Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Backgrounds Returning citizens have low employment rates after release from prison. Successfully navigating job interviews is a critical barrier to getting a job for returning citizens, and there are no evidence-based job interview training practices in corrections. Design and methods We partnered with two prisons to conduct a pragmatic intention-to-treat randomized controlled trial that evaluated whether Virtual Reality Job Interview Training ( VR-JIT, an online job interview simulator ) improved post-release employment outcomes among returning citizens who completed VR-JIT while enrolled in a pre-release, trades-focused employment readiness program called the Vocational Villages (VV). Participants ( N = 101) were randomized 2:1 to receive VV service-as-usual with VR-JIT (VV + VR-JIT , n = 66) or VV ( n = 35). Results The VV + VR-JIT group, as compared to the VV group, had significantly greater odds of obtaining employment within 6 months of their release (OR = 3.76, p = 0.032) and obtaining this employment more quickly (HR = 1.62, p = 0.037). VV + VR-JIT , as compared to VV, significantly improved job interview skills ( p < 0.001) and job interview motivation ( p = 0.035). Study groups did not differ with respect to their recidivism rate at a 6-month follow-up (0.0% vs. 3.1%, p > 0.10). Conclusions This study suggests that a pragmatic VR-JIT implementation was associated with improved employment outcomes among returning citizens engaged in prison-based employment services. Thus, implementing VR-JIT within vocational services could bridge a critical gap in employment readiness, thereby helping returning citizens to overcome barriers to employment. Future research is needed to expand VR-JIT ’s external validity in other correctional settings and identify evidence-based strategies to optimize the delivery of VR-JIT within prison-based employment readiness programs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03937128.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smith et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: