INTRODUCTION
It is well established in the scientific literature that prison inmates are, in general, less well educated and have fewer marketable job skills than the general population (Andrews and Bonta, 1994). As a result, providing youths with employment opportunities is a common strategy to discourage future delinquency and incarcerations. These strategies can be directed toward several different points in the juvenile justice continuum, including early intervention, residential intervention, and aftercare. This section concentrates on early intervention strategies that are designed as prevention programs either to divert youths from entering the juvenile justice system or to prevent youths from continuing their involvement within the system (Frey, 1999).

Over the last few years, large sums of money have been used to develop various vocational training and work experience programs for youths in high crime and high unemployment communities (Bushway and Reuter, 1998). In general, these programs are designed to increase earnings, raise self-esteem, instill a positive work ethic, bind juveniles to conventional norms, occupy idle time to decrease the opportunities for delinquency (Ploeger, 1997). These employment and vocational programs tend to take three forms, arrayed below in order of increasing expense and program intensity (Bushway and Reuter, 1998). These types of programs include the following:

• Summer work and subsidized employment. These types of programs generally last about 3 months. An excellent example is the Department of Labor's Summer Youth Employment and Training Program. It provides minimum wage jobs and some education to disadvantaged youths and school to work programs.
  
  
• Short-term training with job placement. These short-term vocational skills programs generally last 6 months and help youths find employment after graduation. A well-known example of this type of program is the Job Training and Partnership Act.
  
  
• Long-term intensive residential programs. These programs provide vocational and life skills training, general education, and job placement after graduation. The well-known JobCorps is one such program.

THEORETICAL CONTEXT
Vocational training and employment programs are intended primarily to increase earnings. A second and more important objective, however, is to improve participants' social and educational functioning (Ploeger, 1997). There are several major theoretical explanations that link employment and crime (Fagan, 1995; Uggen 1994; and Bushway and Reuter, 1998). Two of the most prominent are economic choice theory and control theory:

• Economic Choice Theory implies that individuals choose work that is more rewarding and attractive, even if that work is illegal or criminal (Ehrlich, 1973). However, education attainment plays a mitigating factor in framing that choice. In other words, if the legal labor market opportunities appear weak, a youth is less likely to make adequate investment in acquiring the human capital necessary for success in the legal labor market. Subsequently, low educational attainment puts youths at risk of frequent periods of unemployment and of achieving only low paying jobs. Consequently, bolstering vocational skills and employability theoretically provides a buffer to the drawl of the illegal labor market.
  
  
• Control Theory posits that employment exerts social control over an individual (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). On an individual level, the absence of employment leads to a breakdown of positive social bonds and increased criminal or delinquent activity. Thus, reduced future offending is not a product of an increase in employability but rather stems from an increase in opportunities for social control.

Depending on their focus, vocational training and employment programs may address several risk factors, including academic failure, alienation and rebelliousness, association with delinquent and violent peers, and low commitment to school. Protective factors enhanced can include opportunities to acquire job experience, job skills, and recognition for work performed.

EVIDENCE OF IMPACT
There have been several evaluations of major youth employment and training programs in the last decade. Bushway and Reuter (1998) reviewed the findings of 19 job training programs specifically connected to the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, most of the programs had negligible or only very modest success, suggesting that the impact of employment and vocational skills training on delinquency and protective factors is mixed.

For instance, Career Beginnings provides a combination of educational and employment services to high school students. Specifically, it targets students with average grades from economically and/or educationally disadvantaged family backgrounds who are unlikely to attend college. The program provides workshops, classes, and counseling on educational and career planning and preparation. The evaluators used a true experimental design to assess program impacts at seven sites across the United States. At each site, program applicants who met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to the experimental or control group. The results indicated that experimental youths had a significantly higher rate of college attendance at 1-year follow-up (Cave and Quint, 1990).

One of the most renown employment programs is JobCorps, a 33-year-old national training and employment program administered by the U.S. Department of Labor and delivered primarily through residential settings to economically disadvantaged young people. Participants in the program must be 16 to 24 years old, economically disadvantaged, be a high school dropout, not be on probation or parole, have no serious medical or behavioral problems, come from a disruptive background, and stay in the program for approximately 8 months. An evaluation by Mathematica Policy Research found that JobCorps substantially increased the education and training services that participants received, improved their educational attainment, and generated positive employment and earning by 3 years after random assignment (Schochet, Burghardt, and Glazerman, 2000).

Another employability program based on the JobCorps model is JOBSTART. JOBSTART provides a long-term combination of basic skills education, occupational training, support services, and job placement assistance to young, low-skilled dropouts-but at a lower level of intensity than JobCorps and in a nonresidential setting. JOBSTART was evaluated (Cave et al., 1993) at 13 sites across the United States, with eligible youths randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. At the 48-month follow-up, significantly more participants (42 percent) than controls (29 percent) had earned a GED or high school diploma. There were also significant long-term program impacts on reducing public assistance for women who did not live with their children. Finally, JOBSTART participants who had not been arrested between age 16 and entry into the program were significantly less likely to be arrested in the first year. This effect, however, disappeared in subsequent years. In summary, however, the overall program did not significantly affect earnings or employment, except during program training. A limited benefit-cost analysis showed no overall economic benefit from the program. This conclusion was not based on all program outcomes (such as criminal behavior and drug use) and may be premature, given that the net overall benefits were steadily increasing over the last 2 years of the 4-year follow-up period.

The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)is another major source of employability and vocational training programs. Bloom and colleagues (1994) evaluated the impact of the programs under this act. The programs included a diverse set of interventions for out-of-school youths between ages 16 and 21, including classroom training in occupational skills, on-the-job training, job search assistance, remedial education, and miscellaneous other services. In 16 sites, JTPA applicants were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. Thirty months later, there were no significant program impacts on earnings or employment. At 36 months after the program, however, male experimental youths who had not been arrested before were significantly more likely to be arrested. A cost-benefit analysis showed that JTPA produced greater costs than benefits.

In summary, the available evidence regarding employment and vocational skills training programs is mixed.

References

Search for Vocational/Job Training Programs