Evidence suggests that steady employment is a key component in reducing the likelihood that people under community supervision will return to prison. Largely unexplored, however, is the extent to which employment outcomes and self-perceptions of employability among people under community supervision are affected by stipulations mandated upon release from prison. These stipulations include measures like visits with a probation office, court appearances, or drug and mental health treatments. This article review research on the relationship between the stipulations of community supervision and employment outcomes. It presents evidence from a new study that explores relationships between release stipulations, probation officer support, feelings of employability, and employment outcomes. The new evidence suggests that there is a negative relationship between community supervision and employment outcomes and perceptions of employability. I argue for alternative policies that could productively reshape community supervision.
AndersonS. G.2001. Welfare recipient views about caseworker performance: Lessons for developing TANF case management practices. Families in Society82 (2): 165–174. Available from https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.204.
3.
ArtessJ.HooleyT.Mellors-BourneR.2016. Employability: A review of the literature 2012 to 2016. York: HEA.
4.
AustinJ.2016. Regulating California’s prison population: The use of sticks and carrots. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science664:84–107. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716215602700.
BrayneS.2014. Surveillance and system avoidance: Criminal justice contact and institutional attachment. American Sociological Review79 (3): 367–391. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414530398.
7.
BuiH.MorashM.2010. The impact of network relationships, prison experiences, and internal transformation on women’s success after prison release. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation49:1-22. doi:10.1080/10509670903435381.
8.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2020. Probation and parole in the United States, 2017-2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available from https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6986.
9.
BurrisDoug. 2009. The first line of defense: Reducing recidivism at the local level. Congressional testimony, S. Hrg. 111-370. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
10.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2017. Proposition 57, The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016. Available from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/proposition57/.
11.
CapeceJ.2020. The effects of probation stipulations on employment quality among people on probation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation59 (7): 375–88. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2020.1784348
12.
CapeceJ.2021a. The effects of probation officer support on job offers and perceptions of employability among people on probation. Manuscript submitted for publication]. Available from https://www.ric.edu/department-directory/school-social-work.
13.
CapeceJ.2021b. The effects of probation stipulations on perceptions of employability among people on probation. Advances in Social Work20 (3): 578-595. Available from https://doi.org/10.18060/23895.
14.
CobbinaJ. E. (2010). Reintegration success and failure: Factors impacting reintegration among incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49, 210–232. doi:10.1080/10509671003666602
15.
DanielsJ.D’AndreaM.GaughenK. J. S.1998. Testing the validity and reliability of the Perceived Employability Scale (PES) among a culturally diverse population. Journal of Employment Counseling35 (3): 114–23.
16.
De CuyperNeleMaunoSaijaKinnunenUllaMakikangasAnne. 2011. The role of job resources in the relation between perceived employability and turnover intention: A prospective two-sample study. Journal of Vocational Behavior78 (2): 253–63.
17.
DeeM.2013. Welfare surveillance, income management and new paternalism in Australia. Surveillance & Society11 (3): 272–86. Available from https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v11i3.4540.
18.
DelgadoM.2012. Prisoner reentry at work: Adding business to the mix. London: Lynne Rienner.
19.
GraffamJ.ShinkfieldA. J.HardcastleL.2008. The perceived employability of ex-prisoners and offenders (statistical data). International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology52 (6): 673–85.
20.
GreenF.2011. Unpacking the misery multiplier: How employability modifies the impacts of unemployment and job insecurity on life satisfaction and mental health. Journal of Health Economics30 (2): 265–76.
21.
GroggerJ. (1995). The Effect of Arrests on the Employment and Earnings of Young Men. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118510
22.
HardingD. J.SiegelJ. A.MorenoffJ. D.2017. Custodial parole sanctions and earnings after release from prison. Social Forces96 (2): 909–34. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox047.
23.
Harvard Kennedy School Executive Session on Community Corrections. 2017. Toward an approach to community corrections for the 21st century: Consensus document of the Executive Session on COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management. Available from https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/Consensus_Final2.pdf.
24.
HillT. D.CainD. S.2012. Perceived welfare caseworker support and psychological distress among low-income urban women with children. Social Work (New York)57 (4): 353–60. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sws011.
JanssensM.SelsL.Van Den BrandeI.2003. Multiple types of psychological contracts: A six-cluster solution. Human Relations (New York)56 (11): 1349–78. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035611004.
27.
KlingeleC. M.2013. Rethinking the use of community supervision. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology103 (4): 1015–69. Available from https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2232078.
LaubJ.SampsonR.2003. Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
O’NeillJ.McGreevyG.2020. Reflections on a pandemic: How COVID-19 impacted upon probation practice in Northern Ireland. Irish Probation Journal17:168–82.
31.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1991). An Evaluation of Intensive Probation in California. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 82(3), 610–658.
32.
PetersiliaJ.2003. When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
RothwellR.ArnoldJ.2007. Self-perceived employability: Development and validation of a scale. Personnel Review36 (1): 23–41.
38.
SaleebeyD.1996. The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions and cautions. Social Work (New York)41 (3): 296–305. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/41.3.296.
SeimJ.HardingD. J.2020. Parolefare: Post-prison supervision and low-wage work. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences6 (1): 173–207.
41.
SkeemJ. L.EncandelaJ.LoudenJ. E.2003. Perspectives on probation and mandated mental health treatment in specialized and traditional probation departments. Behavioral Sciences & the Law21 (4): 429–58.
42.
SkeemJ. L.LoudenJ. E.ManchakS.VidalS.HaddadE.2009. Social networks and social control of probationers with co-occurring mental and substance abuse problems. Law and Human Behavior33:122–35. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9140-1.
43.
SkeemJ. L.LoudenJ. E.PolaschekD.CampJ.2007. Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment19:397–410. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.397.
44.
SmithH. P.ApplegateB. K.SitrenA. H.SpringerN. F.2009. The limits of individual control? Perceived officer power and probationer compliance. Journal of Criminal Justice37 (3): 241–47. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.004.
45.
UggenC.StewartR.2015. Piling on: Collateral consequences and community supervision. Minnesota Law Review99:1871–2005.
46.
VisherC. A.Debus-SherillS.YahnerJ.2008. Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of releases in three states. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
47.
VisherC. A.Debus-SherillS.YahnerJ.2011. Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of former prisoners. Justice Quarterly28:698–718.
48.
WesternB.BragaA. A.DavisJ.SiroisC. (2015). Stress and Hardship after Prison. American Journal of Sociology, 120(5), 1512–1547. https://doi.org/10.1086/681301
49.
WhelanJ.2019. We have our dignity, yeah? Scrutiny under suspicion: Experiences of welfare conditionality in the Irish social protection system. Social Policy & Administration55 (1): 34–50. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12610.
50.
WhetzelJ.LowenkampC. T.2011. Who cares what offenders think? New insight from offender surveys. Federal Probation75 (2): 13–15.
51.
WilfongJ.GolderS.LoganT.HigginsG.2021. Examining the influence of financial assistance and employment services on the criminal justice outcomes of women on probation. Affilia36 (2): 240–53. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109920919180.
52.
ZatzN. D.StollM. A.2020. Working to avoid incarceration: jail threat and labor market outcomes for noncustodial fathers facing child support enforcement. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences6 (1): 55–81.
