Keith Starrett has mostly good ideas when it comes to trying to reintegrate felons into society after they finish their prison sentence.
The federal jurist — and former state judge — from McComb correctly says that if Mississippi is to slow down the prison revolving door, it needs to make it less difficult for a former inmate to get and keep a job after being released.
The Mississippi Re-entry Council, which Starrett chairs, has developed a list of legislative proposals to that end. In addition to recommending that the state devote more resources to help inmates transition from prison life to the free world, the advisory group says the state should remove some of the impediments ex-cons face in getting a driver’s license; cut them some slack on fines they have accumulated; and make it easier for nonviolent offenders to have their criminal records wiped clean.
One suggestion, though, that employers definitely won’t like is to bar them from asking on job applications whether the person has ever been convicted of a serious crime
According to some recent research, minority groups shouldn’t like the idea either.
This so-called “ban the box” movement has been spreading in response largely to the inordinately high incarceration rate of minorities, especially African-American males.
Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia now bar employers from including on job application forms a section that asks about previous criminal convictions. The reasoning behind the ban is that criminal convictions are so prejudicial in an employer’s mind that to be forced to answer the question on a job application precludes a job-seeker from getting even cursory consideration.
No doubt there is bias against those with criminal histories, but the bias is not without some basis in fact.
Those who’ve been imprisoned are more likely to commit another crime than those who haven’t spent time behind bars. One of the unfortunate consequences of prison is that it tends to ingrain inhabitants in criminality and dishonesty more than rehabilitate them. For example, those with a criminal record routinely lie about it on the job application form.
Employers worried about theft or other forms of employee dishonesty — or even the safety of their workers — have an obligation to themselves and to their existing employees to find out as much relevant information as they can about applicants before hiring them.
Nor can it be argued that employers need only to worry about those who have committed violent crimes. Even nonviolent offenders can wreak havoc on a business if they have a predilection toward embezzlement.
Thorough background checks have become increasingly hard for employers to conduct. That’s because companies have gotten scared of getting sued if they give a poor reference on a former employee, even if the negative recommendation is true. Supervisors in most large U.S. companies are routinely instructed to not give references but to instead refer the inquirer to the personnel office, where confirmation of employment and dates of employment are about all that is provided, even if the previous employee releases the company to provide more.
Such paucity of background information not only impedes employers from making fully informed hiring decisions. It may also prompt them to resort to broader prejudices that hurt not just former inmates but plenty of others who have never been to prison.
Earlier this year, The Atlantic magazine reported on a couple of academic studies that found banning the box has backfired on low-skilled workers of color, regardless of criminal history. In states where the ban has been adopted, it has made it harder for the low-skilled jobless to find employment, not easier. That’s because, without the benefit of factual information about potential criminal history, employers rely more on preconceptions, including one that assumes minorities are more likely to have a criminal record than whites.
In fact, at least one of these studies found that when employers were free to conduct thorough criminal background checks, they were considerably more likely to have hired a black male in the most recent job they filled.
It should be obvious why that is. The more a person knows about another, the more likely the other person will be judged on individual merit, not on inaccurate but ingrained generalizations.
Rather than trying to tie the hands of employers, it might be better for Mississippi to adopt another strategy recommended by Starrett and the Re-entry Council: Stop sending so many low-risk offenders to prison in the first place.
