principles of effective classification (Andrews, Bonta et al., 1990; Andrews & Bonta, 1998), dynamic assessment would contribute to better understanding of an offender's criminogenic needs and employment competencies and strengths, consequently increasing the potential to prioritize offender employment needs and to guide effective intervention strategies. Furthermore, a dynamic assessment strategy in relation to offender employment needs would allow for reassessment to track change in employment needs as a function of training. An amalgamation of static and dynamic risk and needs assessment protocols would most effectively appraise competencies that potentially contribute to safe reintegration, in addition to evaluating factors that place the individual at risk for future involvement in crime. Such an approach is consistent with Correctional Service of Canada's Correctional Strategy, which advocates prioritizing offender criminogenic needs and providing correctional intervention on the basis of effective needs identification.


Just as employment assessment has often been conducted using a dichotomous approach to the identification of employment needs (i.e., absence/presence of needs), program evaluations have typically used an approach that likewise limits the utility of the information provided. Numerous researchers attempting to review the employment literature have noted these methodological weaknesses (Gaes et al., 1999; Gerber & Fritsch, 1995; Pearson & Lipton, 1999; Ryan, 1998). For instance, many evaluations of employment intervention strategies have defined the independent variable in a dichotomous manner (i.e., participated/did not participate in employment program). Such an approach precludes examination of integral factors such as selection bias, quality of participation, length of time in the program, and reasons for attrition. Additionally, many pro-gram evaluations fail to report important information pertaining to offender employment needs and competencies prior to program participation. Moreover, the issue of comorbidity in offender needs, such as the combination of employment and substance abuse needs, is important to consider for its potential impact on work performance and treatment gain. Ryan summarized many of the methodological flaws that inhibit our ability to formulate conclusive evidence on the impact of offender employment training, including: “problems in research methodology and program development, including comparability of experimental and control groups, selection of participants, tracking of ex-offenders, differentiation between structural and subcultural variables, and definition of job retention” (Ryan, 1998, Executive Summary, p. E5). A comprehensive evaluation of employment program effectiveness must thus consider a variety of factors that may moderate the impact of the program on the criterion of interest (e.g., job attainment and retention, successful community performance).

In assessing the impact of employment training on offenders, one must be cognizant of the aforementioned limitations. To date, findings have been equivocal, with some studies reporting positive effects of employment on recidivism, and others reporting limited or no effects (Gaes et al., 1999; Gerber & Fritsch, 1995; Pearson & Lipton, 1999; Ryan, 1998). Some reviewers, based on a qualitative analysis of the literature, have adopted a fairly optimistic out-look on the impact of employment training on recidivism (e.g., Braithwaite, 1980; Gerber & Fritsch, 1995). Pearson and Lipton aptly summarized the state of the employment literature, based on results from their meta-analytic review of educational and vocational programs: “Although some types of educational and vocational programs appear promising in terms of reducing recidivism, due to a lack of studies using high-quality research methods we are unable to conclude that they have been verified effective in reducing recidivism” (Abstract, italics in original). This paucity of systematic research in the realm of offender employment can be contrasted with the extensive knowledge base derived from exploration of the overall treatment effectiveness literature.

Over time, researchers have observed particular practices that differentiate effective from ineffective programs, and these have been confirmed and replicated using meta-analytic techniques (Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990; Gendreau et al., 1996). Meta-analyses of the treatment literature provide quantitative information at the aggregate level regarding the impact of programs on recidivism, thereby bypassing many of the problems associated with the qualitative interpretation of single studies (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Gendreau et al., 1996). The two most comprehensive meta-analytic reviews of the treatment literature to date (McGuire & Priestly, 1995), conducted by Lipsey (1990) and Andrews, Zinger and colleagues (1990), substantiate the numerous principles of effective intervention elucidated by correctional theorists and researchers.

Lipsey analyzed the relationship between treatment and recidivism in 443 studies of juvenile offending and found support for the effectiveness of intervention in 64% of the treatment versus comparison studies. Whereas juveniles in the comparison conditions, on average, evidenced a recidivism rate of 50%, offenders in the treatment conditions recidivated at an average rate of 45%. Although this represents a 10% reduction in recidivism in favour of treatment conditions, Lipsey further corrected for the unreliability associated with official records of offending, and postulated that treatment effects were more likely in the range of 20% (from 50% recidivism to 40%).

Lipsey extended the analysis to explore factors associated with treatment effects, including type of study and type of treatment. After controlling statistically for various methodological factors (e.g., small sample size, attrition, etc.), he found that type of treatment contributed significantly to effect size estimates. He found that recidivism was reduced most substantively under treatment conditions that: lasted longer (and had more meaningful contact with offenders); were provided external to correctional settings and institutions; were under the influence of the evaluator; were behaviour-oriented, skill-oriented and multimodal; were provided to higher-risk cases; and were provided with other relevant factors in mind (e.g., influence of family, peers). According to Lipsey, treatments that are structured and focused may contribute to an average 30% reduction in reoffending rates. In summary, Lipsey's findings were pivotal in underscoring the importance of correctional treatment, and more significantly, appropriate treatment (i.e., multimodal, skills-oriented, and cognitive/behavioural), in contributing to improved outcomes for delinquents.

Andrew, Zinger and colleagues (1990) specified in detail the role of appropriate treatment in contributing to a reduction in recidivism. As a response to the claim by Whitehead and Lab (1989) that “interventions have little positive impact on recidivism...” (p. 276), Andrews, Zinger et al. reanalyzed their data according to the principles of effective correctional intervention (Andrews, Bonta et al., 1990). In the replication and expansion of the juvenile and adult correctional literature, they found that appropriate correctional service, based on the principles of risk, need and responsivity, was more effective in reducing recidivism (mean phi = 0.30) than unspecified correctional service (-0.06) and non service criminal sanctioning (-0.07). Not only did they find sup-port for appropriate treatment, but they also found that treatment effects were maintained across statistical controls for various methodological factors (e.g., sample size) that contributed to the effect size. These results, and those presented by Lipsey (1990), clearly favour the efficacy of correctional treatment (and particularly intervention efforts guided by program integrity as well as the principles of risk, need, and responsivity) in contributing to a reduced likelihood of recidivism.

In light of these meta-analytic findings on the overall treatment literature, theorizing regarding treatment efficacy has progressed from the question “Does treatment work” for, as Lipsey (1995) contends, it is no longer a question of whether intervention is effective in reducing recidivism. We know that treatment “works” and we must use the information derived from research to develop effective intervention strategies for offenders who manifest employment needs.

These principles were linked together by Andrews and Bonta (1994, 1998), who present a model detailing the various components that influence treatment services to offenders, building on the foundation provided by earlier research (Andrews & Kiessling, 1980; Hoge & Andrews, 1986; as cited in Andrews & Bonta, 1998). In conducting a comprehensive correctional program evaluation, Andrews and Bonta (1994) assert that following elements must be considered:

  • Surrounding community and/or agency conditions,
  • Preservice client characteristics,
  • Preservice counsellor characteristics,
  • Program characteristics,
  • Process and content of treatment service,
  • Intermediate treatment goals, and
  • Ultimate outcomes.

If employment is considered a program, then these same principles apply to the provision of effective employment interventions. In this section, pertinent employment research findings will be applied within each of these elements comprising effective correctional treatment.

It is important to recognize that these program components do not occur in a vacuum, but interact in their contribution to program effectiveness (Andrews & Bonta, 1998). In order to gain a better understanding of the “black box” of treatment (Gendreau, 1996), program evaluation should explore these components in a holistic, interactive manner.

Surrounding community and/or agency conditions

Andrews and Bonta (1998) describe surrounding community conditions as the “broader social-structural, cultural and political-economic conditions” (p. 89) that impact on clients, staff, type of intervention and outcomes. Within the realm of employment, political climate has played an integral role in the perception of institutional work for offenders.

From its beginnings, the evolution of prison industry has been intertwined with changing notions concerning the complex causes of human behaviour and with fluctuations in correctional philosophy. Shifting public attitudes toward corrections in general, and industries in particular, produced restrictions that stunted industries growth.” (Miller & Greiser, 1986, p. 14).

This is analogous to the perception of treatment, in general, that has fluctuated with prevailing political climate. Generally, widespread support and optimism for rehabilitation was sup-planted by anti-treatment sentiment, followed by a more cautious and empirically informed interpretation of effective approaches to treatment.3

The dual role allocated to offender employment is an issue that has persisted throughout the history of prison industries. Miller and Greiser (1986) contend that one goal of prison industry is the reduction of costs associated with incarceration. The secondary goal, however, has varied with prevailing correctional ideology.

Initially, prison employment, with its moralistic and punitive overtone, was provided with a view to “reform the misguided”. Later, institutional employment was perceived as providing a mechanism for offender rehabilitation and reintegration. However, a decline in prison industries was evidenced early in the 20th century due to community opposition to marketplace competition following the Great Depression. Additionally, access to alternative activities designed to keep offenders occupied (e.g., institutional libraries) contributed to the downsizing of industries operations. Moreover, the post-depression era was associated with adoption of the “medical model” of correctional rehabilitation, which viewed offenders as individuals who were ill and in need of treatment. Employment, with its promotion of work ethic, did not fit with this focus on diagnosis, classification, and treatment and was there-fore perceived as offering minimal rehabilitative value within this correctional philosophy (Funke et al., 1982; Miller & Greiser, 1986). Miller and Greiser credit Glaser (1964) with increasing recognition of the relationship between prison industry and offender reintegration, due largely to his pivotal research on pre-release preparation, post-release employment and recidivism. Glaser reported that successful probationers were twice as likely to make use of the skills they had developed through institutional work programs than probationers who were unsuccessful during their release.

Although goals have varied over time, Miller and Grieser describe the contemporary era of prison industries as “characterized by a resurgence of interest in prison industries and a new integrative correctional philosophy” (p. 1), consistent with a rehabilitative approach to dealing with offenders. This view on the role of industries has been echoed in more recent offender employment-related research (Gaes et al., 1999; Gerber & Fritsch, 1995; Gillis, 1998; Ryan, 1998; Simon, 1999). The reintegrative value of institutional employment is recognized internationally, even by correctional systems differing radically in their guiding philosophies and ideologies (Van Zyl Smit & Dünkel, 1999).

These early themes are still evident in current theorizing on the dual, and sometimes conflicting, role of correctional industries -- the “struggle between philosophies” (Miller & Greiser, 1986, p. 3) -- namely, economic versus rehabilitative returns. Simon (1999), in her research on employment in British prisons, reported that shop instructors recognized both production of goods and promotion of skill development in offenders as important objectives. When asked to rate the relative importance of these goals, instructors emphasized the production of high quality goods as the principal objective of industries work; Simon proposed that instructors require clarification of their role, so as to prioritize offender development over production of goods. However, these industry objectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as illustrated in a typology of goals related to modern day correctional industries proposed by Guynes and Greiser (1986).

According to Guynes and Greiser, the various goals associated with prison employment impact the offender, the institution, and society. Institution-based goals contribute to the orderly operation of the institution and include the attainment of such objectives as reducing idleness, structuring daily activities, and reducing costs within the correctional agency. The reduction of idleness has been a goal since the inception of offender-based employment programs, as it addresses the important custodial function of occupying offenders in a constructive manner during incarceration (Greiser, 1996; Maguire, 1996). Additionally, offenders employed with prison industries may adapt better to institutional life (Flanagan & Maguire, 1987; Gleason, 1986). For example, Maguire reported that prison industry contributed to a reduction in the number of institutional infractions incurred by offenders employed by correctional industries, relative to a comparison group who did not participate in industrial pro-grams. Similarly, Saylor and Gaes (1996) found that relative to a comparison group, offenders who participated in industries, vocational training or apprenticeship programs were less likely to receive misconduct reports in the year prior to release. Moreover, research by Simon (1999) provided insights into the manner in which shop instructors and offenders participating in industries programs regard the institutional and reintegrative (community-based) impacts of institutional employment programs. Although reserved in their endorsement of the impact of institutional work experience on securing a job after release, instructors felt that industries work in prison contributed to positive outcomes for offenders at the institutional level. Similar sentiments were expressed by offenders; although only one quarter (of 117) of offenders surveyed felt that institutional employment offered any value in contributing to work opportunities on release, more than half (56%) reported that institutional work placement assisted them in coping with living in the institution. In her survey of offenders incarcerated in the state of Michigan, Gleason reported similar findings on offender perceptions of the value of institutional employment.

Society-based goals involve repayment to society through such means as financially assisting dependents in the community, and providing victims with restitution. These goals are based on the premise that offenders are responsible for repaying the costs resulting from their criminal actions. Furthermore, their contribution to the production of goods for the state serves to defray some of the costs associated with their incarceration (Guynes & Greiser, 1986).

Most important in relation to rehabilitation and reintegration, offender-based goals include such areas as attainment of positive work habits, real work experience/vocational training, and more concrete objectives, including money management skills and release money. The focus within an offender-based framework is reintegration and rehabilitation (Guynes & Greiser, 1986; Flanagan, 1988).

Preservice client characteristics

Preservice client characteristics, namely: risk, need and responsivity, is an important factor that has been highly overlooked in evaluation of the employment literature. Although our knowledge of risk is good, it has not been adequately used in placing offenders into employment positions, nor has information on offender risk and need levels been effectively used in evaluating treatment gain. Many studies have been conducted regarding the impact of employment programs on recidivism, but few have explored important program characteristics, staff characteristics, or more surprisingly, offender characteristics.


Motiuk and Belcourt (1996) conducted one of the few employment-based studies to consider offender risk levels. This study examined post-release outcome for a group of 269 offenders who participated in CORCAN at least six months prior to conditional release and who spent a minimum of one year in the community following release. CORCAN, a special operating system within the Correctional Service of Canada, employs offenders in institutional manufacturing, agribusiness, construction, services (i.e., key-boarding, data entry, and telemarketing) and textiles operations. Monthly, CORCAN employs 2000 full-time equivalent positions. In one year, 4000 offenders are employed by CORCAN, with an average stay of approximately one month.

Motiuk and Belcourt compared rates of return for offenders released on full parole and statutory release with national aver-age recidivism rates. CORCAN participants released on full parole were returned to federal custody at a rate of 19.2%, whereas the national average was 26.6%, which constitutes a difference in return of 27.8%. The results were more pronounced for return to federal custody for a new offence, with 12.1% national aver-age rate of return and only 1.9% for CORCAN participants (a difference of 84.3%). This finding of a substantially lower rate of return did not apply for CORCAN participants on statutory release (46.4% versus 44.0%), indicating an interaction between success on release and risk level. No differences were obtained in return to federal custody for a new offence among offenders on statutory release. Furthermore, analyses indicated that offenders in this sample released on full parole were categorized as lower risk to reoffend than offenders on statutory release, substantiating the link between risk level and propensity to successfully reintegrate into the community.


Although risk is important, it is desirable to ascertain how dynamic factors impinge upon outcome for offenders. To this end, the preliminary study conducted by Motiuk and Belcourt was expanded to consider employment needs among this sample of offenders and the relationship to community reintegration. Gillis, Motiuk, and Belcourt (1998) expanded the initial follow-up period by one year (average follow-up 23 months) and reported employment status for a subset (n = 99) of the 269 offenders who initially comprised the sample. Consistent with the risk assessment literature, the authors reported an interaction between overall risk level, employment needs, and employment status during the first six months of release.

More than half of the offenders in the sample exhibited employment needs on release and two thirds experienced difficulty obtaining employment in the first six months of release. When overall risk and need scores were examined in relation to employment status, analyses indicated that offenders classified as higher risk were much less likely to be employed than lower risk offenders. Results of particular interest involve the relationship between employment status and reoffence. Offenders who were employed were convicted at less than half the rate of unemployed offenders (17% versus 41%) and committed only one quarter as many new violent offences as unemployed offenders (6% versus 21%). When employment needs were subdivided into their four components (“asset,” “no need,” “some need,” and “considerable need”), it is particularly telling that all offenders identified as having employment as an asset (n = 6) were employed, and none recidivated during the follow-up period. Conversely, no offenders identified with considerable needs (n = 15) obtained employment, and 43.8% were convicted of a new offence in the follow-up period.

It is important to note that the two studies derived from this sample did not have control groups, which limits the conclusions that may be drawn. However, these preliminary “snapshots” of offenders who worked for CORCAN during incarceration suggest that employment plays a potentially important role in assisting offenders in their reintegrative efforts. Furthermore, this research has served as the basis for the development of more stringent studies that will contribute to an enhanced understanding of how employment contributes to safe community reintegration (see Gillis, 1998).


Responsivity is an area that has not been explored in evaluating employment programs. Responsivity refers to a style and mode of program delivery that is consistent with the learning style and ability of offenders.4

Other areas relating to responsivity include gender and ethnicity. More specifically, women and Aboriginal offenders may have specific employment needs and responsivity factors to consider, and may manifest different competencies. It is important to identify factors that may be specific to these populations through research, and to follow-up accordingly with programs designed to meet their specific employment needs.

Additionally, motivation, although proposed as a potential responsivity factor has received surprisingly little attention in the correctional treatment literature. Recently, Tellier (1999) developed a theoretical framework for the incorporation of motivation as a contributing factor to offenders' readiness to change their behaviour. The framework is based on the concept that motivation levels fluctuate as offenders progress through different stages of change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984). Inclusion of assessment processes based on the theoretical model proposed by Tellier would contribute to a refinement in our understanding of how program readiness impacts on offenders' treatment gain in employment programs. Ultimately, the model could contribute to increased appreciation of the role of motivation in contributing to employment stability and safe community reintegration. Such an approach recognizes that offenders enter treatment with varying levels of readiness to change and willingness to address their needs and therefore require different levels of program intensity.

Preservice counsellor characteristics

Andrews and Bonta (1998) specify the importance of counsellor training skills and ability to establish a warm interpersonal relationship with the client in contributing to positive program out-comes. Moreover, inherent in a cognitive behavioural/social learning programmatic framework is the idea that prosocial modelling is a key element to behaviour change among program participants.

In the employment context, CORCAN instructors spend the majority of the day with offenders and therefore play a potentially important role in the skill development, attitude, and behavioural change among offenders (Fabiano, LaPlante, & Loza, 1996; Gillis, Getkate, Robinson, & Porporino, 1995).

As part of an employability research initiative in CORCAN, Gillis (1994) conducted a study exploring the relationship between instructor leadership styles, perceived credibility and performance; and offender-reported measures of work attitudes and motivation. A multi-source assessment approach incorporating measures obtained from work instructors, offenders and managers, was used to assess the impact of instructor attributes on offender work motivation. Managers (n = 7), work instructors (n = 35) and offenders (n = 143). Seven institutions from the Correctional Service of Canada participated in this research.

Supervisor leadership behaviours were assessed using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1990), which examines transactional, transformational and non-leadership behaviour. Transactional leaders participate in exchanges with their employees, rewarding predetermined objectives and punishing employees for failing to attain goals. An augmenting effect beyond that of transactional leaders is characteristic of transformational leaders, who inspire and stimulate employees to perform beyond their expectations in achieving goals. These charismatic leaders are noted for their motivational coaching styles and ability to adapt their approach to meet individual employee needs. As opposed to this active, mentoring form of leadership, non-leadership is characterised by a “laissez-faire” approach (Bass, 1985, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1990). The MLQ also examines organizational outcome measures, such as extra effort exerted by employees. In addition to these leadership qualities, this study explored a measure of perceived instructor credibility, comprised of trust, inspiration and competence adapted from Kouzes & Posner (1993).

Supervisors and offenders completed the leadership questionnaire, and offenders also completed the credibility questionnaire, and a set of scales designed to assess work motivation, including: intrinsic job motivation, meaningfulness of work, responsibility for work outcomes, and job involvement. Offender punctuality ratings compiled by instructors provided a behavioural measure of offender motivation. Finally, managers completed a modified version of the leadership questionnaire, evaluating instructor effectiveness in obtaining extra effort from offenders in their shops and increasing shop productivity.

Analyses of the data supported the hypothesis that active transformational leadership is associated with motivational out-comes in employees. Instructors rated by offenders as displaying transformational behaviours were associated with higher levels of extra effort, work motivation, and job involvement reported by offenders. Importantly, offender-rated instructor transformational leadership was significantly related to offender punctuality ratings. Moreover, a particularly strong finding was the association between manager ratings of instructor effectiveness and offender-reported extra effort exerted in the workplace and offender punctuality ratings. As hypothesized, a non-leadership instructor orientation was linked lower levels of offender-reported work motivation, job involvement, and willingness to exert extra effort. Transactional leadership was not associated with offender-reported work attitudes nor punctuality ratings (Gillis, 1994; Gillis et al., 1995).

This research extended and substantiated results from an earlier study conducted by Crookall (1989), who found that instructors trained in transformational leadership (versus situational leadership) were associated with significant improvements in personal growth, as gauged by turnover, work habits, respect, job skills, citizenship and progress toward rehabilitation.

The research also provided important information regarding the pivotal role of correctional staff in influencing offenders. Prior to this study, most research on correctional staff explored corrections-related attitudes, but failed to evaluate how these attitudes and behaviours impact on offenders. Moreover, this leadership research illustrates the importance of appropriate staff selection and staff training strategies. Future staff training should incorporate not only leadership training, but also effective approaches to working with offender populations. As demonstrated in the leadership research, offenders respond differentially to leadership styles. Training should also incorporate how to provide instruction to offenders (i.e., coaching offenders) in a manner that responds to the offender's particular learning style, in accordance with responsivity principle. Moreover, the mode of delivery should be based on the risk and needs principle, with offenders manifesting significant employment needs given a higher level of one-on-one intervention. As illustrated in these studies (Crookall, 1989; Gillis, 1994), modelling is key for program delivery, a finding consistent with meta-analytic research on treatment effectiveness. Finally, not only did this research substantiate the treatment effectiveness literature in a different context -- offender institutional employment -- but it also provided support for the utility and validity of the trans-formational leadership typology within a correctional context.

Program characteristics

Treatment setting is a program component that is particularly relevant in the context of employment training. Currently within the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), the majority of systematic employment training programs are offered at the institutional level. Importantly and increasingly, employment program operations are attempting to parallel those found in community, with expectations of performance from offenders consistent with community standards.

Given that meta-analytic results support the increased efficacy of community-based treatment over institutional intervention, more focus should be placed on community-based employment initiatives for offenders (Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey, 1990). Although institutional employment opportunities contribute to the offender's potential for safe and effective community reintegration (Motiuk & Belcourt, 1996; Saylor & Gaes, 1996), more intensive effort should focus on community-based initiatives that offer job readiness training, job placement strategies and on-the-job training opportunities. Additionally, there is a need for follow-up sessions and systematic intervention at the community level. More specifically, community employment placement and training opportunities are required to: facilitate the linkage and ease the transition to the community, provide financial support and promote peer support and effective prosocial role models to offenders upon release. This approach is consistent with policy recommendations in the recent Report to EXCOM on Employment (CSC, 1999), which advocates enhancement of CORCAN community operations, and development and implementation of national short-term employability programs for offenders at the institutional and community levels.

Process and content of treatment service

As a subset of overall risk, employment offers real potential for change among offenders with its focus on combining concrete skills-based training with the development and enhancement of generic employability skills, transferable to community employment settings. Research has shown that shop instructors and offenders agree that institutional employment has the potential to enhance offender work habits and attitudes (Gillis, 1994; Simon, 1999). The focus on general employability skills, as opposed to very concrete and job-specific skills, has received increasing attention in the Canadian correctional employment system (see CSC, 1999; Fabiano et al., 1996; Gillis, Robinson, & Porporino, 1996; Mulgrew, 1996).

Since the early 1990s, CORCAN has placed high priority on developing employability skills in offenders. CORCAN has worked closely with the Conference Board of Canada, who surveyed Canadian employers regarding attributes they look for in effective employees (McLaughlin, 1992). Using the Conference Board of Canada criteria and research findings from the early employ-ability initiative, CORCAN in collaboration with the Research Branch, developed the Offender Performance Evaluation to refine assessment of offender employment skills and competencies. The form evaluates generic academic, personal management and teamwork skills identified by the Conference Board of Canada in their Employability Skills Profile as integral for effective work performance. Scored on the basis of behavioural indicators, the form provides concrete information to correctional staff and offenders regarding offender work competencies and need areas. Easy to score and interpret, the form also provides a mechanism for feedback regarding offender work performance and goals for future intervention. The form is currently in use in CORCAN shops, although its application will be expanded to all work placements in the attempt to adequately assess how institutional employment experience contributes to offender employability skills.

A primary objective of correctional employment is the pro-vision of job skills and enhancement of positive work attitudes that will assist offenders in their reintegration to the community upon release. This approach recognizes that generic skills are important, as often, community job placements are not consistent with institutional employment training experience (Simon, 1999). Employment is provided to offenders in the anticipation that work habits and attitudes will generalize across different work situations (i.e., in the community upon release). It is postulated that the enhancement of positive work attitudes will ultimately translate into behavioural change. Results reported in Gillis (1994) indicate that behavioural differences, in the form of better punctuality ratings, have been noted among offenders with more positive work attitudes and higher levels of motivation. However, further research is required to address the potential impact of work attitudes and specific employability skills on community employment and reintegration.

Intermediate treatment goals

In evaluating program effectiveness, it is important to keep in mind that many evaluations have used recidivism as the sole criterion of program effectiveness. These studies, therefore, do not account for more intermediate outcomes that one would anticipate as resulting from employment programs, namely, increase in specific and generic skills, and employment status upon release. Understandably, these factors are often excluded due to the difficulty in monitoring long-term, and even short-term, outcomes associated with community adjustment.

As described in the previous section, an important intermediate outcome of employment is the development of employability skills -- generic skills transferable to numerous work settings. In exploring treatment gain, it is important to examine offender perceptions of the attitudes and skills that are developed or enhanced as a function of participation in institutional employment pro-grams. To this end, the Offender Performance Evaluation will allow for the examination of how particular skills impact on offenders' ability to find and keep work in the community, while on release. Future research will incorporate the information relating to change in skills as a function of participation in CORCAN (tracking offenders' employability skills from the time they start working for CORCAN, to completion of their work) in the attempt to gain an enhanced understanding of the impact of skill development on subsequent reintegration for offenders. Coupled with employment needs data from the OIA, this information has potential utility in contributing to the effective assessment of treatment gain.

A logical intermediate outcome of employment programming is employment status and/or job retention. However, Ryan (1998), in her review of the job retention literature, asserts that job placement was used frequently as an outcome variable in research in the 1 969s and 1970s, but was rarely tracked in subsequent research. Her review of the literature “revealed an almost complete lack of a systematic, logically developed body of knowledge about job retention of released inmates” (p. 9). Clearly, employment stability -- or job retention -- must be included as a crucial proximal outcome measure in community-based offender employment research (Gillis, 1998; Ryan, 1998; Simon, 1999). In evaluating employment training strategies for offenders, it is imperative that researchers look beyond recidivism to other pertinent proximal outcomes measures of program success (Braithwaite, 1980; Hodanish, 1976) to include dynamic factors associated with finding and keeping work.

Saylor and Gaes (1996) produced one of the few studies exploring community employment status. They reported that offenders who participated in industries, vocational or apprenticeship programs, or a combination of the two, were 24% more likely to obtain employment on conditional release than a matched control group.

Conversely, Markley, Flynn, and Bercaw-Dooen (1983), in a study examining employment success in a sample of offenders who had received job skills training, found no effect of training in the experimental group, relative to a control group matched on age, sex, race, education and skill level prior to training. More specifically, offenders who had received vocational training did not differ from the control group on the “success index,” which measured months employed per year and yearly earnings during release. Importantly, however, the “success index” used by the authors to evaluate outcome represents a significant contribution to the employment literature.

Lipsey (1995) also reported upon the relationship between treatment efficacy and various outcomes other than delinquency. In his analysis, he examined the global effects of treatment on the following non-delinquency outcomes: psychological outcome (e.g., attitudes, self esteem), interpersonal adjustment (e.g., peer or family relationships), school participation (e.g., attendance, dropout), academic performance (e.g., grades, achievement tests), and vocational performance (e.g., job status, wages). An overall ‘success rate' was calculated by splitting each of the outcome measures at the median; treatment and control groups were compared on their attainment of the minimum median value on outcome (i.e., their relative success rates). In a comparable fashion to delinquency outcome, positive treatment effects were found on each of the non-delinquency outcomes, ranging from 10% improvement to 30% improvement. An average effect of 10% was obtained for vocational accomplishment in the studies (n = 44) explored by Lipsey.

Additionally, we need to explore not only whether an offender is employed, but whether she or he is gainfully employed. An ongoing project in the research branch is exploring these questions in a community-based study of offender employment (see Gillis, 1998).

Ultimate outcomes

Although recidivism is an important criterion to consider, it should not be used as the sole outcome measure of program effectiveness, particularly in the context of employment (Hodanish, 1976). Furthermore, Ryan (1998) raises important issues regarding the reliability of recidivism statistics as criterion measures, and provides a good argument for not relying solely on recidivism as the criterion of program effectiveness.

As previously outlined, very few well-controlled studies of employment impacts on recidivism have been conducted but overall, employment intervention is promising in its potential to reduce recidivism (Pearson & Lipton, 1999). Saylor and Gaes (1996) provided one of the best controlled studies in their prospective evaluation of the impact of institutional employment and vocational training on offenders' post-release performance. Study group participants consisted of offenders who had participated in prison industries (57%), combined industrial and vocational experience (19%) and vocational and/or apprenticeship training (24%). The study also included a statistically matched comparison sample of offenders released in the same calendar quarter as the employment group. Long-term follow-up (range 8 to 12 years) provided important information about the impact of training on post-release recidivism.

The study examined not only federal recommitment (i.e., for a new offence or supervision revocation) but also time in community until recommitment. Men who participated in correctional industries survived in the community 20% longer than a comparison group, and the vocational or apprenticeship training group, 28% longer. Although results for the employment/training group were not statistically significant, the same trend was noted. Saylor and Gaes suggest that additional employment-related variables should be examined for their impact on community adjustment following release from prison.


This section delineated the importance of considering numerous factors that impinge upon the ability of a program to effect change among offenders. The individual's characteristics, including the level of risk he or she presents for future involvement in crime, the intensity of the manifested need, and the individual's amenability to treatment are important factors to consider in combination with actual treatment characteristics. Program evaluation should incorporate intermediate measures of program effectiveness, minimally including community employment status as a pertinent outcome measure.


The need for an integrated theoretical perspective on employment cannot be disputed. Before effective programs can be developed and implemented for offenders, one first requires an understanding of the various factors and processes that combine to influence not only reintegration potential, but also employment stability in the community.

As previously mentioned, many studies to date have explored employment primarily in relation to recidivism, an approach which neglects important proximal outcomes. Exploration of intermediate targets is crucial for several reasons. First, many employment programs promote the development of job specific skills, but often, community employment opportunities are not consistent with those offered in the institution. Use of recidivism as the sole criterion of program effectiveness ignores other important potential gains from employment participation, including job attainment, job retention, and increased prosocial orientation (Gillis, 1998; Ryan, 1998). Safe community reintegration, however, is the ultimate objective of the provision of programs to offenders, and should be included in a comprehensive theoretical perspective on employment.

A theoretical model was recently formulated to assist in the prediction of employment stability (Gillis, 1998). Revised from a theoretical model to predict criminal behaviour (see Gillis, 1997), the model adopts a social learning/social cognition perspective in its amalgamation of the theoretical perspective proposed by Andrews and Bonta (Andrews, 1982, 1995; Andrews & Bonta, 1998 and by Ajzen 1985; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980 Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Furthermore, the model incorporates the risk factors most predictive of recidivism.

The Personal Interpersonal Community-Reinforcement perspective (PIC-R; Andrews, 1982, 1995; Andrews & Bonta, 1998) was formulated to account for inhibitory and facilitatory factors related to criminal offending. The theory employs a social learning perspective in its specification of the interrelationships between (a) personally-mediated events, comprised primarily of the individual's attitudes, values and beliefs, and personality, which in turn, impact upon personally-mediated control (e.g., self-regulation and cognitive functioning); (b) interpersonally-mediated control, consisting of the influence of others (i.e., associates/social support) via modelling, expressed approval, etc.; and (c) automatic rewards, which typically gain their rewarding properties through previous experience. These proximal factors, in interaction with more distal contextual elements (such as neighbourhood), influence the manner in which the individual perceives the costs/rewards for criminal behaviour. In the model, the PIC-R perspective borrows from the theory of planned behaviour in using the framework provided by the theory, and in operationalizing the various constructs that will be used in predicting employment status. The casual pathway postulates that relevant beliefs contribute to attitudes, associates, and self-efficacy. Intention mediates the impact of attitudes, associates and self-efficacy on behaviour. For the present study, this model was modified to predict employment stability for offenders on conditional release, by incorporating relevant work attitudes and beliefs.

The pre-test data collection phase for this research on employment stability was completed in September 1999, and post-test data collection in March 2000. Initially, the research explores factors that contribute to employment stability. Ultimately, the study will be extended to evaluate the impact of employment stability on long-term community reintegration. Thus, this research will explore proximal and more distal outcomes potentially related to attaining and maintaining employment in the community.

The current community-based employment research will also contribute to the development of a brief employment checklist comprised of factors that are most strongly linked to community success. This list of protective factors, coupled with known employment risk factors, will assist parole officers in tracking important employment factors among offenders who manifest employment needs.

Furthermore, rather than pure reliance on the assessment of static employment deficits among offenders, this research strategy involves exploration of dynamic employment factors. Accompanying the evolution of employment assessment strategies is the potential for renewed effort to target employment strengths and competencies that will assist offenders in their community adjustment.


It can safely be asserted that there is a resurgence of interest in employment as an important factor in the safe reintegration of offenders. However, the systematic study of employment as a risk and need factor is still in its infancy. Although we know employment is important in contributing to outcomes for offenders, we are in the preliminary stage of understanding the processes and factors that are important to employment success and community reintegration.

This parallels the status of risk and needs assessment in corrections. Our knowledge of risk is good, but our understanding and ability to effectively intervene to decrease criminogenic needs is constantly evolving as our knowledge base increases. Employment, as a subset of offender needs, constitutes an important area of study. Once an enhanced understanding of the mechanisms and processes associated with employment stability is attained, this information may be used to guide the development of intervention strategies, both at the institutional and community level. Moreover, once this level of understanding has been achieved, subsequent intervention efforts should focus on responsivity issues (including gender, ethnicity, motivation, and different learning styles), which have received relatively little exploration to date in the correctional literature.

Currently, a project is in the development phase within the Research Branch, CSC, which will survey women offenders' employment histories and experiences since release. This research will assess womens' primary employment interests and training/employment programs they would find helpful. Importantly, the study will evaluate impediments to finding and maintaining employment as perceived and experienced by women on conditional release. Moreover, parole officers will be requested to respond to a survey to gain an understanding of their perspective on women offenders' employment needs and training requirements. Ultimately, the information will be used to guide employment training strategies and job readiness programs delivered at the institutional and community level for women offenders on conditional release (Gillis, 1999).

Consistent with proposals in the Task Force on Employment, an integrated strategy for institutional and community-based employment intervention is required. In particular, given the empirical support for the efficacy of community-based intervention over institutional treatment, it is proposed that more effort be placed on providing employment intervention to offenders on conditional release. Moreover, in accordance with meta-analytic findings regarding program effectiveness, it is advocated that an intensive cognitive-behavioural employment skills pro-gram be developed and offered to offenders manifesting employment needs. Such a program would involve skills development in everyday interactions with peers and co-workers and would be designed with the intention of increasing offenders' job efficacy, in addition to generic employment skills (e.g., positive work attitudes and behaviours) defined by Canadian employers as integral for successful job performance. The program would offer differing levels of intervention, so offenders with different employment needs could enter the program at varying stages, in accordance with the risk principle and consistent with the concept of stages of change. Importantly, also, this program would offer job placement opportunities, intense supervision and coaching by a qualified employment counsellor. Consideration should also be given to forecasting availability of particular types of employment in the labour market, as research has shown that jobs traditionally sought out by offenders (e.g., manual and/or unskilled labour) is no longer as plentiful as it once was (Simon, 1999).

Additionally, an important element in guiding and assessing program effectiveness is an appropriate evaluation component. All future employment intervention strategies should incorporate evaluative components that provide feedback regarding pro-gram efficacy in attaining objectives (e.g., increased knowledge, employment attainment and maintenance, and additional indicators of community adjustment).

Finally, there is reason to adopt an optimistic outlook that current research and endeavours to intervene with offenders with employment needs will yield valuable information for the development of a comprehensive and systematic employment strategy.

1 Correctional Service of Canada

2 See Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Andrews & Bonta, 1998 for discussion of the risk and need principles.

4 For more details on Responsivity, see Chapter 5 of this Compendium: Treatment Responsivity: Reducing Recidivism by Enhancing Treatment Effectiveness, by Sharon Kennedy.


Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Andrews, D. A. (1982). A personal, interpersonal and community-reinforcement perspective on deviant behavior (PIC-R). Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.

Andrews, D. A. (1995). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatment. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending. Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 35-62). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 26-40.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Braithwaite, J. (1980). Prisons, education and work: Towards a national employment strategy for prisoners. Queensland, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Correctional Service of Canada (1999). EXCOM Task Force on Employment.

Crookall, P. S. (1989). Leadership in prison industry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario, School of Business Administration.

Erez, E. (1987). Rehabilitation in justice: The prisoner's perspective. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 11, 5-19.

Fabiano, E., LaPlante, J., & Loza, A. (1996). Employability: From research to practice. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(1), 25-28.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Flanagan, T. (1988). Prison labor and industry. In G. Goodstein & D. MacKenzie (Eds.), The American prison: Issues in research and policy (pp. 135-161). New York, NY: Plenum.

Flanagan, T., & Maguire, K. (1987). Prison labor and prisoner adjustment. Albany, NY: Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Centre, SUNY.

Funke, G. S., Wayson, B. L., & Miller, N. (1982). Assets and liabilities of correctional industries. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Gaes, G. G., Flanagan, T. J., Motiuk, L. L., & Stewart, L. (1999). Adult correctional treatment. In M. Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons (pp. 361-426). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gendreau, P. (1996). Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 144-161.

Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1990). Tertiary prevention: What the meta-analyses of the offender treatment literature tell us about ‘what works'. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 173-184.

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575-607.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Gray, G. (1998). Case need domain: Employment. Forum on Corrections Research, 10(3), 16-19.

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.

Gillis, C. A. (1994). The influence of shop supervisor characteristics on employee-reported work attitudes in a prison industry setting. Unpublished master's thesis. Ottawa, ON: Carleton University.

Gillis, C. A. (1997). Integrating the PIC-R perspective and theory of planned behaviour: Specifying the role of attitude in predicting criminal behavior. Unpublished paper. Ottawa, ON: Carleton University.

Gillis, C. A. (1998). The prediction of employment stability in a sample of federal offenders on conditional release. Unpublished dissertation prospectus. Ottawa, ON: Carleton University.

Gillis, C. A. (1999). Women offenders and employment. Forum on Corrections Research, 11(3), 37-40.

Gillis, C., Getkate, M., Robinson, D., & Porporino, F. (1995). Correctional work supervisor leadership and credibility: Their influence on work motivation. Forum on Corrections Research, 7(3), 15-17.

Gillis, C. A., Motiuk, L. L., & Belcourt, R. (1998). Prison work programs: Impact on post-release employment and recidivism. Research Report R-69. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Gillis, C., Robinson, D., & Porporino, F. (1996). Inmate employment: The increasingly influential role of generic work skills. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(1), 18-20.

Glaser, D. (1964). The effectiveness of a prison and parole system. Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill.

Gleason, S. (1986). Inmate attitudes toward vocational training: A case study of vocational training students in the State Prison of Southern Michigan. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 10, 49-60.

Greiser, R. C. (1996). Public and private sector partnerships in prison industries and offender employment. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(1), 43-45.

Guynes, R., & Greiser, R. C. (1986). Contemporary prison industry goals. In American Correctional Association (Ed.), A study of prison industry: History, components, and goals (pp. 19-29). College Park, Maryland.

Hodanish, M. J. (1976). Rehabilitation through employment: Proceed with caution. Offender Rehabilitation, 1, 147-161.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. California: Jossey-Bass.

Lipsey, M. (1990). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. Russell Sage Foundation.

Lipsey, M. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending. Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 63-78). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Maguire, K. (1996). Prison industry program and inmate institutional behavior. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(1), 39-42.

Markley, H., Flynn, K., & Bercaw-Dooen, S. (1983). Offender skills training and employment success: An evaluation of outcomes. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, 29, 1-11.

McGuire, J., & Priestly, P. (1995). Reviewing ‘what works': Past, present and future. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending. Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 3-34). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

McLaughlin, M. (1992). Employability skills profile: What are employers looking for? (R-81-92-E). Ottawa, ON: Conference Board of Canada.

Miller, N., & Greiser, R. C. (1986). The evolution of prison industries. In American Correctional Association (Ed.), A study of prison industry: History, components, and goals (pp. 1-18). College Park, Maryland.

Motiuk, L. (1997). Classification for correctional programming: The Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process. Forum on Corrections Research, 9(1), 18-22.

Motiuk, L., & Belcourt, R. (1996). CORCAN participation and post-release recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(1), 15-17.

Mulgrew, P. (1996). Generic and employability skills for inmates. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(1), 29-31.

Pearson, F. S., & Lipton, D. S. (1999). The effectiveness of educational and vocational programs: CDATE meta-analyses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, ON.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of therapy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Ryan, T. A. (1998). Job retention of offenders and ex-offenders: Review and synthesis of the literature. Unpublished manuscript. Columbia, SC: College of Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina.

Saylor, W. G., & Gaes, G. G. (1996). The effect of prison employment and vocational/apprenticeship training on long-term recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(1), 12-14.

Simon, F. H. (1999). Prisoners' work and vocational training. London, UK: Routledge.

Taylor, G. (1997). Implementing risk and needs classification in the Correctional Service of Canada. Forum on Corrections Research, 9(1), 32-35.

Tellier, C. (1999). A dynamic multiconstruct model for conceptualizing motivation for change in corrections. Unpublished paper. Ottawa, ON: Carleton University.

Townsend, T. (1996). Offenders and work in the Correctional Service of Canada: A historical evolution. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(1), 35-38.

Van Zyl Smit, D., & Dünkel, F. (1999). (Eds.), Prison labour: Salvation or slavery? (pp. 335-347). Aldershot, UK: Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law.

Whitehead, J. T., & Lab, S. P. (1989). A meta-analysis of juvenile correctional treatment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 265, 276-295.


Previous PageTop Of Page Table Of ContentsNext Page