There is strong empirical evidence that an individual’s criminal behavior is responsive to changes in his or her employment status. 

The argument is that if we could improve the poor work outcomes of offenders, then we could reduce crime. Thus, findings that ex-offenders face discrimination in the labor market are particularly troublesome to some observers. Not only is the lack of work “the reason” for crime (and prison); prison appears to exacerbate the problem by “labeling” an individual as an ex-convict.

Employment and training programs increase the earning potential of average individual. Earnings gains are modest, persistent over several years, arise from several different programs, and are quite cost-effective. Now, consider incarcerated offenders. They have even lower earnings than the “average” individual in employment and training programs does, they have potential to earn far more from other sources such as drugs, and they carry the stigma of prison, which might further depress their earnings potential. In this context, it is reasonable to ask what we have the right to expect from average transition programs.

Experience has dictated that despite a great deal of time and effort, work programs aimed at young men have not proven routinely successful. This is particularly worrisome given that young men are obviously the group most likely to participate in crime. Our mission is to change this outcome.