Two ways to get at roots of prison problems

More  than two-thirds of inmates in Michigan prisons are high school dropouts, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Before they go to prison, before they drop out, many of them begin their downward spirals with school suspensions. And school suspensions in Michigan are disproportionately dispensed to African-American students, according an ACLU report this week called “Reclaiming Michigan’s Throwaway Kids: Students Trapped in the School-to-Prison-Pipeline.”

In Ann Arbor, for example, 18 percent of public school students are African-American, but they receive 58 percent of the suspensions. In Clintondale, African-Americans account for 45 percent of the students and 80 percent of the suspensions.

A key solution, the ACLU argues, is to reinvent alternative education programs so they are not “dumping grounds” for troubled students.

Another solution to the prison problem is to assure parolees have at least a fighting chance to lead productive lives once their sentences are complete. Researchers at Michigan State University are working to help companies understand how best to employ ex-prisoners and limit potential liability in doing so.

MSU assistant professor Stacy Hickox explains…

Employers are often reluctant to hire applicants with a criminal record because of potential liability for negligent hiring and performance issues.  But through Michigan Works! and other agencies associated with the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative (MPRI), some employers are willing to hire ex-offenders.  Why do they do it?  How do they address liability and performance concerns?  The Michigan State University School of Labor & Industrial Relations (SLIR) is conducting research to find out.

Faculty at SLIR are collecting data from employment agencies and employers in Michigan to assess the factors that employers consider in deciding to hire ex-offenders. This information will then be distributed to agencies which assist ex-offenders as well as employers in Michigan.

Numerous studies have shown that employment after release from prison greatly reduces the chances that an ex-offender will commit another crime.  This SLIR study will help employers and work placement agencies make better informed, more justifiable hiring decisions regarding ex-offenders, and is expected to promote the hiring of ex-offenders in Michigan.   The study may also provide valuable information to Michigan Department of Corrections and the MPRI programs on how to better prepare inmates for employment upon release.

The study will also discuss legislation passed in other states which limits the reliance of employers on criminal convictions when making hiring decisions.  Several states, including Wisconsin and New York, prohibit the consideration of a criminal conviction in a hiring decision unless that conviction is related to the applicant’s qualification for the position being filled.  Just recently, Minnesota passed “ban the box” legislation which prohibits a question about criminal convictions on public employers’ applications.  The study will also discuss the ways in which employers can avoid potential liability for hiring employees who then cause harm to coworkers or others, under the doctrine of negligent hiring.  For a short discussion about potential liability for negligent hiring, visit the SLIR web site at http://www.lir.msu.edu/hretc/hrlr/documents/Avoiding_Liability_for_Hiring_Dangerous_ Employees.pdf.

Employers should benefit from the information produced by this study because it will identify ways for employers to hire ex-offenders while still minimizing the potential risks of doing so.  This work is important given the potential adverse impact on people of color resulting from employer policies that totally screen out ex-offenders who apply.  Because of this impact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is currently creating new guidelines on this topic.

If you would like to participate in SLIR’s research or receive the results of the study, please contact Assistant Professor Stacy Hickox at hickoxs@msu.edu.

This entry was posted in Accountability, Clear Taxing & Spending, Fresh Thoughts, The Center at Work. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

3 Comments

  1. rev. aaron Cobbs
    Posted June 26, 2009 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    many people in prison made a mistake and if given a chance will abide by all the laws ,what if bill clinton had got caught when he tried marijuana ,or opra when she tried cocaine,or pres obama when he tried drugs ,many would turn their life around if given a second chance before they get institunilized

  2. Ted Wilson
    Posted June 26, 2009 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Has anyone ever thought about putting prisoners on probation for one year if they get an employer to supervise them and pay the employer the $40,000 plus that the state spends on the prisoners incarceration. The MEDC spends lots of tax credits to create jobs and maybe the two programs could be mixed and a great solution could be made solving 2 problems.

  3. Ed Boettcher
    Posted June 26, 2009 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    We need to explore privatizing the prison system and in the privatized contract make a portion contingent on nonreturning prisoners. Otherwise pay 95% of the rate today, and if 10 years from now this person has not reurned to prison pay the 5% and an additional 10% OR similar. Our current system has incentive built in for the employees of the prisons to want the prisoners to not be paroled and to return to prison.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>