User:Lousimp/sandbox

INCARCERATION RATES AND ITS EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT

Impacts on People of Color vs. Non People of Color
Mass incarceration rates have played a major role in the lives of many people in the world. More specifically, they have negatively impacted people of color more than they have people not of color. According to “Racial Inequality in Employment and Earnings after Incarceration,” by Bruce Western and Catherine Sirois, people of color are placed at an extreme disadvantage after being released from the judicial system when entering employment. Authors Bruce Western and Catherine Sirois claim that during their research they discovered that among the employed, black respondents averaged around $1,300 a month, which is about half the median earnings for black workers in the U.S. labor market as a whole. Hispanics were slightly higher, with average monthly earnings of $1,500, which is equal to about 60 percent of monthly earnings for the Hispanic workers in the general labor market. White people are placed at an extreme advantage averaging about $2,500 a month by the end of the first year after their incarceration. White people are usually able to enjoy these benefits of obtaining a job and being paid a decent wage because of their social capital. In Catherine Sirois’s analysis, African Americans with prison records were more likely to seek work by themselves as their family and friends were reluctant to recommend them for any job employment.

When comparing the job search of an African American and a white person, Sirois’s ensures that she communicates the differences between their experiences as they seek employment. After incarceration, white people face less discrimination during interviews and have strong social ties to employment, which contributes to their better wages. Furthermore, even white people with criminal records have better network connections to job opportunities than blacks and Hispanics (Sullivan, 1989). The friends of white incarcerated people are more willing to refer their peers to a job, while the friends of blacks are not. The differences in social capital that people of color and non people of color have plays a factor in their job search. The fact that people of color lack social capital hinders them from securing a job as well as receiving high wages.

In addition to  incarceration affecting the wage of both people of color and non people of  color, it also affects individuals during the interview process of obtaining a job. Many people lose work skills and are given little opportunity to gain useful work experience while incarcerated. Moreover, once they are released from prison and participate in interviews they are less likely to receive a call back from an employer. People of color who are incarcerated are less likely to receive a call back from a person not of color. According to Devah Pager, incarcerated white people are twice as likely to receive a call back as black people who were incarcerated (Pager, 2007, 115). Black people do not receive a call back largely due to the fact of their skin color, despite their qualifications. Pager argues that a criminal record reinforces racial stereotypes and black job seekers with criminal records face “an intensification of stigma” (Pager, 2007, 115). Blacks are already subject to stigmas even without a criminal record and if they become convicted of a felony then this stigma is increased.

Interview/Application Systems used by Companies

Racial biases have a distinct impact in the job market. In most states there are no laws preventing employers from asking applicants about previous criminal history, and so in most cases they do (Vega, 2014). This can make it extremely difficult for returning citizens to find a job in the labor market, and is one of the causes for high recidivism and people returning to crime, leading to the high re-incarceration rate in the U.S. (King, 2017). This can lead to a negative feedback cycle where the message sent to the applicant is that they are not good enough for the job, and so they start to believe this and this belief prevents them from getting other jobs (Vega, 2014), and many turn to crime as a result. This cycle could likely be avoided if returning citizens were able to perform positive, meaningful work, as is seen in states and counties that have programs to provide jobs to returning citizens (Kaul, 2014). A few states like Georgia, New York, and California are starting to draft legislation preventing employers from asking whether an applicant has a criminal record on the application. They believe that having this box on the application is a form of discrimination. This movement is gaining traction in schools and in the federal government, however up to this point there has been no concrete legislation or action from major universities.

A study of 181 Chicago based companies found that discrimination in interview and recruiting tactics went far beyond just direct discrimination against those with a criminal record. Companies would specifically target areas that are majority white and would specifically avoid areas that would bring in more black employees (Neckerman and Kirschenman, 1991). This practice not only discriminated against black employees but also against areas whose populations contained a disproportionate amount of formerly incarcerated individuals. In addition, the interviews often focused solely on prior experience (Neckerman and Kirschenman, 1991), which is very seldom had among formerly incarcerated individuals. This allowed for an “objective” reason for not hiring these people, and yet passively discriminated against them by eliminating candidates who could potentially gain experience for the next job interview.

Discriminatory Political/Economic Factors in the Labor Market
Formerly incarcerated inmates are disproportionately black males and non-custodial fathers (in comparison to the general population) (Puglise, 2016). Effective tax rates on low income fathers as a whole is estimated to be between 25-35% (Pirog et al., 1998), and yet for returning formerly incarcerated citizens the rate is closer to 60% (Edelman et al., 2006). This burden makes work seem much less appealing, as these people would take home only 40% of their paycheck when others are taking home 75%. While not an active form of employment discrimination, it certainly has the tacit effect of keeping formerly incarcerated individuals out of the job market.

The practice of employers discriminating against people with a criminal background is a practice that is at least somewhat based in rationality. The courts have decided that employer liability for the use of force by an employee who was formerly incarcerated to harm a customer or physical property of a visitor is very expansive and all encompassing  (Holzer et al., 2004). Employers who hire people that are more prone to violence or criminal activity can be held liable for negligent hiring, should there be an event that causes harm to a customer or outside party. Unfortunately for previously incarcerated individuals, the easiest way to prove negligent hiring is to show a paper trail that the employer knew the employee came with risk. Often times this means criminal records. In 72% of these negligent hiring cases, employers have lost with average damages coming to a total of $1.2 million (Leeman, 2016). Ohio recently instituted a law that prevents employers from being liable for this reason (Laird, 2013), and if other states follow through then this factor that hurts former inmates in the job market could be reduced. This payment would be enough to bankrupt many small businesses, and even if the risk of a potential employee re-offending is small, this is still a huge negative economic incentive to not hire them. We also see this effect compounded when looking at race, with black offenders being two-thirds less likely to get an interview, and black non-offenders being half as likely to get an interview than white non offenders (Leeman, 2016).

When this is taken together with the mental health and behavioral characteristics found disproportionately in incarcerated individuals (versus the general public) that can lead them to commit violent acts (Travis, 2004), we can see a rational thought process of not hiring formerly incarcerated individuals. However, the fear is that this thought process is taken too far and that these risks are exaggerated. In addition, this thought process does not account for the fact that many of these risk factors may be easily detectable during the interview process. For these reasons, the logical negative impacts of being incarcerated can be magnified.

Political factors also have an impact on the ability of recently released inmates to obtain a job. Some seemingly arbitrary rules restrict the ability of this population to maintain a job and in some cases even cause future legal troubles. For example, one common challenge associated with being on parole is difficulty in obtaining a license. Some sources claim that this measure discourages future crime, however there is little to evidence to this effect (Laird, 2013). Many of these offenders need to drive in order to get to their job or event to meet with parole officers. Because of this, they are often given driving without a license citations. These citations then can build up and cause financial troubles for parolees, who often cannot afford to pay them. This in itself can lead to re-incarceration as late fees build up until jail time results, which becomes a hard cycle to exit (Leeman, 2016).

There are efforts in the political sphere, however, to try to solve these problems. The Second Chance Act is a national law that was passed to grant 250 million dollars to fund research backed programs that set out to help former convicts re-enter society. In addition, this money also goes to help fund more research about the type of programs that are effective. Many new nonprofits and state run government agencies are also popping up to help former inmates get identification cards upon re-entry, such as the Washtenaw ID project in Michigan and Right on Crime in Texas. There also are new efforts coming from Veterans Affairs to help former inmates claim veterans' benefits and from states like Ohio that are making it easier for former convicts to receive professional licensing. One sign that this kind of action is likely to continue is that support is bipartisan and has been increasing consistently even through changing administrations (Laird, 2013).

References

Edelman, Peter; Harry J. Holzer and Paul Offner. 2006. Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute Press.

Holzer, Harry J.; Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll. 2004. “Will Employers Hire Former Offenders? Employer Preference, Background Checks and their Determinants.” In M. Pattillo, D. Weiman                 and B. Western eds. Imprisoning America: The Social Effects of Mass Incarceration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Neckerman, Kathryn M.; Joleen Kirschenman. Hiring Strategies, Racial Bias, and Inner-City Workers, Social Problems, Volume 38, Issue 4, 1 November 1991, Pages

433–447, https://doi.org/10.2307/800563

Kaul, G. (2014, December 27). San Quentin's prison university gives inmates freedom to learn. Retrieved January 23, 2018, from http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Quentin-s-

prison-university-gives-inmates-5980423.php

King, E. Y. (2017, November 17). Black men get longer prison sentences than white men for the same crime: Study. Retrieved January 25, 2018, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/black-men-sentenced-time-white-men-crime-

study/story?id=51203491

Laird, L. (n.d.). Ex-offenders face tens of thousands of legal restrictions, bias and limits on their rights. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/ex-offenders_face_tens_of_thousands_of_lhegal_restrictions

Leeman, D. (2016, July 12). The Challenges of Prisoner Re-Entry Into Society. Retrieved March 27, 2018, from https://socialwork.simmons.edu//Prisoner-Reentry/

Pirog, Maureen; M. Klotz and K. Byers. 1998. “Interstate Comparisons of Child Support Orders Using State Guidelines.” Family Relations. 47: 289-95.

Puglise, N. (2016, June 18). Black Americans incarcerated five times more than white people – report. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/18/mass-incarceration-black-americans-higher-rates-disparities-report

Travis, Jeremy. 2004. But They All Come Back. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute Press.

Vega, T. W. (2014, October 23). A Plan to Cut Costs and Crime: End Hurdle to Job After Prison. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/us/a-plan-to-cut-

costs-and-crime-curb-bias-against-ex-convicts.html?_r=0

Visher, Christy. “Employment After Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three States.” Employment After Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three States, pp. 3–8.

Western, Bruce, and Becky Pettit. “Incarceration and Racial Inequality in Men's Employment.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 54, no. 1, 2000, pp. 3–16. JSTOR, JSTOR, hwww.jstor.org/stable/2696029.