Table 1 Individual study characteristics and results
Study | Population | Intervention | Comparison | n | Follow up (months) | Outcomes | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bond et al. (2015) | Mental illness 77–82% men 48–70% African American 76% prison history Mean age 42.9–44.6 | Individual placement and support (IPS) Community based Employment focused Brief vocational assessment followed by rapid individualised job search. Individualised ‘job development’ and accompaniment to interview by employment specialist if desired | Work Choice (Job Club) | 87 | 12 | Achieved any employment | 31% intervention vs 7% control (N = 85, x2 = 7.99, df = 1, p < 0.01) |
Days employed | 40.5699.2 intervention vs 15.9665.7 control (N = 85, MWU = 2.67, p < 0.01) | ||||||
Cook et al. (2015) | General population 100% men 84–86.2% Black 100% prison history Mean age 28 | Milwaukee Safe Streets Prisoner Reintegration Initiative (accelerated service access) Transitional Employment included within treatment/support services Accelerated access to pre-release planning, supported employment, social work assessment and support, vocational skills assessment, ‘cognitive reality curriculum’ | Usual services | 236 | 12 | Achieved any employment | Intervention 42% vs control 39% |
Employment status at 12 months | Intervention 81% vs control 59% | ||||||
Duwe (2012) | General population 84–93% men 68.6–73.4% Racial/ethnic minority 100% prison history Mean age 36.2–36.9 | Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Re-entry Plan (MCORP) Transitional Employment included within treatment/support services Pre-release: Institutional case workers establish a transition accountability plan Post release: MCORP agents help to access services for employment, vocational training, education, housing, chemical health, mentoring, faith-based programming, and income support Combines risk assessment with elements of motivational interviewing, SMART goals, and assistance to access support | Usual services | 269 | 6 | Achieved any employment | 55% intervention vs 39.2% control (N = 249, x2 = 5.56, p < 0.05) |
Farabee et al.. (2014) | General population 78.3–87.3% men 34.3–34.8% Hispanic 19.7–24.3% African American 100% prison history Mean age 35–35.8 | Employment-focused re-entry program Community based Employment focused 4 weeks training 40 h per week on job readiness, followed by assistance to find work with access to computers | List of resources and meal voucher | 217 | 12 | Ave. employment status last 1 month | Full time employment 26.2% intervention vs 22.0% control (ns) Part time employment 12.6% intervention vs 12.2% control (χ2 = .506; df = 2; p < .776) |
Ave. employment status last 12 months | Full time employment 29.8% for intervention vs 27.1% control Part-time employment 12.5% for intervention vs 9.4% control group (χ2 = .789; df = 2; p < .674) (ns) | ||||||
Fogel et al. (2015) | General population 100% women 54.0–61.7% white 100% prison history Mean age 33.4–34.2 | Sexual health intervention Prison based Sexuallt transmitted infection (STI) behavioural intervention with no employment focus 8 × 1.5 h (adapted from an existing evidence-based HIV-STI prevention intervention for ethnic minority women diagnosed with STIs in public health clinics | Usual services | 521 | 6 | Employment status at 3 months | Higher proportion of intervention group unemployed (77.8% vs 73.1%). Adjusted odds ratio from logistic mixed effects model adjusted for baseline outcome value = 1.33[0.78–2.26] (ns) |
Employment status at 6 months | Higher proportion of the intervention group unemployed (77.9% vs 72.9%). Adjusted odds ratio from logistic mixed effects model adjusted for baseline outcome value = 1.41 [0.82–2.42] (ns) | ||||||
Hall et al. (2017) | Recovering from addiction 100% men 51% African American 100% prison history Mean age 43.6 | Financial incentive Community based Employment included within treatment/support services Monetary vouchers for attending 5-month residential programme with therapeutic community model. Services to address various needs, with an employment focus. Usually group sessions, participants learn to follow rules; work on substance use, mental health, family issues; attended AA/NA meetings; address criminal thinking; have access to education and work activities, learn skills and attitudes that will help “beat the streets” | Usual services | 202 | 18 | Any employment 6 months prior to follow up | Both groups had employment rates of 31% (ns) |
Jason et al. (2015) | Recovering from addiction Excluded people with violent or sexual offences 83% men 74% Black/African American 100% prison history Mean age 38.8–43.3 | a) Oxford Houses (OH) b) Therapeutic community (TC) Community based Employment included within treatment/support services Oxford Houses are residential facilities led by peers, requiring abstinence from alcohol/drugs, rent payment and weekly chores Therapeutic community is professionally led abstinence orientated residential treatment service where participants follow a structured substance use recovery plan including self-help groups, calling a sponsor and random drug screening tests | Usual services | 270 | 24 | Days worked in last month at 6, 12, 18 & 24 months | General linear mixed model found significant effects for condition (F = 3.60, df = 2937, p < 0.03), time (F = 83.44, df = 1937, p < 0.01), and time by condition interaction (F = 4.41, df = 2937, p = 0.01) |
LePage et al. (2016) | Mental health and/ or substance use disorder (excluding active psychosis) Veteran 96% men 68% African American 100% prison history Mean age 52.3 | Modified IPS + About Face Community based Employment focused IPS as above Modified to require participation in pre-employment classes (About Face), allow employment specialists to carry larger caseloads, and no integration with a mental health treatment team | About Face | 111 | 6 | Achieved any employment at 3 months | 33% intervention vs 16% control (ns) |
Achieved any employment at 6 months | 46% intervention vs 21% control (x2 = 5.9, df = 1, OR = 3.5, p < 0.05). Significance maintained when controlling for time since last full-time employment (x2 = 4.1, OR = 2.9, p < 0.05) | ||||||
No days employed | 43.8(58.0) intervention vs 20.7(45.6) control. (MWU, p = 0.03) | ||||||
Hours worked/week | 17.4(25.6) intervention vs 7.9(17.4) control (MWU, p = 0.04) | ||||||
Total hours worked | 130.1(222.7) intervention vs 52.3(130.6) control (MWU, p = 0.3) | ||||||
LePage et al. (2020) | Mental health and/ or substance use disorder (excluding active psychosis) Veteran 96% men 76% racial/ethnic minority Mean age 52 | Modified IPS + About Face Vocational Program Community based Employment focused IPS as above Modified to require participation in pre-employment classes (About Face Vocational Program), allow employment specialists to carry larger caseloads, a focus on ‘conviction friendly’ professions, and no integration with a mental health treatment team | About Face Vocational Program | 88 | 12 | Achieved any employment | 57% intervention vs 37% control (OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.03–4.7, p = 0.046) |
Stable employment | 42% intervention vs 29% control | ||||||
Fulltime employment (35 + hrs./week) | 43% intervention vs 18% control (OR = 3.56, p = 0.006) | ||||||
No months employed | 4.2(3.8) intervention versus 2.3(4.6) control (t = 2.2, df = 109, p = 0.027) | ||||||
No hours worked | 281.2(476.9) intervention vs 569.1(668.3) control (MWU = 1888, p = 0.03) | ||||||
Polcin et al. (2018) | HIV + status Recovering from addiction 74% men 47% white 100% prison history Mean age 38.6 | Motivational Interviewing Case Management (MICM) in Sober Living Houses Community based Employment included within treatment/support services Motivational interviewing techniques applied to support case management, aiming to help people anticipate and respond to challenges as they transition into a new living situation, seek employment, and access community services | Sober Living Houses as usual | 330 | 12 | Addiction severity index employment scale 12 months (paper also reports 6 months) | 0.76(0.26) intervention vs 0.73(0.27) control |
Days worked last 6 months at 12 months (paper also reports 6 months) | 44.97(57.82) intervention vs 49.08(60.05) control (ns in multilevel model) | ||||||
Smith et al. (2022) | General population 100% men 46–56% Black/African American 100% prison history Mean age 38.1–39 | Virtual Reality Job Interview Training (VRJIT) and prison ‘vocational village’ Prison based Employment focused E-learning curriculum that introduces eight job interview skills and computerized job interviews across three levels of difficulty with the interviewer displaying different personalities (friendly, professional, inappropriate) | ‘Vocational village’ as usual | 44 | 6 | Achieved any employment | Intervention group had significantly better odds after covarying for age, race, time served in prison/jail, arrests, prior violent crime, psychological distress, and pre-test interview skill. (OR = 7.4, 95% CI = 1.1–51.4, p = .045) |
Hours worked/week | 39.6(2.1) intervention vs. 41.0(3.2) control (t = 1.0, p = 0.32) | ||||||
Webster et al. (2014) | Recovering from addiction/using drugs 65% men 61% white 80% prison history Mean age 29.7–31.2 | Employment intervention + drug court Community based Employment focused An employment intervention delivered as 26 group and individual session wtih focus on employment barriers and resolving issues that impede employment success over 3 phases: obtaining, maintaining, and upgrading employment. Includes behavioural contracting, motivational interviewing, and strengths-based case management | Drug court as usual | 500 | 12 | Ave. employment status last 12 months | Comparing between 4 categories (p = 0.056) (ns) Full or part time on average 80.5% intervention vs 75.6% control (x2[3, N = 447] = 9.67, p = 0.022, ϕ = 0.15) |
Days employed last 12 months | 210.1(114.1) intervention vs 199.9 (130.1) control (d = 0.20 F[1, 464] = 4.69, p = 0.03) | ||||||
Days employed last 30 days | 17.8 intervention vs 16.1 control (sd and statistical tests not reported) |