Life after prison: an evaluation of employment
During the 1970s, the United States held around 200,000 people in its federal and state prisons; 45 years later, that population increased to over 1.6 million (“Criminal Justice Facts”). By 2016, over 860 people out of 100,000 were incarcerated in a local jail or federal prison (Kaeble). Yet, alongside imprisonment comes release; today, each week, “over 10,000 people are released from state and federal prisons” (“Prisoners and Prisoner Re-Entry”). That’s 10,000 people who need a stable home, food, and job to support themselves.
The increasing number of released prisoners has been followed by debates regarding whether today’s unemployment for former prisoners is truly linked with their incarceration. Given that, it is necessary to understand the short and long-term implications of incarceration for former inmates. It is of significance to explore a variety of perspectives regarding the extent to which incarceration affects former prisoners’ employment by reviewing challenges in receiving a job as well as how rational it is to hire a former prisoner.
BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT
A primary concern for most former inmates is the difficulty of getting a job. Yet many perspectives vary if it’s truly as difficult as many make it out to be.
Devah Pager, a former Sociology and Public Policy Harvard professor- best known for her American criminal justice work- claims that “criminal records close doors in employment situations” (Pager). She adds that criminal records act as a “screening mechanism,” preventing employers from “prob[ing] deeper into the possible context or complexities of the situation” (Pager). Essentially, Pager concludes that employers purposefully neglect former inmates’ applications and oppose the idea of a criminal working for them.
Along the same lines, David J. Harding, a professor of sociology at Berkeley who focuses on inequality and incarceration, believes that the job application process for former inmates is significantly more problematic than for non-offenders (Harding). He states that ex-convicts must “defy the stereotype” and must be willing to take the “long-term approach to employment” (Harding). Harding regards that if a former prisoner is lucky enough to even be considered for a position, they must have exceptional skills and have strong patience to eventually receive a job that meets the wage to sustain themselves.
Together, Pager and Harding conclude that employers refuse and strongly oppose hiring former convicts which negatively affects the ex-inmates’ options and opportunities during job applications.
On the contrary, Kristin Bumiller, a professor of social institutions at Amherst College and American political scientist, claims that having a record of incarceration in job applications does not cause significant damage on applying to low-level jobs (Bumiller). In a study conducted with employers, none of them “treated records as a clear-cut disqualifying factor in the hiring process” (Bumiller). What many stated is that what was more important was finding former inmates that could meet “the minimal demands of their jobs” (Bumiller). Overall Bumiller states that because low-level jobs pay minimally and frequently require a substantial amount of work, few people with education levels don’t apply. Since prisoners are less likely to refuse the offer of a job due to limited opportunities, employers do not deny them jobs.
To summarize, Devah Pager and David J. Harding argue that records of incarceration on job applications affect prisoners negatively and reduce the likelihood of job acceptance. However, Kristin Bumiller differentiates between them by stating that many employers are not concerned over incarceration records in low-level jobs.
HIREABILITY OF FORMER PRISONERS
During the job application process, employers search for specific aspects and traits in applicants. That being said, several perspectives vary on whether criminals truly contribute to today’s workforce.
David Ellwood, a professor of Economics at Harvard University, states that the absence of unemployment “scars” the individual for future employment (Ellwood). Claiming that this time lost leads to less productivity in the employee and that they will spend “less time working” than they could have in an “entire year” (Ellwood). In sum, Ellwood underscores how the lack of work during incarceration leads to a less beneficial employee, overall indicating that it’s irrational to hire a former prisoner.
Along the same lines, Public policy and social research professors, Harry J. Holzer, and his team believe that, since prisoners regularly lack basic education training, it’s problematic for them to succeed in the employment realm (Holzer et al). They claim that their “poor skills” and “limited work experience” “limits both employability and earning potential” for the workforce (Holzer et al). In essence, the professors claim that employers are less likely to hire former prisoners since they are unskilled and are potential economic disadvantages, making hiring former prisoners illogical for business productivity and success.
Holzer’s and Ellwood’s ideas collectively support that the lack of education and past employment experiences lead to an overall unbeneficial employee which eventually causes substantial damages to employers and businesses.
On the other hand, Pamela Paulk, the Vice President of human resources at Johns Hopkins Health resource center, believes that ex-offenders’ attitudes towards work are constructive and productive (Paulk). The study held at Johns Hopkins showed that “almost 500 ex-offenders hired showed a lower turnover for the first 40 months” compared to non-offenders (Paulk). Additionally, Paulk adds that retention rates were substantially higher for these 500 individuals (Paulk). Essentially, Paulk underscores how employers cannot overlook prisoners’ capabilities and long term efforts in the workforce. Their abilities are shown in their work and it is undeniable that they do well — even if they lack experience.
Similarly, professors of Economics at Northwestern University, Dylan Minor, and his team believe that economically, former prisoners benefit companies more than non-offenders (Minor et al). Supporting Paulk’s earlier claims, the professors affirm that employees with criminal records generally last 16 more days compared to non offenders, then follow by stating that it costs an average of “$4000 per termination” (Minor et al). Fundamentally, Minor and his team explain how hiring former inmates will benefit the employers by gaining more savings due to less frequent terminations.
Together, Ellwood, Holzer, and his team explore how hiring a former prisoner negatively impacts the employer due to lack of experience and productivity. Yet, Paulk, Minor, and his team assert that ex-offenders benefit employers in the long run due to their positive attitudes towards work and long-term positions.
While some argue that employment after prison is nearly unimaginable due to employees’ perceptions of former prisoners, others are of the opinion that low-level job employers are not concerned with records as long as they show potential in succeeding. Additionally, there is a range of perspectives on whether it’s logical to hire former prisoners in today’s workforces: one part argues that they are less productive and therefore potential economic disadvantages, while the other contrasts by claiming that their positive approaches to working benefit employers chances of having long term employees. The opinions regarding employment after incarceration vary, however it’s indisputable that each day more inmates will be in search of employment.
References
Bumiller, Kristin. “Bad Jobs and Good Workers: The Hiring of Ex-Prisoners in a Segmented …” Sage Journals, Amherst College, 11 Nov. 2014, journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1362480614557307.
“Criminal Justice Facts.” The Sentencing Project, 3 June 2021, www.sentencingproject.org/criminal-justice-facts/.
Ellwood, David T. “Teenage Unemployment: Permanent Scars or Temporary Blemishes?” SSRN, National Bureau of Economic Research, 4 July 2004, deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=881031104121113068069107024027127088005017063054033022103009060054111096033023018031118058116087010124028062040062064088076085125022026126115007080017092077087108011100105090007008114066104114&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE.
Harding , David J. “Jean Valjean’s Dilemma: The Management of Ex-Convict Identity in the Search for Employment.” Taylor & Francis, 2 Feb. 2011, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713840275.
Holzer, Harry J, et al. “Employment Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders.” URBAN INSTITUTE REENTRY ROUNDTABLE, New York University Law School, 20 May 2003, www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/59416/410855-Employment-Barriers-Facing-Ex-Offenders.PDF.
Kaeble, Danielle, and Mary Cowhig. “Correctional Populations in the United States, 2016 — Bureau of Justice …” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Apr. 2018, bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf.
Minor, Dylan, et al. “Criminal Background and Job Performance — IZA Journal of Labor Policy.” SpringerOpen, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 12 Sept. 2018, izajolp.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40173–018–0101–0.
Pager, Devah. The Mark of a Criminal Record1: American Journal of Sociology: Vol 108, No 5. American Journal of Sociology, 1 Mar. 2003, www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/374403.
Paulk, Pamela D. The Johns Hopkins Hospital Success in Hiring Ex-Offenders, Johns Hopkins Medicine , Sept. 2016, www.diversityincbestpractices.com/medialib/uploads/2016/09/Paulk-Presentation-Hiring-Ex-Offenders-09142016.pdf.
“Prisoners and Prisoner Re-Entry.” USDOJ: FBCI: Prisoners and Prisoner Re-Entry, 2022, www.justice.gov/archive/fbci/progmenu_reentry.html.
