Validation of the Employment Retention Inventory: An Assessment Tool of the National Institute of…

“From September 2013 to August 2016, the [authors] worked collaboratively with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Community Services Division to conduct this first validation study of NIC’s Employment Retention Inventory (ERI)” (p.1). “The ERI is [a self-administered assessment tool] intended to aid practitioners working with justice-involved and behavioral health populations by helping them identify which clients are at highest risk of job loss, so that limited resources can be targeted most efficiently to address their employment retention needs” (p.1).

“After a client completes the ERI assessment, they are to review each response, side by side, with their case manager or probation officer….[C]orrectional practitioners can engage in a positive conversation with their client—using motivational interviewing techniques and cognitive behavioral strategies—to help the client rethink any negative attitudes or decision-making that could affect employment and understand whether and how services may be helpful to ensuring or encouraging job retention” (p.7).

 The “evaluation focused on (1) assessing the ability of the ERI to predict employment-related risks and job loss among criminal justice-involved individuals and (2) examining the relationship between employment retention and recidivism using data collected for approximately 400 individuals on community supervision in two diverse jurisdictions [(Jackson County, OR and Allegheny County, PA)]” (p.1). “The quantitative analyses included confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, correlations, subgroup analyses, and cross-tabulation analyses” (p.23-24).

“Researchers also conducted qualitative interviews with stakeholders in these jurisdictions to capture the employment landscape and job-related resources available to justice-involved individuals in these locations” (p.1).

“In both study sites, individuals on probation and parole were recruited for study participation from May to October 2014; a total of 253 employed and 159 unemployed individuals participated in the study. Study participation included baseline completion of a short online survey in which the ERI was embedded, and collection of follow-up data on employment and recidivism eight and 12 months later, respectively” (p.vi).

Full publication title: Validation of the Employment Retention Inventory: An Assessment Tool of the National Institute of Corrections

(Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)

“Findings Overall, items in the ERI showed strong face and content validity and readability at a 6th grade level, with study participants reporting ease and comfort in taking the computerized, self-administered questionnaire. Looking at the ERI’s predictive validity, the instrument performed fair overall with excellent ratings for those in rural Jackson County. Findings also support a linkage between employment retention and recidivism” (p.vi). Some specific findings from the report include: • “[The] ERI covered the full range of employment retention barriers, measured each in a direct and uncomplicated manner, and none of the ERI items appeared superfluous or unnecessary. • [T]he literature pointed to four additional potential job loss predictors that did not seem to be sufficiently measured on the ERI; these factors included the effects of having a criminal record, earning low wages, possessing inadequate education/skills, having limited work history, and believing it would be easy to find another job” (p.35). • “The most unidimensional and internally consistent domains across both sites were those measuring stress, family and friends, substance use, mental health, and possible job loss. Conversely, the weakest domain was time management” (p.40). • “The Cronbach’s alpha for…the ERI was .889, indicating high internal consistency reliability” (p.40). • “[T]he domains of the ERI are significantly interrelated…with the strongest correlations observed among the domains of mental health, stress, and employment barriers” (p.41). • “The ERI performed fairly well overall in identifying which study participants would retain or lose employment, and it performed excellently for those in rural Jackson County, the site for whom the largest share of follow-up employment information was known” (p.45). • “[T]he ERI’s predictive power varied somewhat across subgroups of study participants” (p.46). Next Steps The authors plan to conduct “[a] replication validation of the ERI…to assess the instrument’s validity for a larger sample of individuals, covering the full array of employment experiences for justice-involved and behavioral health populations. The goal is to study the ERI’s implementation in practice, when administered by NIC-trained Employment Retention Specialists and applied to individuals from a diversity of backgrounds” (p.vi). (Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)

• Last Updated:
• Created:
• Resource Publication Date: 2016
• Author(s): Yahner, Jennifer; Paddock, Ellen; and Buck Willison, Janeen.
• Organizational Author(s): Urban Institute
• Resource Availability: Publicly available
• Posted by: Wesley Peterson
• Posted in: Workforce System Strategies