MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rehabilitating futures: Assessing the effects of correctional employment-focused programs on recidivism and employment

2025· article· en· W4406756281 on OpenAlexafffund
Maria Antonella Mancino

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Economic Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsRecidivismFutures contractEconomicsActuarial scienceLabour economicsFinancial economicsPsychologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I explore the effects of participating in employment-focused programs during incarceration, encompassing job skills and vocational training, on post-release employment and crime outcomes. I develop and estimate a dynamic model of crime, employment, and correctional program participation, using data from serious juvenile offenders in Maricopa County and Philadelphia County. I find that participating in employment-focused programs results in a 4.9%-point increase in employment and a 7.9%-point reduction in crime within three years post-release. These programs facilitate the transition to the legal labor sector and enhance employment stability, mitigating some of the adverse effects of criminal records. They also have a modest impact on preferences towards crime. Furthermore, I show that correctional employment-focused programs significantly affect post-release crime and employment outcomes even if criminal experience has accumulated, and that policies that enhance the impact of such programs on the job-arrival rate can have crucial effects on subsequent crime and employment outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Economic ReviewSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207