The Albatross of Unemployment Upon Re-Entry…

It is far past time to address one of the fundamental, collateral consequences stigmatizing individuals with criminal history records. Long after they have served their prison sentences, any charges for criminal activity will, for many, ultimately become an albatross of lifetime under-employment / unemployment. This deleterious reality needs to change, and businesses have an enormous role to play here.

Many of these consequences are explicit and statutory in nature, such as the laws and other regulations that formally bar individuals with criminal records from entering numerous segments of the workforce. Other effects are more subtle, though equally limiting, such as the millions of resumes tossed into garbage cans when an applicant’s past criminal history is revealed through self-reporting or background checks.

Society cannot afford to toss aside this vast human potential. Today, nearly one-third of Americans have some type of criminal record. Roughly 95 percent of those currently incarcerated will eventually be released. Put another way, nearly 2.2 million of the 2.3 million Americans currently behind bars will be released at some point. These millions of former inmates will reintegrate into communities that, for the most part, lock them out of economic opportunities -- consigning many to a cruel cycle of homelessness, crime and poverty.

Research findings on re-entry bear this out: nearly 60 percent of formerly incarcerated individuals are unemployed a year after their release. Those who do find employment are paid an average of 40 percent less than those without a criminal record. This contributes to a vicious circle, as the ability to get and keep a job is one of the greatest factors in determining successful re-entry.

Barriers to employment often seem equally pitiless and insurmountable. State and local entities that issue professional licenses effectively block many formerly incarcerated individuals from taking on even those jobs that pose no imminent or public safety concerns. It’s a huge encumbrance: professional licenses are required for nearly one in three US jobs today.

Concurrently, employers who indiscriminately use biometric information -- such as fingerprints and name-based background checks -- often fail to account for inaccurate, outdated or missing information, mitigating factors associated with an offense, the age at which the offense was committed and the amount of time passed since the offense. Statistics illustrate that over time, the likelihood one will re-offend dramatically decreases, a concept known as the age-crime curve.

Nationally, the “ban the box” movement -- pressing for removal of the criminal conviction box on employment applications -- has started to gain momentum. Dozens of states and 150 jurisdictions now implement "ban-the-box" policies that delay employers -- in most cases, just public employers -- from asking about criminal convictions until a conditional offer of employment has been extended.

There is a huge opportunity for employers to make an invaluable difference in their communities. Employers can help reform our criminal justice system by asking the following: Will this applicant safely fulfill the duties associated with the position? If a person has a criminal record, employers should verify the accuracy of that record, using it as only one of several tools to consider the applicant and only disqualifying those applicants whose offense threatens public safety or consumers.

While public and civil service jobs at the local, state and federal level have stringent requirements, employers in the private sector have considerably more leeway about what to include, and not to include, when screening whom to hire. Businesses without government funding have additional options when searching for employees: firms can decide whether to run a criminal background check, and they can take additional mitigating information into account.

In a robust economy, there should be ample room for everyone who wants to, and can, contribute their work and talent. Restrictive mandates should be reserved for a small subset of situations where there is a demonstrable public safety risk that cannot effectively be addressed otherwise. Absolutely no one who has served their time should be expected to automatically serve a punitive “life sentence” of unemployment.