Why Do People under Community Supervision Work and Earn So Little? And What Can Policy Do to Increase Their Employment and Earnings?

Abstract

In this article, I review what we know about the impacts of felony convictions and incarceration on later employment and earnings, particularly for those under community supervision. I then discuss what employers and public policymakers can do to improve these outcomes. First, I review the basic empirical facts on the employment and earnings of returning citizens, various hypotheses that could explain these facts, and the available evidence that support those hypotheses. Second, I review why people under community supervision may have either similar or different employment outcomes from those of returning citizens more broadly. Third, I consider the perspectives of employers and why it might be in their interests to reduce hiring penalties associated with earlier incarceration (especially in tight labor markets). Fourth, I consider what we know about policies to reduce these penalties and improve outcomes. In sum, I argue that both moral and economic arguments exist for a general reduction of hiring penalties that would improve employment outcomes.

Structural barriers explain the link between negative community re‐entry experiences and motives for illegal behavior in street‐identified Black men and women

“…In addition to these restrictions, research indicates that employers are less willing to hire individuals with a history of incarceration than those without, even when equating work credentials and experience (Larson et al, 2022; Pager, 2003). For re‐entering citizens who do find work, they are more likely to be hired for low‐wage jobs than adults without a felony conviction, employment that is not effective at reducing poverty or recidivism (Holzer, 2022; LaBriola, 2020). Research has shown that recently released individuals are at an increased risk for death (Binswanger et al, 2007), with Black re‐entering individuals returning to areas characterized by greater disadvantage, including poverty and housing instability (Harding et al, 2013).…”