Reboot Australia
Back to Research
2026University of Western Australia

From Offender to Worker

How Employment Can Stabilise Identity Transformation in Post Prison Desistance

Linh Pham17 minute read

Written by Linh Pham, a University of Western Australia student, during a work-integrated learning placement at Reboot Australia.

Summary

Work is promoted as the cornerstone of reintegration, yet people leaving prison often cycle through insecure, low-status jobs that do little to keep them out of prison. This paper argues that employment supports desistance mainly by changing who a person understands themselves to be, more than through income or routine alone. Drawing on narrative identity, cognitive transformation and social bond theory, it sets out five ways work builds a new identity (a working role, meaning and purpose, social recognition, routine and workplace networks) and five structural reasons the change so often fails, from insecure work and record checks to fragmented services and a lack of steady relationships. It compares transitional employment, social enterprise, employer partnership and identity-focused programs, and closes with six recommendations for reintegration programs and four for Reboot Australia, including a stream designed for women.

Key points

  • A job supports desistance mainly through identity: it helps when a person can build, live out and have others recognise a self that is not defined by their record.
  • When that change fails, the causes are structural: insecure work, exclusion from the labour market, record checks, fragmented services and too few steady relationships.
  • No single program model delivers access, relationships and a changed identity together, so effective reintegration combines them rather than backing one.
  • Programs should treat a changed sense of self as an objective in its own right, through structured reflection in mentoring and workplaces that recognise people as workers.
  • Women's reintegration needs a stream of its own: trauma-informed, and alert to the licensing rules that close care and community work to many women.

This page carries the paper's introduction and conclusion. The full paper, with the theory, the five ways work changes identity, the comparison of program models and all ten recommendations, is free to download.

Introduction

The Challenge of Reintegration

The truth is: most people in prison will return back to community. Proper reintegration therefore becomes one of the most crucial concerns for modern criminal justice systems (Borzycki & Baldry, 2003). Despite this importance, reintegration outcomes have been concerningly consistent across various jurisdictions. Internationally, recidivism remains high; at least one in five persons released from custody reoffends within two years (Yukhnenko et al., 2023). Australian statistics reflect similar patterns, with close to 60% of the prisoner population having a recorded history of prior adult imprisonment (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2025). As of June 2025, Australia held approximately 47,000 people in custody, a figure that has steadily grown over the preceding decade (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2025). These figures indicate not just individual failures, but systemic challenges with re-entry, reflecting the many steep challenges individuals face after imprisonment as they try to rebuild their lives.

Formally incarcerated individuals face intense social scrutiny and economic marginalisation following release. A conviction record functions as a lingering scarlet letter, restricting access to employment, housing, and social support (Keene et al., 2018; Murphy et al., 2011). The latest report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on the health of people in Australian prisons found that 48% of prisoners expected to be homeless upon release, 46% were unemployed before entering custody, and 61% had been unable to secure paid employment prior to release. The report also estimated that approximately 80% would rely on government support payments such as Centrelink after release (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2023). Stigma, in this context, operates as a dominant societal mechanism that controls opportunities for reconstruction of self and acceptance by community (Goffman, 2009; Wickert, 2025). Various legal conditions, such as criminal record checks, further reinforce these markers of stigma after release (Baldry et al., 2025; Scher et al., 2023). These "collateral consequences" of conviction produce persistent social and economic disadvantages that place people in structurally precarious positions that persist long after release and undermine their attempts at successful reintegration (McElhattan, 2022; Pinard, 2010; Travis, 2001). These structural disadvantages are not uniformly distributed. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people comprise approximately 37% of Australia's prison population despite representing around 3.8% of the general population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2025; Australian Human Rights Commission, 2025), meaning that the collateral consequences of conviction fall with particular force on a population already navigating compounded systemic disadvantage.

Community safety concerns emerge alongside individual-level harms as a result of these reintegration failures. Sustained exclusion heightens the likelihood of persistent offending (Visher & Travis, 2003). The Sentencing Advisory Council found that 43% of prisoners released nationally in 2021-22, returned to prison within two years (Sentencing Advisory Council, 2025). Research has consistently shown that stable social bonds, especially familial bonds and those developed through work, are among the most critical protective factors against reoffending (Sampson & Laub, 1995).

Historically, risk management and post-release supervision have dominated criminal justice responses, crowding out attention to long-term social reintegration (Lattimore, 2022). Many Australians jurisdictions prioritise a criminogenic needs model, based off the Risk-Needs-Responsivity model. At approximately $160,000 per prisoner per year, the fiscal cost of this approach is substantial (Schlicht, 2025). However, its failure to produce durable reintegration outcomes means that cost is paid repeatedly for the same individuals cycling through custody. While effective as short-term risk mitigation, these approaches fail to resolve the structural barriers to desistance (Farrall, 2022; Lattimore, 2022). Work has been long recognised as a vital means by which formerly incarcerated people restore stability and reintegrate into society (Anazodo et al., 2025). This makes understanding why employment holds such significance in desistance scholarship both theoretically and practically essential.

Why Employment Matters After Prison

Extensive research indicates that access to stable employment is associated with lower rates of reoffending and more favourable post-release outcomes (Ollerton et al., 2024; Petersilia, 2003; Travis, 2001). Employment provides financial independence, decreasing reliance on illicit income, while establishing routine and enabling engagement with pro-social institutions. (Ramakers et al., 2017). For these reasons, employment has been prominently featured in re-entry policy and practice, frequently positioned as an effective stabilising force in the immediate post-release period.

Traditional explanations of this relationship emphasise instrumental and situational effects. From a routine activity perspective, work reduces opportunities for offending by structuring time and limiting exposure to criminogenic environments (Apel & Horney, 2017; Ungvarsky, 2024). Economic theories similarly hold that employment raises the opportunity costs of crime by providing legitimate income (Becker, 1968). While persuasive, they only account for part of the story.

Employment also fosters social integration. Life-course research identifies stable employment as a significant “turning point”, capable of enhancing social cohesion and strengthening informal social control (Sampson & Laub, 1995). Through workplace interactions and organisational expectations, pro-social networks can develop promoting broader conformity to societal norms.

These explanations are nonetheless incomplete. Empirical evidence indicates that many formerly incarcerated individuals experience precarious employment characterised by short-term roles, low wages, and limited advancement (Sheppard & Ricciardelli, 2020). Such conditions often fail to sustain desistance, suggesting that employment alone, may not be sufficient. Structural barriers, such as employer discrimination, criminal record stigma, and restrictions on licensed occupations, amplify these challenges (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012). Audit studies conducted by Devah Pager illustrate that a criminal record significantly reduces callback rates even among otherwise qualified candidates, underscoring how exclusion persists regardless of individual effort.

These limitations highlight a broader concern: employment does not consistently lead to desistance. Its effectiveness is dependent on access to work, as well as the quality, purpose, and social recognition the work provides. Contemporary desistance research continues to suggest that employment’s most significant contribution lies in its capacity to support a shift in self-concept (Farrall et al., 2011; Rocque et al., 2016). Lasting desistance requires individuals to reconstruct who they are and develop identities that are incompatible with continued offending (Ahmed et al., 2026; Low, 2025). From this perspective, employment is both a source of income and routine, and a socially structured environment in which a new sense of self can be formed, performed, and recognised by society.

This reframing carries important theoretical and practical implications. If employment primarily supports desistance through the transformation of self, then the central question becomes how employment experiences enable the construction and stabilisation of a worker identity over time. This requires attention to the mechanisms through which work provides meaning, reinforces pro-social roles, and generates recognition from others, as well as the structural conditions that may undermine these processes.

The Identity Dimension of Desistance

Contemporary criminological research increasingly recognises that desistance cannot be adequately explained as a simple cessation of offending (Sampson & Laub, 2001). While earlier frameworks emphasised external controls such as deterrence, supervision, and the restriction of criminal opportunities, more recent scholarship has shifted attention towards the internal, subjective dimensions of change. In this view, desistance is best understood as a process in which individuals reconstruct their sense of self in ways that render continued offending incompatible with who they perceive themselves to be.

Shadd Maruna’s work on narrative identity argues that those who successfully desist develop “redemption scripts” through which they reinterpret their past offending as part of a broader moral trajectory (Maruna, 2001). Rather than denying their past, individuals recast it as a prelude to a reformed and socially constructive future. This narrative reconstruction facilitates the development of a cohesive, pro-social self-concept focused on generativity, responsibility, and contribution. Desistance, therefore, involves not merely behavioural restraint but the creation of a new sense of self in which crime no longer fits.

Complementing this narrative approach, Peggy Giordano and colleagues conceptualise desistance as a process of cognitive transformation, emphasising the role of “hooks for change”. These refer to external opportunities or experiences that prompt individuals to envision alternative futures and identities (Giordano et al., 2002). These hooks may include relationships, parenthood, or employment, but their significance lies not in their structural properties alone; they become effective only when individuals are open to change and able to reinterpret these opportunities as pathways to a different self. The process therefore emerges through the interaction between subjective readiness and social opportunity, a dynamic that becomes central to understanding how employment functions in reintegration.

Life-course perspectives further underscore the importance of social roles in this process. Sampson and Laub’s work on turning points suggest that stable employment reorganises routine activities, strengthens social bonds, and increases stakes in conformity (Sampson & Laub, 1995; Toby, 1957). More than behavioural constraints, however, these turning points are significant because they enable the assumption of a socially acknowledged role. Having a job allows a person to occupy the position of worker, conferring a legitimate and socially valued identity.

It is important to note that transformation is not solely internal. Desistance is fundamentally relational: it requires recognition and validation from others (Nugent & Schinkel, 2016; Weaver, 2013). A pro-social identity must be enacted in social contexts that give it meaning and affirm its legitimacy. Without this recognition, the emerging self remains fragile and contested, which is a particularly acute problem for people returning from incarceration, who must assert a new identity in social environments that continue to define them by their criminal past (Weaver & McNeill, 2015).

Stigma and labelling theories further illuminate these constraints. Goffman’s concept of “spoiled identity” and subsequent work on deviant labelling show how criminal records can foreclose access to conventional roles and undermine attempts to construct a new sense of self (Goffman, 2009). The transition from “offender” to “worker” is therefore not simply a matter of personal will; is contingent on broader social and institutional conditions that either enable or deny that transition.

Taken together, this suggests that employment plays a uniquely significant role in the desistance, not only as a source of income or routine, but as a site where a new self can be performed, reinforced, and socially recognised. As the following section argues, however, the capacity of employment to sustain this process is frequently undermined by structural conditions within the labour market. Understanding how employment both enables and constrains this shift in self-concept is therefore central to explaining why reintegration so often fails and how it might be improved.

The Central Problem

Despite significant research identifying employment as central to desistance, its effects are neither uniform nor enduring. Studies of prisoner re-entry consistently show that employment secured shortly after release tends to be short-lived and low-paid, with high job turnover within the first 12 months (Bunting et al., 2019; Sheppard & Ricciardelli, 2020). These unstable trajectories cannot be attributed to individual failing alone, as they reflect deeper systemic patterns of labour market exclusion, in which criminal records act as persistent markers of stigma. Experimental evidence confirms that applicants with prior convictions face significantly reduced employment opportunities, even when equally qualified (Pager, 2003). Such exclusions are further compounded by background checks and licensing restrictions that limit access to stable, meaningful work.

Theoretically, these factors present a significant challenge to current desistance scholarship. Research on identity transformation emphasises its fragile and socially contingent nature, which is highly dependent on internal cognitive shifts, external validation, and opportunities to enact new social roles (Giordano, 2022; Maruna, 2001; Paternoster et al., 2016). Employment has been consistently identified as a critical “hook for change,” offering a pathway from an “offender” identity to a socially recognised “worker” identity (Giordano et al., 2002). However, where work is unstable or marginal, it will be unlikely to provide the continuity and recognition necessary to consolidate this shift in identity (Ahmed et al., 2026; Li, 2026). Labour market experiences are therefore not purely economic; they are deeply symbolic, shaping whether a person can sustain a credible non-offending perception of self over time (Visher & Travis, 2003).

This gives rise to a central paradox. Employment is widely promoted as a cornerstone of reintegration, yet the structural conditions under which it must be accessed often undermine its capacity to support desistance in the long term. Existing research has tended to define employment’s value by its surface level impacts (as a source of income or routine) while giving comparatively less attention to the mechanisms through which work facilitates a positive shift in self-concept, and the conditions under which this shift can be stabilised over time. To address this gap, a more integrated account of employment, identity, and institutional context is required. This study examines how employment supports the transition from offender to worker, the processes facilitating this change during reintegration, and the structural barriers that may destabilise it.

Research Questions

The preceding sections have established that employment’s capacity to support desistance depends not on access alone, but on whether it can sustain a meaningful shift in self-concept, and that structural exclusion frequently prevents this. What remains underexplored is how this process unfolds in practice, and under what institutional conditions it can be sustained.

This gap is significant because employment is often treated as an instrumental intervention, focused on income generation and risk reduction, rather than as a potential catalyst for identity reconstruction. Yet, if desistance can be understood as a process of “becoming” rather than simply ceasing, employment must be reconsidered in terms of how it enables formerly incarcerated individuals to construct and reinforce a non-offending identity (Weaver & McNeill, 2015).

This paper therefore addresses the following primary research question: How does employment support identity transformation from “offender” to “worker,” and what institutional conditions enable this transformation to stabilise during the reintegration process?

To address this central question, the paper is structured around several interrelated lines of inquiry.

First, it examines the mechanisms through which employment contributes to desistance, including routine activity, social bonding, and opportunities for identity performance, and analysing how these may support sustained behavioural change.

Second, it analyses the structural and institutional barriers that can destabilise an emerging worker identity, including labour market exclusion, criminal record stigma, and precarious employment, and considering why these cause identity transformation to often fail.

Third, it explores the process of self-narrative reconstruction during reintegration, examining how individuals negotiate the transition from “offender” to “worker,” the role of social recognition in anchoring that shift, and the conditions required for it to hold.

Finally, it considers the implications for reintegration policy and practice, examining how employment programs, including those implemented by Reboot Australia, can be designed to intentionally support identity reconstruction alongside job placement outcomes.

Together, these lines of inquiry seek to move beyond a narrow view of employment as a risk-management tool, reconceptualising it as a central mechanism through which sustained desistance can be achieved.

Significance of the study

This study contributes to existing criminological scholarship by bridging two bodies of work that have largely developed in parallel: desistance research, which emphasises the role of identity transformation, and re-entry scholarship which documents the importance of employment in reducing recidivism. By conceptualising employment as a site of identity reconstruction through which individuals transition to a socially recognised worker identity, this study attempts to connect these literatures in a theoretically coherent way.

In doing so, the research makes three key contributions: it extends identity-based desistance theory into institutional contexts, examining how the process of self-reconstruction is shaped and constrained by labour market conditions; it explains why employment often fails to support long-term desistance on its own, demonstrating how stigma, precarity, and exclusion can destabilise an emerging worker identity; and it draws practical implications for program design, identifying current and future reintegration initiatives, including those delivered by Reboot Australia.

By reframing employment as an identity-building process rather than a purely economic outcome, this study aims to provide a more nuanced account of reintegration and to identify the institutional supports necessary for desistance to hold.

Conclusion

This paper began with a paradox: employment is widely promoted as a cornerstone of reintegration, yet the structural conditions under which it must be accessed frequently undermine its capacity to support the sustained behavioural change it is theorised to enable. Recidivism rates remain stubbornly high across jurisdictions, and formerly incarcerated individuals disproportionately cycle through precarious, unstable, and low-status labour market positions that fail to produce the stability and recognition desistance requires (Bunting et al., 2019; Sheppard & Ricciardelli, 2020; Yukhnenko et al., 2023). The central question this paper addressed was why and what a more adequate theoretical and practical account of employment’s role in desistance would look like.

The answer developed across this paper is that employment supports desistance primarily through identity transformation rather than through income generation, routine imposition, or informal social control alone. Drawing on narrative identity theory, cognitive transformation theory, social bond theory, and the relational desistance framework, this paper demonstrated that the mechanisms through which employment contributes to sustained behavioural change, such as role identity formation, the generation of meaning and purpose, social recognition, routine internalisation, and workplace network development, all depend on the same underlying condition. Employment enables individuals to construct, perform, and have socially affirmed a non-offending sense of self. Where that condition is not met, employment does not reliably produce desistance, regardless of how stable or well-remunerated the work is.

The analysis of why identity transformation so frequently fails added specificity to this account. Employment instability, labour market exclusion, institutional fragmentation, criminal record stigma, and the absence of relational support are not incidental barriers but structural conditions that systematically deny individuals access to the social roles, relational recognition, and institutional continuity that identity change requires. These conditions are not produced by individual deficits but by the architecture of labour markets, regulatory frameworks, and service delivery systems that were not designed with reintegration in mind and that in many cases actively reproduce the offender identity they are nominally trying to help individuals leave behind (Hatzenbuehler, 2016). Understanding desistance failure as structural rather than individual is not merely a theoretical position, as it has direct implications for how reintegration programs are designed, funded, and evaluated.

The examination of existing program models confirmed that employment’s transformative potential is most fully realised when programs explicitly integrate structural access, relational quality, and identity-oriented design. Transitional employment programs produce meaningful short-term stabilisation but do not reliably consolidate identity change (Redcross et al., 2012). Social enterprise models address the relational dimension but risk creating protected environments that do not translate into mainstream labour market participation (Oswald, 2025). Employer partnership programs address structural exclusion but depend on employment quality and post-placement support to activate identity transformation. Identity-focused programs, most clearly illustrated by Women and Mentoring and Delancey Street Foundation, come closest to the theoretical ideal, but remain rare, small-scale, and incompletely evaluated (Clapp & Rosauer, 2021; Delancey Street Foundation, n.d.). No single existing model delivers all three conditions simultaneously, which is itself a finding with policy implications: effective reintegration requires integration across these models rather than investment in any one approach.

The six recommendations for reintegration programs broadly, and the four recommendations for Reboot Australia specifically, translate these findings into actionable program design principles. Across both sets of recommendations, a consistent logic emerges. Employment is most effective as a desistance mechanism when it is embedded within sustained relational support, when institutions and employers actively recognise rather than merely tolerate participants as legitimate workers, and when individuals are given structured opportunities to make sense of their experiences as evidence of who they are becoming rather than simply what they are doing. These are not expensive or structurally radical additions to existing programs. They are, however, additions that require reintegration organisations to be deliberate rather than incidental about identity. They must treat self-concept change as a program objective rather than an assumed by-product of employment access.

Reboot Australia exemplifies the direction this paper has argued for. Its institutional refusal to use offender-related language, its throughcare commitment to sustaining relational support across the most vulnerable transition period, and its treatment of employer relationships as long-term organisational assets rather than transactional placements all reflect a genuine alignment with desistance scholarship that is uncommon in the sector (Reboot Australia, n.d.). The recommendations offered here; to formalise and name this alignment as an explicit program philosophy, to embed structured identity reflection within mentoring, to extend employer engagement into the relational quality of workplaces, and to develop a gender-responsive stream for women; are not proposals to transform what Reboot does but to deepen its intentionality and extend its reach. The planned expansion into women’s prisons is the most significant of these, bringing Reboot’s model to a population for whom identity-oriented, relationally grounded reintegration support is both underrepresented in current provision and strongly supported by the evidence base (Baldry et al., 2018; Clapp & Rosauer, 2021; Low, 2025; Weaver & McNeill, 2015).

This paper makes three contributions to existing scholarship. It extends identity-based accounts of desistance into institutional contexts, examining how the mechanisms of identity transformation are shaped and constrained by labour market conditions and program design rather than unfolding purely within individuals. It explains why employment so frequently fails to produce the desistance outcomes it is theorised to enable, demonstrating that structural stigma, institutional fragmentation, and the absence of relational support are not peripheral complications but central determinants of whether employment’s identity-transformative potential is realised. And it translates these theoretical insights into concrete design principles for reintegration programs, identifying the conditions under which employment can reliably function as a mechanism of sustained desistance rather than a temporary behavioural intervention.

Several limitations of this analysis should be acknowledged. The framework developed here draws primarily on qualitative and theoretical desistance scholarship, and the causal mechanisms linking employment quality, identity transformation, and desistance outcomes remain incompletely specified in the quantitative literature. The program examples examined are largely self-reported in their outcomes, and the rigorous longitudinal evaluation of identity-focused reintegration models remains underdeveloped (Farrall, 2022; LeBel et al., 2008). The analysis also necessarily generalises across a population whose experiences of reintegration are shaped by intersecting factors of race, gender, socioeconomic position and the nature of prior offending. Therefore a single theoretical framework cannot fully capture the full scope across the entire incarcerated population. These limitations point toward the most important directions for future research: longitudinal evaluation of identity-focused program models, including those delivered by Reboot Australia; mixed-method studies that track the relationship between employment quality, self-concept change, and desistance over time; and research specifically examining the gendered dimensions of employment-based identity transformation as women’s reintegration programs are developed and scaled (Baldry et al., 2018; Low, 2025).

Ultimately, this paper’s argument is both theoretical and moral. The evidence is clear that currently designed reintegration systems ask individuals to construct new identities within institutional environments that systematically undermine that construction. This denies access to stable employment, reproducing stigma within workplaces, fragmenting the support that identity consolidation requires, and measuring success in ways that capture placement rather than transformation. Changing this requires not only better program design but a genuine commitment to treating formerly incarcerated individuals as people in the process of becoming rather than risks to be managed. Employment is among the most powerful mechanisms available for enabling that process. Using it deliberately, relationally, and with sustained attention to the conditions under which identity change is possible is among the most important things reintegration programs can do.

In the full paper

  1. Introduction: The Challenge of Reintegration; Why Employment Matters After Prison; The Identity Dimension of Desistance; The Central Problem; Research Questions; Significance of the study
  2. Theoretical Foundations: Desistance Theory; Narrative Identity Theory; Cognitive Transformation Theory; Social Bond Theory and Turning Points; Stigma, Labelling, and Structural Exclusion
  3. Employment as a Mechanism of Identity Transformation: Role Identity Formation; Meaning and Purpose; Social Recognition; Routine and Structure; Workplace Social Networks
  4. Why Identity Transformation Often Fails: Employment Instability; Labour Market Exclusion; Institutional Fragmentation; Criminal Record Stigma; Lack of Relational Support
  5. Existing Reintegration Programs: Transitional Employment Programs; Social Enterprise Employment; Employer Partnership Programs; Identity-Focused Employment Programs; Comparative Synthesis
  6. Implications for Reintegration Programs: Designing Identity-Focused Employment Pathways; Strengthening Employer Partnerships; Expanding Mentoring Programs; Supporting Workplace Integration; Addressing Structural Barriers
  7. Recommendations for Reintegration Programs (Broadly): Recommendation 1 – Embed Identity Development in Employment Program; Recommendation 2 - Provide Structured Post-Placement Mentoring; Recommendation 3 - Develop Long-Term Employer Partnerships; Recommendation 4 - Promote Identity-Affirming Workplace Practices; Recommendation 5 - Advocate for Structural Reforms that Reduce Labour Market Stigma; Recommendation 6 - Provide Integrated Support to Reduce Institutional Fragmentation
  8. Recommendations for Reboot Australia: Recommendation 1 – Formalise Identity-Oriented Program Framing; Recommendation 2 – Formalise Structured Identity Reflection within Mentoring; Recommendation 3 – Extend Employer Engagement to Include Workplace Integration Support; Recommendation 4 – Develop a Gendered Reintegration Stream for Women; Synthesis
  9. Conclusion

Read the full paper

From Offender to Worker: How Employment Can Stabilise Identity Transformation in Post Prison Desistance. Linh Pham, 2026 (PDF, 128 pages).

APA reference

Pham, L. (2026). From offender to worker: How employment can stabilise identity transformation in post prison desistance [Research paper]. University of Western Australia and Reboot Australia.

References (192)
  1. Abo, M. G., Salomon-Amend, M., Guerrero, M., & Jason, L. A. (2022). Life after incarceration: The impact of stability on formerly imprisoned Oxford House residents. J Prev Interv Community, 50(2), 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2021.1934939
  2. Academy to Innovate HR. (n.d.). Transitional Employment. https://www.aihr.com/hr-glossary/transitional-employment/
  3. Ahmed, W., Liu, C., Suleman, R. M. F., Mahmood, R., & Mahmood, S. (2026). Work, Identity, and Desistance: A Narrative Analysis of Justice-Involved Youth Through Desistance Theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 53(1), 40-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548251368352
  4. An, J., Zhu, X., Shi, Z., & An, J. (2024). A serial mediating effect of perceived family support on psychological well-being. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 940. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18476-z
  5. Anazodo, K. S., Ricciardelli, R. R., Budworth, M.-H., & Chan, C. (2025). Identity work and stigma: Understanding job seeking for people formerly in prison. Probation Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505251379039
  6. Anazodo, K. S., Young, N. C. J., Griffith, J. N., Chan, C., Ricciardelli, R. R., Rade, C. B., Ali, A. A., Cook, H., & Ahmadi, R. (2026). The overlooked workforce: Harnessing the talent of people with criminal histories. Organizational Dynamics, 55(1), 101196. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2025.101196
  7. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model:Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735-755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811406356
  8. Apel, R., & Horney, J. (2017). How and why does work matter? Employment conditions, routine activities, and crime among adult male offenders. Criminology, 55(2), 307-343. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12134
  9. Augustine, D., Zatz, N. D., & Sugie, N. (2020). Why Do Employers Discriminate Against People With Records? Stigma and the Case for Ban the Box. https://irle.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Criminal-Records-Final-6.pdf
  10. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2025, December 11). Prisoners in Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/prisoners-australia/latest-release
  11. Australian Federal Police. (n.d.). Spent conviction laws & police checks. https://www.afp.gov.au/our-services/national-police-checks/spent-convictions-laws-police-checks
  12. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2012, December 14). Human Rights: Discrimination in Employment on Basis of Criminal Record. https://humanrights.gov.au/resource-hub/by-resource-type/guides/rights-and-freedoms/human-rights-discrimination-employment-basis-criminal-record
  13. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2025, July 2). Statistics about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. https://humanrights.gov.au/human-rights-education/stats-and-facts-about-discrimination/statistics-about-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people
  14. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2023). The health of people in Australia's prisons 2022. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/prisoners/the-health-of-people-in-australias-prisons-2022
  15. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2024). Social determinants of health. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/social-determinants-of-health
  16. Baier, S. K. (2020). Reducing employment barriers for people with criminal records. Journal of Corporation Law, 46. https://jcl.law.uiowa.edu/sites/jcl.law.uiowa.edu/files/2021-08/Baier_Final_Web.pdf
  17. Baldry, E., Bright, D., Cale, J., Day, A., Dowse, L., Giles, M., Hardcastle, L., Graffam, J., McGillivray, J., Newton, D., & Rowe, S. (2018). A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison Final Report [Final report].
  18. Baldry, E., Graffam, J., Hardcastle, L., Rowe, S., Dowse, L., Giles, M., & McGillivray, J. (2025). “Where's the Second Chance?” Compounded Stigma and Other Factors Impacting Ex-Prisoner Employment. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 64(4), 476-486. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12619
  19. Bares, K. J., Mowen, T. J., Stansfield, R., Link, N. W., & Boman, J. H. (2024). Willingness to change and coming home from prison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 95, 102283. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102283
  20. Barr, Ú. (2023). Working Together? Gendered Barriers to Employment and Desistance From Harm Amongst Criminalised English Women. Feminist Criminology, 18(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/15570851231151728
  21. Bauder, H. (2001). Culture in the labor market: Segmentation theory and perspectives of place. Progress in Human Geography - PROG HUM GEOGR, 25, 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913201672119762
  22. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1830482
  23. Becker, H. S. (1997). Outsiders: Studies in Sociology of Deviance (New edition). In: Free Press.
  24. Bersani, B. E., & Doherty, E. E. (2018). Desistance from crime: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 311-334. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092112
  25. Biscontini, T. (2023). Social bond theory. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/social-bond-theory
  26. Borzycki, M., & Baldry, E. (2003). Promoting integration: The provision of prisoner post-release services (262). (Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Issue. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi262
  27. Bosmans, K. (2023). Precarious employment, precarious life? A qualitative study exploring the perspective of temporary agency workers and their households. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 75(1), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-220095
  28. Bouffard, J. A., & Niebuhr, N. (2026). Examining the role of the social bond in the formation of violent crime intentions among incarcerated men. Journal of Criminal Justice, 104, 102640. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2026.102640
  29. Brehmer, C. E., Qin, S., Young, B. C., & Strauser, D. R. (2024). Self-stigma of incarceration and its impact on health and community integration. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 34(1), 79-93. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2326
  30. Brereton, D., & Parmenter, J. (2008). Indigenous Employment in the Australian Mining Industry. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2008.11435178
  31. Brierley, A., Best, D., Mcdermott, D., & Woodfield, R. (2025). Peer Mentors and Desistance: A Systematic Literature Review and Synthesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 52(7), 1128-1147. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241313387
  32. Bunting, A. M., Staton, M., Winston, E., & Pangburn, K. (2019). Beyond the Employment Dichotomy: An Examination of Recidivism and Days Remaining in the Community by Post-Release Employment Status. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 63(5), 712-733. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x18808685
  33. Burnett, R., & Maruna, S. (2006). The kindness of prisoners:Strengths-based resettlement in theory and in action. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6(1), 83-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895806060668
  34. Capaldi, D. M., Kerr, D. C., Eddy, J. M., & Tiberio, S. S. (2016). Understanding Persistence and Desistance in Crime and Risk Behaviors in Adulthood: Implications for Theory and Prevention. Prev Sci, 17(7), 785-793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0609-0
  35. Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO). (n.d., 2025). Center for Employment Opportunities: CEO. https://www.ceoworks.org/
  36. Clapp, C., & Rosauer, K. (2021). Women and Mentoring Evaluation. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/62b7ab77c0185857ace28264/t/62d29caca816dc133eea3b89/1657969842409/WAM-Evaluation-Report-2021-FINAL.pdf
  37. Coleman, J. S. m. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), S95-S120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243
  38. Collett, N. A. (2025). Living with the fear of disclosure: exploring post-hire experiences of people with criminal records in England and Wales. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 83, 100799. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2025.100799
  39. Copp, J. E., Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2020). Desistance from Crime during the Transition to Adulthood: The Influence of Parents, Peers, and Shifts in Identity. J Res Crime Delinq, 57(3), 294-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427819878220
  40. Corrections Victoria. (n.d.). Employing a person with a criminal record. https://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/work-with-us/employing-a-person-with-a-criminal-record
  41. Crocetti, E., Albarello, F., Meeus, W., & Rubini, M. (2023). Identities: A developmental social-psychological perspective. Eur Rev Soc Psychol, 34(1), 161-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2104987
  42. Delancey Street Foundation. (n.d.). How We Work. https://www.delanceystreetfoundation.org/hww.php
  43. Dent, H., & Ward, T. (2023). An enactive view of identity transformation: Implications for correctional rehabilitation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 69, 101810. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2022.101810
  44. Department of Education. (2017). Working with Children Check - Department of Education. https://www.education.wa.edu.au/wwc
  45. Department of Justice (WA). (2024, March 11). Rehabilitation and services: Corrective Services. https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-justice/corrective-services/rehabilitation-and-services-corrective-services
  46. DiClemente, C. C., & Crisafulli, M. A. (2022). Relapse on the Road to Recovery: Learning the Lessons of Failure on the Way to Successful Behavior Change. J Health Serv Psychol, 48(2), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42843-022-00058-5
  47. Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. (1985). Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. M. E. Sharpe Incorporated. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=a8s5YyWkaCwC
  48. Doherty, E. E., & Bersani, B. E. (2016). Understanding the Mechanisms of Desistance at the Intersection of Race, Gender, and Neighborhood Context. J Res Crime Delinq, 53(5), 681-710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816632573
  49. Doleac, J. L., & Hansen, B. (2020). The Unintended Consequences of “Ban the Box”: Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories Are Hidden. Journal of Labor Economics, 38(2), 321-374. https://doi.org/10.1086/705880
  50. Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & Dubois, D. (2008). Does Mentoring Matter? A Multidisciplinary Meta-Analysis Comparing Mentored and Non-Mentored Individuals. J Vocat Behav, 72(2), 254-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005
  51. Emmert, A. D. (2019). Doing time and the unemployment line: The impact of incarceration on ex-inmates' employment outcomes. Crime Delinq, 65(5), 705-728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128718779363
  52. Farrall, S. (2022). Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, Social Context and Desistance from Crime (Routledge, Ed. 1st ed.). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003143789
  53. Farrall, S., & Bowling, B. (1999). STRUCTURATION, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND DESISTANCE FROM CRIME. The British Journal of Criminology, 39(2), 253-268. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23637972
  54. Farrall, S., Sharpe, G., Hunter, B., & Calverley, A. (2011). Theorizing structural and individual-level processes in desistance and persistence: Outlining an integrated perspective. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 218-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865811405136
  55. Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 14-38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005
  56. Gadd, D., & Farrall, S. (2004). Criminal Careers, Desistance and Subjectivity: Interpreting Men’s Narratives of Change. Theoretical Criminology - THEOR CRIMINOL, 8, 123-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480604042241
  57. Gagné, M., Parker, S. K., Griffin, M. A., Dunlop, P. D., Knight, C., Klonek, F. E., & Parent-Rocheleau, X. (2022). Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory. Nat Rev Psychol, 1(7), 378-392. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00056-w
  58. Giddens, A. (1992). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Social forces, 71(1), 229.
  59. Giordano, P. C. (2022). Some cognitive transformations about the dynamics of desistance. Criminol Public Policy, 21(4), 787-809. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12609
  60. Giordano, Peggy C., Cernkovich, Stephen A., & Rudolph, Jennifer L. (2002). Gender, Crime, and Desistance: Toward a Theory of Cognitive Transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990-1064. https://doi.org/10.1086/343191
  61. Glavin, P., Bierman, A., & Schieman, S. (2024). Private Eyes, They See Your Every Move: Workplace Surveillance and Worker Well-Being. Soc Curr, 11(4), 327-345. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965241228874
  62. Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon and schuster.
  63. Goffman, E. (2017). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Routledge.
  64. Government of South Australia. (n.d.). Work Ready Release Ready Program. https://wds.squiz.cloud/corrections-old/about/our-research/policies-and-strategies/10-by-20-reducing-reoffending/work-ready-release-ready-program
  65. Hamby, A., Pokimica, J., Minichiello, A., Pakala, K., & Jankowski, E. (2026). Institutional Storytelling as a Catalyst for Identity Transformation and Social Change. Journal of Macromarketing, 46(1), 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/02761467261417522
  66. Harding, D. J., Wyse, J. J., Dobson, C., & Morenoff, J. D. (2014). Making Ends Meet After Prison. J Policy Anal Manage, 33(2), 440-470. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21741
  67. Hart, A., Gelb, K., & Martinovic, M. (2025). Toward a Practice Framework for Throughcare Reintegration Programs. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 69(12), 1579-1597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x231168688
  68. Hatano, K., Hihara, S., Tsuzuki, M., Nakama, R., & Sugimura, K. (2024). Does Employment Status Matter for Emerging Adult Identity Development and Life Satisfaction? A Two-wave Longitudinal Study. J Youth Adolesc, 53(9), 2097-2107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-01992-x
  69. Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2016). Structural stigma: Research evidence and implications for psychological science. Am Psychol, 71(8), 742-751. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000068
  70. Herzog, L., & Schmode, F. (2025). ‘But it’s your job!’ the moral status of jobs and the dilemma of occupational duties. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 28(2), 238-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2022.2111503
  71. Hirschi, T. (2002). Causes of Delinquency (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081649
  72. HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2020, 18 December). Desistance: General practice principles. https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/our-research/evidence-base-probation-service/models-and-principles/desistance-general-practice-principles/
  73. HM Prison & Probation Services. (2022). New Futures Network Sales 2021-22. https://cdn.websitebuilder.service.justice.gov.uk/uploads/sites/40/2023/12/New-Futures-Network-Sales-for-April-2021-to-March-2022.pdf
  74. HM Prison & Probation Services. (n.d.). Employment Hubs. https://newfuturesnetwork.gov.uk/employment-hubs/
  75. Homeboy Industries. (2024). Annual Report 2024. https://homeboyindustries.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Homeboy-Annual-Report-2024-1.pdf
  76. Homeboy Industries. (n.d.-a). Homeboy Industries. https://homeboyindustries.org/
  77. Homeboy Industries. (n.d.-b). Transformation Story - Meet Christy Stillwell. https://homeboyindustries.org/transformation_story/christy-stillwell/
  78. Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. MIT press.
  79. Hughes, C. (2004). The supervisor's influence on workplace learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/158037042000225254
  80. Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and Unemployment: A Social-Psychological Analysis. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=rCM4AAAAIAAJ
  81. Jankowski, K. Z. (2024). Positioning precarity: The contingent nature of precarious work in structure and practice. Br J Sociol, 75(5), 715-730. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13125
  82. Jansen-van Vuuren, J., Rijal, H., Bobbette, N., Lysaght, R., Krupa, T., & Aguilar, D. (2024). Exploring the Connection between Social Housing and Employment: A Scoping Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 21(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21091217
  83. Keene, D. E., Smoyer, A. B., & Blankenship, K. M. (2018). Stigma, housing and identity after prison. Sociol Rev, 66(4), 799-815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118777447
  84. Kılıç, A., & Tuysuz, M. (2024). Exploring the Challenges of Reintegrating Ex-Offenders into Society. Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics, 3, 4-11. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.3.3.2
  85. Krauss, S., & Orth, U. (2022). Work Experiences and Self-Esteem Development: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies. European Journal of Personality, 36(6), 849-869. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211027142
  86. Krishna, L. K. R., Kwok, H. Y. F., Ravindran, N., Tan, X. Y., Soh, J., Wan, D. W. J., Rajalingam, V., Lua, J. K., Leong, E. Y. M., Low, T. Y., Chan, A. W., Lim, C. J. N., Ng, Y. K., Thenpandiyan, A. A., Lim, A. Y. D., Tse, L. N., Pl, S., Rajanala, S. P., Leong, J. R.,…Ong, S. Y. K. (2024). A systematic scoping review of mentoring support on professional identity formation. BMC Med Educ, 24(1), 1380. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06357-3
  87. Lageson, S. E. (2016). Digital Punishment’s Tangled Web. Contexts, 15(1), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504216628841
  88. Lansing, A. E., Romero, N. J., Siantz, E., Silva, V., Center, K., Casteel, D., & Gilmer, T. (2023). Building trust: Leadership reflections on community empowerment and engagement in a large urban initiative. BMC Public Health, 23(1), 1252. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15860-z
  89. Lattimore, P. K. (2022). Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities. Am J Crim Justice, 47(6), 1071-1098. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09713-5
  90. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives
  91. Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1q3z28f
  92. LeBel, T. P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. (2008). The `Chicken and Egg' of Subjective and Social Factors in Desistance from Crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5(2), 131-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370807087640
  93. Legal Aid WA. (2023, August 7). Spent convictions. https://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/find-legal-answers/crime/criminal-records-and-spent-convictions/spent-convictions
  94. Lemert, E. M. C. (1972). Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. Prentice-Hall. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mWxnAAAAIAAJ
  95. Li, D. (2026). Negotiating Survival and Dignity: The Meaning of Work among People Formerly Incarcerated for Drug Offenses in China. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 0(0), 00938548261424376. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548261424376
  96. Li, Z., & Li, W. (2025). A meta-analysis of workplace exclusion on employee work behavior in the Chinese context. Front Psychol, 16, 1280074. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1280074
  97. Link, B. G. (1987). Understanding Labeling Effects in the Area of Mental Disorders: An Assessment of the Effects of Expectations of Rejection. American Sociological Review, 52(1), 96-112. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095395
  98. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing Stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363-385. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678626
  99. Link, B. G., Struening, E. L., Rahav, M., Phelan, J. C., & Nuttbrock, L. (1997). On stigma and its consequences: evidence from a longitudinal study of men with dual diagnoses of mental illness and substance abuse. J Health Soc Behav, 38(2), 177-190.
  100. Low, G. (2025). Expanding the Lens: Developments and Theoretical Limits in Desistance Research. Deviant Behavior, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2025.2541285
  101. MACFORCE Australia. (n.d.). MACFORCE Australia | Home Page. https://www.macforce.com.au/
  102. Mancino, M. A. (2025). Rehabilitating futures: Assessing the effects of correctional employment-focused programs on recidivism and employment. European Economic Review, 173, 104954. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2025.104954
  103. Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives., 6. https://doi.org/10.1037/10430-000
  104. Maruna, S., & Farrall, S. (2004). Desistance from Crime: A Theoretical Reformulation. In (pp. 171-194). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80474-7_7
  105. Maruna, S., & LeBel, T. P. (2012). The desistance paradigm in correctional practice: From programmes to lives. In Offender supervision (pp. 65-87). Willan.
  106. McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. Guilford press.
  107. McElhattan, D. (2022). Punitive ambiguity: State-level criminal record data quality in the era of widespread background screening. Punishment & Society, 24(3), 367-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474521989502
  108. McIvor, G., Trotter, C., & Sheehan, R. (2009). Women, resettlement and desistance. Probation Journal, 56(4), 347-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550509346515
  109. McMahon, G., & Jump, D. (2018). Starting to Stop: Young Offenders’ Desistance from Crime. Youth Justice, 18(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225417741223
  110. McNeill, F. (2015). Desistance and criminal justice in Scotland. In Crime, justice and society in Scotland (pp. 200-216). Routledge.
  111. Mental Health Commission (WA). (2024). Lived Experience (Peer) Workforces Framework. https://www.mhc.wa.gov.au/awcontent/Web/Documents/2015-2024/lived-experience-workforces-framework.pdf
  112. Mills, A., Low, G., & Lindsay Latimer, C. (2025). Barriers and Limitations of Employment in Desistance: Exploring the Experiences of Men Leaving Prison in Aotearoa New Zealand. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 70(1), 104-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x251352862
  113. Minerals Council of Australia. (n.d.). Indigenous Partnerships. https://minerals.org.au/policies/sustainability/indigenous-partnerships/
  114. Ministry of Justice UK. (2025, November 27). Employing prisoners and ex-offenders. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unlock-opportunity-employer-information-pack-and-case-studies/employing-prisoners-and-ex-offenders
  115. Moore, K. E., Milam, K. C., Folk, J. B., & Tangney, J. P. (2018). Self-stigma among Criminal Offenders: Risk and Protective Factors. Stigma Health, 3(3), 241-252. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000092
  116. Morales Almeida, P., Alemán Ramos, P., & Medina Montesdeoca, A. (2025). Psychosocial perspective on the integration of individuals deprived of liberty: a lexicometric analysis. BMC Psychol, 13(1), 649. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03068-2
  117. Morenoff, J. D., & Harding, D. J. (2014). Incarceration, Prisoner Reentry, and Communities. Annu Rev Sociol, 40, 411-429. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145511
  118. Morgan, H., & Parker, A. (2024). Sport, criminal justice interventions and possible future selves: Towards a research agenda. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 0(0), 17488958241273961. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958241273961
  119. Mourão, A., Sousa, M., Ferreira, M., Gonçalves, L., Caridade, S., & Cunha, O. (2025). Beyond Recidivism: A Systematic Review Exploring Comprehensive Criteria for Successful Reintegration After Prison Release. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 52(8), 1173-1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548251335322
  120. Murphy, D. S., Fuleihan, B., Richards, S. C., & Jones, R. S. (2011). The Electronic “Scarlet Letter”: Criminal Backgrounding and a Perpetual Spoiled Identity. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(3), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2011.560548
  121. Naylor, B., & Heydon, G. (2022). Criminal records, discrimination, and Aboriginal communities: Enhancing employment opportunities. Journal of Criminology, 55(4), 514-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/26338076221128996
  122. Nickerson, C. (2025a, October 13). Labeling Theory. https://www.simplypsychology.org/labeling-theory.html
  123. Nickerson, C. (2025b, October 7). Social Reaction Theory (Criminology). https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-reaction-theory.html
  124. Nugent, B., & Schinkel, M. (2016). The pains of desistance. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(5), 568-584. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816634812
  125. Ollerton, J., Giles, M. J., Baldry, E., & Cale, J. (2024). The Efficacy of Outsourced Employment Services for Adults Exiting Australian Prisons. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 68(8), 806-824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x221102840
  126. Oswald, R. J. (2022). The impact of employment upon young offenders’ identities. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 61(2), 221-239. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12471
  127. Oswald, R. J. (2025). The Role of Work Integration Social Enterprise in Overcoming Barriers to Sustained Employment and Desistance for Criminalized Individuals. The British Journal of Criminology, 66(2), 389-406. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaf051
  128. Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937-975. https://doi.org/10.1086/374403
  129. Pager, D., & Karafin, D. (2009). Bayesian Bigot? Statistical Discrimination, Stereotypes, and Employer Decision Making. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci, 621(1), 70-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208324628
  130. Pager, D., Western, B., & Sugie, N. (2009). Sequencing Disadvantage: Barriers to Employment Facing Young Black and White Men with Criminal Records. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci, 623(1), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208330793
  131. Paternoster, R., Bachman, R., Kerrison, E., O'Connell, D., & Smith, L. (2016). Desistance from Crime and Identity: An Empirical Test With Survival Time. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816651905
  132. Paternoster, R. A. Y., & Bushway, S. (2009). DESISTANCE AND THE "FEARED SELF": TOWARD AN IDENTITY THEORY OF CRIMINAL DESISTANCE. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 99(4), 1103-1156. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20685067
  133. Payne, J. (2007). Recidivism in Australia: Findings and future research (Research and Public Policy Series, Issue. https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/rpp080.pdf
  134. Peterie, M., Ramia, G., Marston, G., & Patulny, R. (2019). Social Isolation as Stigma-Management: Explaining Long-Term Unemployed People’s ‘Failure’ to Network. Sociology, 53, 003803851985681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038519856813
  135. Petersilia, J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home : Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwa/detail.action?docID=431190
  136. Pinard, M. (2010). Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: Confronting Issues of Race and Dignity. New York University Law Review, 85(2). https://nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-85-2-Pinard.pdf
  137. Pires, M. L. (2025). The Effects of Job Insecurity on Psychological Well-Being and Work Engagement: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model. Behav Sci (Basel), 15(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15070979
  138. Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia. (2025, April 8). When parole is breached. https://www.prisonersreviewboard.wa.gov.au/C/consequences_of_breaching_parole.aspx
  139. Ramakers, A., Nieuwbeerta, P., Van Wilsem, J., & Dirkzwager, A. (2017). Not Just Any Job Will Do: A Study on Employment Characteristics and Recidivism Risks After Release. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 61(16), 1795-1818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x16636141
  140. Ran, J., Liu, H., Yuan, Y., Yu, X., & Dong, T. (2023). Linking Career Exploration, Self-Reflection, Career Calling, Career Adaptability and Subjective Well-Being: A Self-Regulation Theory Perspective. Psychol Res Behav Manag, 16, 2805-2817. https://doi.org/10.2147/prbm.S420666
  141. Reboot Australia. (n.d.). Reboot Australia. https://www.rebootaustralia.com/
  142. Redcross, C., Millenky, M., Rudd, T., & Levshin, V. (2012). More than a job: Final results from the evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) transitional jobs program. https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_451.pdf
  143. Reich, S. E. (2023). Making Desistance Recognizable: How Ex-Offenders Can Signal Their Desistance From Crime to Employers by Strategic Design. The British Journal of Criminology, 63(5), 1274-1292. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac094
  144. Reid, E. (2015). Embracing, Passing, Revealing, and the Ideal Worker Image: How People Navigate Expected and Experienced Professional Identities. Organization Science, 26, 150420060038002. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0975
  145. Rhode, D. L. (2018). Virtue and the Law: The Good Moral Character Requirement in Occupational Licensing, Bar Regulation, and Immigration Proceedings. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(3), 1027-1058. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12332
  146. Rocque, M., Posick, C., & Paternoster, R. (2016). Identities Through Time: An Exploration of Identity Change as a Cause of Desistance. Justice Quarterly, 33(1), 45-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2014.894111
  147. Rumgay, J. (2004). Scripts for Safer Survival: Pathways Out of Female Crime. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(4), 405-419. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2004.00338.x
  148. Russell, C. I. (2024). Little boxes. Australian Prison Reform Journal, 4(1). https://aprj.com.au/articles/APRJ-4%281%29-3-Little-boxes.pdf
  149. Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1995). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press, 74. https://doi.org/10.2307/3340743
  150. Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (2001). Understanding Desistance from Crime. Crime and Justice, 28. https://doi.org/10.1086/652208
  151. Scher, B. D., Neufeld, S. D., Butler, A., Bonn, M., Zakimi, N., Farrell, J., & Greer, A. (2023). “Criminalization Causes the Stigma”: Perspectives From People Who Use Drugs. Contemporary Drug Problems, 50(3), 402-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509231179226
  152. Schlicht, M. (2025, October 5). The Cost of Prisons in 2025. Institute of Public Affairs. https://ipa.org.au/read/the-cost-of-prisons-in-2025
  153. Schneider, D., & Harknett, K. (2019). Consequences of Routine Work-Schedule Instability for Worker Health and Well-Being. Am Sociol Rev, 84(1), 82-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418823184
  154. Sennett, R. (2024). Work and its narratives. In For Sociology (pp. 119-130). sociologypress.
  155. Sentencing Advisory Council. (2025). Released Prisoners Returning to Prison. https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sentencing-statistics/released-prisoners-returning-to-prison
  156. Sheppard, A., & Ricciardelli, R. (2020). Employment after prison: Navigating conditions of precarity and stigma. European Journal of Probation, 12, 34-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220320908251
  157. Shipp, A. J., & Richardson, H. A. (2021). The impact of temporal schemata: Understanding when individuals entrain versus resist or create temporal structure. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 299-319. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0384
  158. Sibley, M. A., Ricciardelli, R., Johnston, M. S., & Mario, B. (2024). Direct supervision and the epistemic culture of prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 0(0), 17488958241298486. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958241298486
  159. Soren, A., & Ryff, C. D. (2023). Meaningful Work, Well-Being, and Health: Enacting a Eudaimonic Vision. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 20(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20166570
  160. Souverein, F., Mulder, E., van Domburgh, L., & Popma, A. (2023). Relational security: conceptualization and operationalization in small-scale, strengths-based, community-embedded youth justice facilities. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health, 17(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-023-00638-3
  161. Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870
  162. Sugie, N. F., Zatz, N. D., & Augustine, D. (2020). Employer aversion to criminal records: An experimental study of mechanisms. Criminology, 58(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12228
  163. Sundt, J. L. (2010). Maruna, Shadd: Redemption scripts and desistance. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412959193.n159
  164. Tilcsik, A. (2021). Statistical Discrimination and the Rationalization of Stereotypes. American Sociological Review, 86(1), 93-122. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48632966
  165. Toby, J. (1957). Social Disorganization and Stake in Conformity: Complementary Factors in the Predatory Behavior of Hoodlums. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48(1), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.2307/1140161
  166. Travis, J. (2001). But they all come back: Rethinking prisoner reentry. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(3), 23. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/they-all-come-back-rethinking-prisoner-reentry/docview/214568800/se-2?accountid=14681
  167. Trevor-Roberts, E., Parker, P., & Sandberg, J. (2019). How uncertainty affects career behaviour: A narrative approach. Australian Journal of Management, 44(1), 50-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896218775801
  168. Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Criminals: A Duration Model of Age, Employment, and Recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65(4), 529-546. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240006500403
  169. Underhill, E., & Quinlan, M. (2024). The Struggle to Regulate Precarious Work Arrangements to Minimize Their Adverse Effects on Health and Safety in Australia. Int J Soc Determinants Health Health Serv, 54(2), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/27551938241234753
  170. Ungvarsky, J. (2024). Routine activity theory. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/routine-activity-theory
  171. Urfer-Pfister, I., Jacobshagen, N., Kälin, W., & Semmer, N. (2020). How does appreciation lead to higher job satisfaction? Journal of Managerial Psychology, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2018-0555
  172. VACRO. (n.d.). Second Chance Jobs. https://www.vacro.org.au/second-chance-jobs
  173. Villman, E., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2025). Employment paths after release from prison: The meaning of work for desistance and social integration. Nordic Journal of Criminology, 27(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.18261/njc.27.2.5
  174. Visher, C., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways. Annu. Rev. Sociol, 29, 89-113. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.095931
  175. Wang, L., & Bertram, W. (2022). New data on formerly incarcerated people’s employment reveal labor market injustices. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2022/02/08/employment/
  176. Wang, Y., & Yang, D. (2022). Analysis of the Impact Mechanism of Occupational Identity on Occupational Well-Being Based on Big Data. Comput Math Methods Med, 2022, 4870296. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4870296
  177. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803956
  178. Weaver, B., & McNeill, F. (2015). Lifelines: Desistance, Social Relations, and Reciprocity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(1), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814550031
  179. Weaver, E. (2013). Desistance, Reflexivity And Relationality: A Case Study. European Journal of Probation, 5(3), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/206622031300500306
  180. Western, B. (2020). Criminal Justice as Social Justice. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 73(3), 50-59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27204428
  181. Wickert, C. (2019a, August 20). Labelling – primary and secondary deviance (Lemert). https://soztheo.com/theories-of-crime/interactionist-labeling/labelling-primary-and-secondary-deviance-lemert/
  182. Wickert, C. (2019b, August 14 2025). Outsiders (Becker). https://soztheo.com/theories-of-crime/interactionist-labeling/outsiders-becker/
  183. Wickert, C. (2019c, August 20 2025). Social bonds theory (Hirschi). https://soztheo.com/theories-of-crime/control-theories/social-bonds-theory-hirschi/
  184. Wickert, C. (2025, July 26). Erving Goffman – Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (1963). https://soztheo.com/criminology/key-works-in-criminology/erving-goffman-stigma-notes-on-the-management-of-spoiled-identity-1963/
  185. Women and Mentoring. (n.d.-a). About Us. https://www.womenandmentoring.org.au/about
  186. Women and Mentoring. (n.d.-b). Get support. https://www.womenandmentoring.org.au/support
  187. Workskil Australia. (2024, August 19 2024). Work Ready, Release Ready Program Expanding to Create Brighter Futures. https://www.workskil.com.au/about-us/news/work-ready-release-ready-program-expanding-to-create-brighter-futures
  188. Workskil Australia. (n.d.-a). Road to Redemption. https://www.workskil.com.au/finding-a-job/programs/road-to-redemption
  189. Workskil Australia. (n.d.-b). Work Ready, Release Ready. https://www.workskil.com.au/finding-a-job/programs/work-ready-release-ready
  190. Yukhnenko, D., Farouki, L., & Fazel, S. (2023). Criminal recidivism rates globally: A 6-year systematic review update. Journal of Criminal Justice, 88, 102115. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102115
  191. Zhang, H., Zhang, X., & Brewer, G. (2023). Employability Is a Journey: Conceptualising Processual Employability as a Career Identity Emergence Process. Education Sciences, 13, 607. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060607
  192. Zhang, M., & Ma, X. (2025). The subtle balance of trust: how employees' expected and perceived trust influence impression management. Front Psychol, 16, 1526860. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1526860

More research