“Change” Frames and the Mobilization of Social Capital for Formerly Incarcerated Job Seekers

Abstract

When deciding whether to provide job-matching assistance to formerly incarcerated job seekers, which factors do individuals with job information and influence privilege? Drawing from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 126 ethnoracially diverse jobholders at one large, public sector employer, I show that jobholders’ assistance relied on the cultural frames for action they deployed. Two frames dominated discussion—the second chance frame and the signaling change frame. Through the former, jobholders argued that all individuals were capable of change and entitled to more chances to prove themselves. These jobholders were strongly inclined to help. Through the latter, jobholders either referenced the nature of offenses for which job seekers were punished, a proxy for their ability to change, or they referenced evidence that job seekers had changed, a proxy for former prisoners’ commitment to do better. These jobholders tended to be noncommittal. Two frames were mentioned significantly less often—the rigid structures and the opportunities to assist frames. Neither implicated the former prisoners’ essential attributes but instead identified factors outside of job seekers’ control. A significant minority of jobholders also offered some combination of these four frames. Importantly, ethnoracial background, which informed the extent, nature and quality of jobholders’ experiences with the formerly incarcerated, also shaped which frame or set of frames jobholders deployed.

Prison Visitation and the Likelihood of Post-Release Employment

“…These ties either erode during the imprisonment period or were never in place at the start of their sentence, a likely result of living in disadvantaged neighborhoods. However, as Smith (2018) notes, it is not just the access to social capital that is a hurdle for many released persons, but rather the mobilization of that social capital on the part of the intermediary. In this case, then, family members are positioned as the primary group most likely to aid in the mobilization of employment contacts for reentering job seekers.…”

“…It is possible that during these visits, family members confer over future job prospects with their incarcerated loved one; ensuring there is no wasted time post-release (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Liu et al, 2016). Family members are likely well aware of the challenges their loved one will face upon release in terms of securing employment, including how their criminal history, risk of reoffending, work experience, and job skills may impact success (Smith, 2018). Indeed, prior research has found that even one prison visit increases the chances of post-release employment and decreases risks of subsequent offending (Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016).…”

“…When this happens, interpersonal relationships have deteriorated, network connections are weakened, and incarcerated people are eventually more affected by social isolation and a lack of ties (Cochran, 2014; Reidy & Sorensen, 2020). Consequently, family and friends who may have vouched for a formerly incarcerated person at a prior point in time, may be more skeptical to do so now after multiple incarcerations, and in turn, withdraw their resources out of fear of personal consequences (Harding et al, 2018; Smith, 2018; Smith & Broege, 2020). Repairing or maintaining these networks is critical to having a source of social capital on which to draw when it comes time for release (Cochran, 2014).…”

Exclusion and Extraction: Criminal Justice Contact and the Reallocation of Labor

“…Alfred Blumstein and Kiminori Nakamura (2009) estimate a "point of redemption" and find that for individuals with nonviolent offenses, it takes roughly 4.8 years without a new arrest to achieve a risk of re-arrest that is comparable to, or lower than that for, an individual of the same age in the general population; for individuals with violent offenses, eight years clean achieves a risk similar to that of the generation population (see also Bushway, Nieuwbeerta, and Blokland 2011). Few employers know about these points of redemption, however, and many laypeople would struggle to provide job-matching assistance to the justice-involved without evidence that an individual's risk of reoffending had declined significantly (Smith 2018).…”

“…They also shape whether or to what extent potential job contacts help formerly incarcerated job seekers to find work. Drawing from indepth interviews with 126 racially and ethnically diverse jobholders at one large, public sector employer, Sandra Smith (2018) shows that jobholders' willingness to assist depended in good part on whether they embraced one of two cultural frames-the second chance frame and the signaling change frame. Jobholders who argued that all individuals were capable of change and entitled to more chances to prove themselves were strongly inclined to help the formerly incarcerated to find work.…”