Introduction

In 2022, over 16,000 persons exited prison in Illinois.[1] Employment is a major factor in successful community reintegration after prison release. Not only is it important to formerly incarcerated individuals, families, and their communities it is also associated with lower rates of recidivism.[2] However, formerly incarcerated persons face many barriers to employment, such as stigma by employers; restrictions or prohibition to some jobs because of criminal records; lack of or gaps in work experience; and deficits in human capital, such as inadequate education, training, or vocational skills.[3] These barriers keep the formerly incarcerated from being competitive in the labor market. Even years after release, these individuals consistently have low rates of employment.[4] The jobs that are available are often low skill, seasonal, temporary, and part-time. They provide low wages and limited, or no, benefits. While most individuals struggle to obtain employment post-release, certain groups are at a greater disadvantage because of race and gender.[5] Both race and gender affect earnings and employment.[6] Prison and community reentry programs can help increase individuals’ probability of post-release employment. However, such programs are not sufficiently available to serve all who need them.

In order to examine employment following release from Illinois prisons, ICJIA collaborated with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES). We sought to answer the following main research questions:

  • What types of employment did formerly incarcerated individuals obtain after release?
  • What were the employment and wage trends of individuals released from prison in recent years?
  • What were the characteristics of those who obtained and did not obtain employment?
  • What individual characteristics and employment sector impacted length of employment and earnings?

Methodology

We matched individual IDOC state prison data to IDES state employment data. This research was approved by the ICJIA Institutional Review Board. Our sample was made up of 4,430 persons who exited prison in 2018, and we tracked their employment through 2021. Most of the individuals in the sample were Black males with an average age of 37 (Table 1).

Table 1

Demographics of Sample

Table1

Note. The sample was 4,430 persons who exited prison in 2018. Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding. SD = standard deviation

We ran descriptive statistics, t-tests, and linear regressions to examine employment patterns and outcomes. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 23.0. We performed independent sample t-tests for those who were employed to examine differences in mean length of employment and mean wages based on industry. We performed linear regression to examine differences in sample characteristics and length of employment and wages following prison release.

Study limitations include the absence of some variables of interest, such as vocational program participation and education levels of releasees. We also were unable to know whether individuals had non-taxed or out-of-state employment or if they were unable to work due to jail stays, disability, or death. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on employment during two of the years that we examined (2020 and 2021). This impact means our trends will vary from previous or subsequent years of data.

Key Findings

Employment and Wages

Of the almost 4,500 persons in our sample, 54%, a small majority, were employed (who reported wages for at least one quarter) following release from an Illinois prison from 2019 to 2021. We examined persons employed during any quarter during the time period. By quarter, the highest number of persons were employed in quarter 2 of 2019, two quarters after prison release in 2018.

Based on the full sample, the largest percentage of employed persons worked just one quarter. For the full sample, the average employment length was 2.9 quarters out of the 12 quarters examined (SD = 3.8). But based on only those who were employed, the average length of employment was 5.4 quarters (SD = 3.7), or 44.8 % of the time period examined. Also based on only those who were employed, 10% worked all 12 quarters.

Over the 3-year period examined, the average yearly wage for the total sample of releasees (n = 4,430) was $14,692 with a standard deviation of $30,700. Additionally, half of all the releasees’ total reported earnings were $459 per year or less, and 75% were $13,735 per year or less.

Of those who were employed at least one quarter during the three-year period (n = 2,411), half reported annual earnings less than $10,985, and 75% reported less than $36,096 per year. The average income for those working at least one quarter was $8,998 annually or $10.42 per hour. Table 2 displays the wages of employed releasees by measures of central tendency—mean, median, and mode.

Table 2

Wages of those Employed after Prison Release

Table2

Note. Sample was 2,411 persons who exited an Illinois prison in 2018 with at least one quarter of reported wages. Data sources were Illinois Department of Corrections and Illinois Department of Employment Security. Wages rounded to nearest dollar amount.

Employment by Job Sector

Of the people employed during the time period examined, 2,390 had sector levels specified in their records. Some people worked in more than one sector, and the average number of sectors for those who worked was 1.9 (SD = 1.1). Proportionately, 47.6% worked in only one sector (n = 1,137), 30% worked in two sectors (n = 717), 13.7% in 3 sectors (n = 327), and 8.7% in four or more sectors (n = 209). The maximum number of sectors worked was eight (n = 3). All told, persons were employed in anywhere from one to four different sectors within the same quarter, indicating incidences of holding multiple jobs.

The most common job sector was “administrative support and waste management and remediation services.” In this sector, services were provided for such various industries and households as office administration, the hiring and placement of personnel, document preparation and clerical services, cleaning, and waste disposal.

Differences in Employment by Supersector

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are two industry supersectors—goods-producing and service providing. In our sample, more persons worked in service providing industries (91.3% of workers) than in goods-producing industries (32.3% of workers). On average, those working in the goods-producing supersector during any quarter had longer employment (more quarters worked) than those working in the service providing supersector. Their mean wages were also higher. Those who worked solely in goods-producing sectors, although a smaller number, earned the highest mean wages.

Employment by Demographics

Gender

In our sample, males earned 13.5 times more than females, respectively, $60.6 million compared to $4.5 million. Males had higher average wages, although females worked more quarters. According to reported wages for those who worked at least one quarter, females also had slightly higher rates of employment than males, respectively 58.4% compared to 54.1%.

Race and Ethnicity

Black individuals had the highest unemployment rate, but other race(s) or unknown race had the lowest mean wages. Of those employed, Black persons had lower mean annual and hourly wages than other races.

Differences in Employment by Demographics

We ran linear regression to examine how differences in individuals’ characteristics may have affected length of employment (total quarters worked) after prison release (Table 3). We found that the persons more likely to have longer employment were younger than age 36, were IDOC Kewanee Life Skills Re-Entry Center participants and IDOC Adult Transition Center (ATC) participants. Kewanee is a facility for males who have one to four years left on their sentence which offers educational and job readiness services, as well as cognitive behavioral therapy. ATCs are work release centers in four facilities operated by IDOC that allow individuals to obtain employment while serving out the end of their prison sentence (20 Illinois Admin. Code § 455, 2022).

Table 3

Linear Regression of Characteristics of Sample and Length of Employment

Table3

Note. Full sample was 4,430 persons who exited an Illinois prison in 2018. Data sources were Illinois Department of Corrections and Illinois Department of Employment Security. Kewanee is IDOC’s Life Skills Re-Entry Center; ATC is IDOC’s Adult Transition Centers. CI = confidence interval;LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. *p < .05. **p < .01.

We also ran linear regression to examine likely effects of individuals’ characteristics on wages earned following release from prison (Table 4). We found that White individuals were more likely to have higher wages than those of other races. Additionally, participants in IDOC Kewanee Life Skills Re-Entry Center and IDOC ATCs were more likely to have higher wages than non-participants.

Table 4

Linear Regression of Characteristics of Sample and Wages

Table4

Note. Full sample was 4,430 persons who exited an Illinois prison in 2018. Data sources were Illinois Department of Corrections and Illinois Department of Employment Security. Kewanee is IDOC’s Life Skills Re-Entry Center; ATC is IDOC’s Adult Transition Centers. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion of Key Findings

Formerly Incarcerated Had High Unemployment

Following release from prison people in the sample had a relatively high unemployment rate of 45.5%. This rate was higher than both the state rate and rates found in prior studies.[7] A possible explanation is that COVID-19 affected rates of employment/unemployment in the United States beginning in early 2020.[8] At present, however, the United States is experiencing a lower unemployment rate than when COVID-19 took hold in 2020.[9] This increased demand for workers could potentially benefit the formerly incarcerated. As prior research has indicated, ex-prisoners and their employment have been sensitive to labor market conditions and job availability upon release.[10]

Individuals Had Relatively Low Earnings Post-Release

The average income for those employed in our sample was $8,998 annually, which is lower than the 2021 individual federal poverty level.[11] Low earnings for formerly incarcerated persons have been found in prior studies.[12] In our sample, the hourly rate, as calculated by our team, was $10.42 per hour, which was lower than the state of Illinois rate of $11.[13] Other researchers have also found low hourly rates.[14] In addition, findings from prior studies have led researchers to conclude that employment is vital to meet basic needs and to lower recidivism for the formerly incarcerated.[15] Coupled with such findings our evidence indicates a need for increased in-prison educational and vocational programming along with a reduction in socially held stigma and unnecessary background checks.[16]

Persons who Were Black Experienced Lower Employment and Wages Than Those of Other Races

In our study a higher proportion of Black persons than persons of other races were unemployed. They also had lower wages after release. Such disparities have been found in prior literature.[17] Prior literature also has indicated that challenges to employment following prison were greater for Black persons[18] due in part to a lack of employment opportunities,[19] Therefore, there is a need for investment in prisoner reentry and support services.[20]

Women Worked More but Earned Lower Wages

Following prison, women in our sample were slightly more likely to be employed than men, but they earned less. This finding is consistent with prior research into women’s employment after incarceration.[21] Researchers have found, for example, that formerly incarcerated women and men encountered similar barriers to post-release employment, such as a lack of education and job skills and overall limited career opportunities. However, in this study, women had very different experiences and responsibilities both prior to incarceration and after release. Women had much higher rates of prior physical or emotional abuse, which can create obstacles to employment and contribute to their having to live in poverty. In addition, since formerly incarcerated women were more likely than men to be primary caretakers for minor children, they faced this additional obstacle to post-release employment.[22] As one government report advised, women should be supported to find employment, learn skills, and gain other supports, such as childcare.[23] For women in the IDOC system only one work release center is available. This center has demonstrated success in improving employment outcomes for women post-release, thereby suggesting the need for and feasibility of its potential expansion.[24]

More Employment and Higher Pay in Certain Sectors

The Bureau of Labor Statistics categorizes work into two supersectors: service providing and goods-producing. Of the people in our sample who were employed, over 91% were employed in the service providing supersector as opposed to 32% in the goods-producing supersector. (Some persons worked more than one job across supersectors during the time period studied.) Of those working in the service providing supersector, the largest proportion—over one-third—worked in the “administrative support and waste management and remediation services” sector. During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, this sector had a sharp decline, which may have affected, or continue to affect, formerly incarcerated workers.[25] Although typically offering low wages, jobs in this sector can be attained by those with limited skills; and employees in this sector are projected to remain in demand.[26] Overall, the overarching service providing supersector employed a large majority of our sample but those who worked in the goods-producing supersector worked longer and had higher wages. Goods-producing industries include agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; mining; construction; and manufacturing. The highest earnings for our sample were in educational services followed by manufacturing, construction, management, and wholesale trade. Again, considering current low unemployment and high demand for workers within the goods-producing fields, employers may be extra willing to hire formerly incarcerated persons.[27] Job training prior to or after release can help the formerly incarcerated obtain promotions and higher wages[28] and could orient them towards sectors which demonstrate a willingness to both hire and pay well.

IDOC Supportive Programs were Associated with Better Employment Outcomes

We found that participants in IDOC Kewanee Life Skills Re-Entry Center and IDOC ATCs were more likely to have longer employment and higher wages post-release. Prior research on similar work release programs has revealed positive outcomes for participants, such as increased employment and hours worked. This finding suggests that these programs are viable substitutes for traditional correctional programming and ought to be expanded if resources allow.[29] Further research should be conducted to best determine their potential for aiding in successful reentry.

Conclusion

Our sample of 4,430 persons released from IDOC in 2018 had high unemployment and low earnings when tracked through 2021. We found additional employment and wage disparities for Black persons and women. The largest proportion of workers, nearly one-third, worked in administrative support and waste management and remediation services. Those working in the education sector made the highest wages. Those who worked in goods-producing industries rather than service industries had higher wages and longer lengths of employment. Based on our findings, the state as well as local communities should invest in reentry support. Fortunately, the state is experiencing low unemployment and a demand for workers, so this may be a timely opportunity to assist formerly incarcerated individuals with job attainment. Jobs will help them pay for basic expenses for themselves and their families as well as reduce recidivism and taxpayer costs.

  1. Illinois Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Prison exit data sets. https://idoc.illinois.gov/reportsandstatistics/prison-exit-data-sets.html ↩︎

  2. Berger-Gross, A. (2022). The impact of post-release employment on recidivism in North Carolina. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4083166; Flatt, C., & Jacobs, R. L. (2018). The relationship between participation in different types of training programs and gainful employment for formerly incarcerated individuals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(3), 263-286. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21325; Nally, J. M., Lockwood, S., Ho, T., & Knutson, K. (2014). Post-release recidivism and employment among different types of released offenders: A 5-year follow-up study in the United States. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 9(1), 16. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d7311771e99ea02417ca97fc3d9b8891e87b7347; Yang, C. S. (2017). Local labor markets and criminal recidivism. Journal of Public Economics, 147, 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.12.003 ↩︎

  3. Pogrebin, M., West-Smith, M., Walker, A., & Unnithan, N. P. (2014). Employment isn’t enough: Financial obstacles experienced by ex-prisoners during the reentry process. Criminal Justice Review, 39, 394-410. http://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57929-4_7 ↩︎

  4. Looney, A., & Turner, N. (2018). Work and opportunity before and after incarceration. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/es_20180314_looneyincarceration_final.pdf ↩︎

  5. Pew Charitable Trusts. (2010). Collateral costs: Incarceration’s effect on economic mobility. https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2010/collateralcosts1pdf.pdf; Western, B., & Sirois, C. (2019). Racialized re-entry: Labor market inequality after incarceration. Social Forces, 97(4), 1517-1542. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy096 ↩︎

  6. Carson, E. A., Sandler, D. H., Bhaskar, R., Fernandez, L. E., & Porter, S. R. (2021). Employment of persons released from federal prison in 2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/eprfp10.pdf; Couloute, L., & Kopf, D. (2018). Out of prison & out of work: Unemployment among formerly incarcerated people. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html ↩︎

  7. Couloute, L., & Kopf, D. (2018). Out of prison & out of work: Unemployment among formerly incarcerated people. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Economy at a glance: Illinois. https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.il.htm ↩︎

  8. U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. (2021). Unemployment rises in 2020, as country battles the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/unemployment-rises-in-2020-as-the-country-battles-the-covid-19-pandemic.htm#:~:text=Total civilian employment fell by,on the U.S. labor market ↩︎

  9. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023, April 7). The employment situation—March 2032. [News release]. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf ↩︎

  10. Schnepel, K. T. (2018). Good jobs and recidivism. The Economic Journal, 128(608), 447-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12415; Yang, C. S. (2017). Local labor markets and criminal recidivism. Journal of Public Economics, 147, 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.12.003 ↩︎

  11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). 2023 poverty guidelines. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines) ↩︎

  12. Looney, A., & Turner, N. (2018). Work and opportunity before and after incarceration. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/es_20180314_looneyincarceration_final.pdf, 2018; Western, 2018 ↩︎

  13. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Industries at a glance: Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services: NAIC 56. https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag56.htm ↩︎

  14. Visher, C., Debus, S., & Yahner, J. (2008). Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of releasees in three states. The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/32106/411778-Employment-after-Prison-A-Longitudinal-Study-of-Releasees-in-Three-States.PDF ↩︎

  15. Flatt, C., & Jacobs, R. L. (2018). The relationship between participation in different types of training programs and gainful employment for formerly incarcerated individuals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(3), 263-286. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21325; Nally, J. M., Lockwood, S., Ho, T., & Knutson, K. (2014). Post-release recidivism and employment among different types of released offenders: A 5-year follow-up study in the United States. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 9(1), 16. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d7311771e99ea02417ca97fc3d9b8891e87b7347; Yang, C. S. (2017). Local labor markets and criminal recidivism. Journal of Public Economics, 147, 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.12.003 ↩︎

  16. Finlay, K. (2009). Effect of employer access to criminal history data on the labor market outcomes of ex-offenders and non-offenders. In D. Autor (Ed.), Studies of Labor Market Intermediation. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.3386/w13935 ↩︎

  17. Pew Charitable Trusts. (2010). Collateral costs: Incarceration’s effect on economic mobility. https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2010/collateralcosts1pdf.pdf; Western, B., & Sirois, C. (2019). Racialized re-entry: Labor market inequality after incarceration. Social Forces, 97(4), 1517-1542. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy096 ↩︎

  18. Pager, D., Western, B., & Sugie, N. (2009). Sequencing disadvantage: Barriers to employment facing young black and white men with criminal records. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623(1), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620833079; Wheelock, D., & Uggen, C. (2005). Race, poverty, and punishment: The impact of criminal sanctions on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequality. University of Michigan, National Poverty Center.; Western, B., & Sirois, C. (2019). Racialized re-entry: Labor market inequality after incarceration. Social Forces, 97(4), 1517-1542. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy096 ↩︎

  19. Clear, T. R., Rose, D. R., Waring, E., & Scully, K. (2003). Coercive mobility: A preliminary examination of concentrated incarceration and social disorganization. Justice Quarterly, 20(1), 33-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095451; Morenoff, J. D., & Harding, D. J. (2014). Incarceration, prisoner reentry, and communities. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 411-421. http://doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145511; Roberts, D. E. (2004). The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities. Stanford Law Review, 56(5), 1271-1306. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/583; Sampson, R. J., & Loeffler, C. (2010). Punishment’s place: The local concentration of mass incarceration. Daedalus, 139(3), 20-31. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00020 ↩︎

  20. Reichert, J. (2019). Concentrations of incarceration: Consequences of communities with high prison admissions and returns. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/concentrations-of-incarceration-consequences-of-communities-with-high-prison-admissions-and-returns; Travis, J., Solomon, A. L., & Waul, M. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/prison-home-dimensions-and-consequences-prisoner-reentry; Visher, C., & Farrell, J. (2005). Chicago communities and prisoner reentry. The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/chicago-communities-and-prisoner-reentry ↩︎

  21. Carson, E. A., Sandler, D. H., Bhaskar, R., Fernandez, L. E., & Porter, S. R. (2021). Employment of persons released from federal prison in 2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/eprfp10.pdf; Couloute, L., & Kopf, D. (2018). Out of prison & out of work: Unemployment among formerly incarcerated people. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html ↩︎

  22. Seville, M. (2008). A higher hurdle: Barriers to employment for formerly incarcerated women. Golden Gate University School of Law. https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=werc ↩︎

  23. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2020). After incarceration: A guide to helping women reenter the community. Publication No. PEP20-05-01-001. Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs. https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep20-05-01-001.pdf ↩︎

  24. Jung, H., & LaLonde, R. J. (2019). Prison work-release programs and incarcerated women’s labor market outcomes. Prison Journal: An International Forum on Incarceration and Alternative Sanctions, 99(5), 535-558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519875009 ↩︎

  25. U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. (2021). Unemployment rises in 2020, as country battles the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/unemployment-rises-in-2020-as-the-country-battles-the-covid-19-pandemic.htm#:~:text=Total civilian employment fell by,on the U.S. labor market ↩︎

  26. Illinois Department of Employment Security. (n.d.). Employment projections. https://ides.illinois.gov/resources/labor-market-information/employment-projections.html ↩︎

  27. James, K. (2023). How corrections departments are preparing people for in-demand careers that support America’s infrastructure. Vera. https://www.vera.org/publications/how-corrections-departments-are-preparing-people-for-in-demand-careers ↩︎

  28. James, K. (2023). How corrections departments are preparing people for in-demand careers that support America’s infrastructure. Vera. https://www.vera.org/publications/how-corrections-departments-are-preparing-people-for-in-demand-careers ↩︎

  29. Duwe, G. (2013). What works with Minnesota prisoners: A summary of the effects of correctional programming on recidivism, employment and cost avoidance. Minnesota Department of Corrections. https://mn.gov/doc/assets/What_Works_with_MN_Prisoners_July_2013_tcm1089-272845.pdf; Jung, H. (2014). Do prison work-release programs improve subsequent labor market outcomes? Evidence from the adult transition centers in Illinois. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(5), 384-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014.922158; Visher, C. A., Kachnowski, V., LaVigne, N. G., & Travis, J. (2004). Baltimore prisoners’ experiences returning home. The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/baltimore-prisoners-experiences-returning-home ↩︎