Prisoners released when manufacturing and construction jobs are plentiful are less likely to return to jail - an effect not seen among those freed at times when other kinds of low-skilled work are more available, new research suggests.

Growing numbers of jobs in sectors such as food services, which often carry lower wages, did not lead to a drop in recidivism rates.

University of Sydney economist Kevin Schnepel wrote in a new paper that he found, in any given period, “statistically significant decreases in recidivism” in California were “associated with increases in the number of low-skill construction and manufacturing workers hired.”

But, he added, “I do not detect a statistically significant influence of any other relevant industry (food services, retail, admin/waste, or other services.)” Schnepel has predicted that this may be because an offender who gets a job in construction or manufacturing will earn higher wages and experience other benefits, compared to those in different types of low-skilled work.

Schnepel's new study is published in the Economic Journal’s February 2018 issue, and looked at rates of recidivism among 1.7 million people released from a California prison between 1993 and 2008.

In a blog post last year, Schnepel wrote that governments, nonprofits and others involved in work programs for ex-offenders should take note of similar evidence.

“An important question arises for policymakers,” he said: “How can we increase the quality, and not just the quantity, of legitimate work opportunities for released prisoners? That solution might make all the difference in keeping offenders out of prison for good.”

Recent data, he said, “strongly suggest that the type of job is perhaps the most important, often overlooked, factor when evaluating the causal relationship between work and crime.”

Part of the reason, he suggested, could be the comparatively low wages offered by low-skilled work outside of the construction and manufacturing industries.

“If a released inmate is comparing the returns from illegal versus legal activity,” Schnepel wrote, “a minimum-wage job just may not be enough to deter the illegal choice.”

But, he continued, there may be other reasons for the discrepancy. “One important aspect that can vary substantially is the degree to which a job facilitates positive social interactions, or prevents negative ones,” he wrote.

“A job in construction, for example, often requires offenders to wake up early in the morning, which could limit their ability to socialise with criminal peers.

“On the other hand, transitional employment provided by re-entry programs could place released inmates on a work crew with other folks just out of jail.”

The results of Schnepel’s Economic Journal study largely only relate to male ex-prisoners, to whom the construction and manufacturing sectors are much more likely to be open. But, he wrote, studies exploring what happens when large numbers of quality jobs are open to female ex-prisoners might be expected to yield similar results.

The paper measured the number of hires in the construction industry per thousand working-age people. For every extra hire, the number of prisoners returning to prison within a year dropped by 1.8%. The equivalent drop per extra hire in manufacturing was 1%. No other low-skilled sector showed a statistically significant relationship between hires and recidivism.

The research controls for other factors that might influence rates of recidivism, among them changes to state parole policies, gentrification of an area or the supply of housing.

(Picture credit: Pixabay)