Recognizing Redemption: Old Criminal Records and Employment Outcomes

March 2017:

Abstract
Upon completion of their sentences and when attempting to ‘reenter’ society, offenders face large barriers, often referred to as the ‘collateral consequences’ of conviction. One of the largest barriers, given the stigma of a criminal record, is finding employment.

The problem primarily arises because of increases in the use of background checks by employers and the use of a criminal record to eliminate candidates. Such a practice is partly understandable for employers, as a recent conviction is one of the best predictors of future criminal activity.

However, recent evidence suggests that an offender’s risk of reoffending decreases over time and can eventually come “close enough” to that of one who has never offended, even becoming lower than that risk for a random person within the general population.

However, no study has examined whether such knowledge has reached potential employers. Our study sought to determine whether knowledge such as this has reached potential employers and asked whether there are employment outcome differences for hypothetical applicants with older criminal records.

Results indicate that those possessing older criminal records still face barriers when seeking employment. Based on these findings, we present policy considerations. ..Source.. by Peter Leasure and Tia Stevens Andersen

Federal Programs Available to Unemployed Workers

January 2013:

Summary:
Four groups of federal programs target unemployed workers: unemployment insurance, health care assistance, job search assistance, and training. This report presents information on federal programs targeted to unemployed workers specifically, but does not attempt to discuss means-tested programs (such as Medicaid or SSI) that are available regardless of employment status.

When eligible workers lose their jobs, the Unemployment Compensation (UC) program may provide up to 26 weeks of income support through the payment of regular UC benefits. Unemployment benefits may be extended by the temporarily authorized Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) program. Unemployment benefits may also be extended for up to 13 or 20 weeks by the permanent Extended Benefit (EB) program if certain economic conditions exist within the state. Workers whose job loss is caused by foreign competition may be eligible for extended income support through the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers (TAA) program. If an unemployed worker is not eligible to receive UC benefits and the worker’s unemployment may be directly attributed to a declared major disaster, a worker may be eligible to receive Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) benefits.

Two federal laws may aid unemployed workers in the purchase of health insurance. The first, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), allows unemployed workers in certain circumstances to continue health insurance coverage from their employers. The second, the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC), allows certain TAA participants to receive an advanceable and refundable tax credit for purchasing qualified health insurance.

Federal support for Americans seeking assistance to obtain, retain, or change employment is undertaken by a national system of local One-Stop Career Centers (One-Stops) that were established by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998. A variety of services and partner programs—notably including UC and TAA—are located within or linked to One-Stops, which primarily provide job search assistance, career counseling, labor market information, and other employment services. Core labor exchange services (matching job seekers and employers) are provided by the U.S. Employment Service (ES), which was first established by the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 and most recently amended under Title III of WIA. In addition to ES, Title I of WIA authorizes resources for similar core and intensive employment services for youth, adults, dislocated workers, and targeted populations.

Title I of WIA is also the nation’s central job training legislation, providing funds for traditional, on-the-job, customized, and other forms of training to individuals unable to obtain or retain employment through other services.

This report will be updated with major new legislation. ..Source.. by Congressional Research Service

Final Technical Report: Neighborhoods, Recidivism, and Employment Among Returning Prisoners

October 2011:

Abstract:
The rising number of individuals being released from prison has prompted renewed interest among researchers, policy makers, and practitioners in reintegrating former prisoners. Yet relatively little is known about the communities into which former prisoners return and how they affect the likelihood that former prisoners will secure stable employment or return to prison. This research fills an important gap in the literature on prisoner reentry by focusing on the role that community context plays in the labor market outcomes and recidivism of former prisoners.

A rich set of longitudinal administrative records were assembled on individuals paroled in Michigan during 2003, including records from corrections, police, and unemployment insurance databases. This report describes the data collected and presents results indicating that neighborhood context predicted both the recidivism and labor market outcomes of former prisoners. The analysis considered the association between baseline neighborhood characteristics (first post-prison neighborhood) and cumulative exposure to neighborhood conditions during one’s time on parole.

The analysis of baseline neighborhood characteristics was based on the full population of 11,064 people released on parole in Michigan in 2003, whereas the analysis of time-varying neighborhood characteristics was based on a 1/6 sample (n=1,848). Returning to a more disadvantaged baseline neighborhood was associated with higher risks of absconding and returning to prison for a technical violation, a lower risk of being arrested, and more adverse labor market outcomes, including less employment and lower wages. Cumulative exposure to disadvantaged neighborhoods was associated with lower employment and wages but not related to recidivism.

Returning to a more affluent baseline neighborhood was associated with a lower risk of being arrested, absconding, and returning to prison on a technical violation, and more positive labor market outcomes, including greater employment and wages. However, cumulative exposure to affluent neighborhoods was not significantly related to any of the recidivism or labor market outcomes when the full set of controls were added to models.

Returning to a more residentially stable baseline neighborhood was associated with a lower risk of absconding and returning to prison for a new conviction, but not with any labor market outcomes; nor was cumulative exposure to residentially stable neighborhoods associated with any recidivism or labor market outcomes.

Returning to a baseline neighborhood with a younger age structure was negatively related to the odds of returning to prison on a technical violation, but when measured as cumulative exposure it was associated with an increased risk of being arrested, absconding, and being returned to prison for either a new commitment or technical violation.

Being employed substantially reduced the risk of all recidivism outcomes, but there was no evidence that employment mediated the association between neighborhoods and recidivism. Together, these results suggest that the neighborhoods parolees experience during parole were strong predictors of recidivism and labor market outcomes, but there is not a simple answer to the question of what neighborhood characteristics constitute “risky” environments for parolees.

Neighborhood socioeconomic composition was a strong predictor of labor market outcomes, as parolees residing in disadvantaged neighborhoods had difficulty securing employment and escaping poverty.

For recidivism, the protective effect of living in a residentially stable neighborhood and the risks posed by spending more time in neighborhoods with higher densities of young people were the most robust predictors.

From a policy perspective, these findings suggest that parole outcomes might be improved through more careful evaluation of a parolee’s neighborhood context when approving new residences, placement of institutional housing for former prisoners in more advantaged neighborhoods, inclusion of neighborhood context in risk assessments to better target services to former prisoners in high risk neighborhoods, and place-based parole strategies involving geographically based agent caseloads. For the remainder of this paper: by Jeffrey D. Morenoff, Professor, Department of Sociology Research Professor, University of Michigan -and- David J. Harding, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan