 A new study by researchers at Northwestern University should put many employers’
minds at ease about hiring ex-offenders. The study found employees with criminal
records were less likely to quit a job, and in general, were no more likely to
be fired than employees without records. This is good news, because for
ex-offenders – and community members and taxpayers – it is crucial that those
leaving prison be able to obtain employment. While the study should reassure
employers willing to give ex-offenders a chance, lawmakers should see it as a
call to make employment more feasible by reforming Illinois’ negligent-hiring
laws.
Study shows less turnover among ex-offenders
The study’s authors examined employment records for employees in low-skill,
white-collar jobs such as customer service and sales representatives, according
to a report in the Chicago Reader. The researchers determined that ex-offenders
were significantly less likely to quit their jobs compared with employees
without criminal records. The study points out that for the employers studied,
each new hire costs approximately $4,000, so the lower turnover rate among
ex-offenders has the potential to save costs for employers.
The study also found that ex-offenders in general were not more likely to be
fired than employees without criminal histories, and that only ex-offenders in
sales positions were likelier to be terminated for misconduct.
Negligent-hiring lawsuits a concern for employers that hire ex-offenders and an
obstacle for ex-offenders seeking jobs
Although the Northwestern University study might reassure employers about job
applicants with criminal records, employers may still be wary of lawsuits in the
event an ex-offender engages in wrongful conduct after he or she is hired. Some
52 percent of employers conduct criminal background searches for this reason,
according to survey data from the Society for Human Resource Management.
Illinois should follow the lead of other states that make it more feasible for
businesses to hire ex-offenders by providing hiring-liability protections.
Colorado’s law, for example, limits the use of an employee’s criminal record in
lawsuits if an arrest didn’t result in a conviction, if the record was sealed or
the person received a pardon, and, most importantly, if the conviction was
unrelated to the facts of the case. Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North
Carolina and Ohio also provide qualified immunity from lawsuits when a criminal
record is the only evidence of negligence.
Illinois does provide some negligent-hiring liability protection – but only for
employers that hire former offenders who have obtained certificates of relief
from disabilities. The certificates serve as evidence of rehabilitation: They
make ex-offenders eligible for certain business and professional licenses and
provide protection from lawsuits to employers that hire the ex-offenders. But
not all former offenders can afford to pay a lawyer to handle the application
process for the certificate or a delayed job search while waiting for a court to
issue the certificate.
[to top of second column] |
 Expanded protection from negligent-hiring liability could
facilitate ex-offender employment without imposing onerous burdens
on employers
The Illinois General Assembly should pass legislation to restrict
hiring liability to cases in which an employer knew about the
employee’s criminal record (or was grossly negligent in not
knowing), and the employee’s criminal conviction directly related
both to the nature of the employee’s work and the conduct that gave
rise to the alleged injury on which the lawsuit is based.
Reforming negligent-hiring laws would remove an obstacle to
employment for those who need a second chance. Unlike Illinois’ “ban
the box” law, which prohibits employers from asking about an
applicant’s criminal history until an interview has been offered or
a conditional offer extended, expanding hiring-liability protections
would not impose burdensome and costly compliance obligations on
employers. Nor would it have the unintended consequences for
applicants – ex-offender and non-ex-offender alike – of ban-the-box
laws, which can result in employers using proxies for criminal
history such as low education levels, or even, disturbingly, race,
to exclude applicants from jobs.
For ex-offenders, a good job means a second chance – and a higher
likelihood of not returning to prison
For an ex-offender, the ability to get a job after leaving prison
can mean the difference between a successful transition to
self-sufficiency with a productive life in his or her community and
lapsing into crime. A Safer Foundation study showed that
ex-offenders who underwent training and kept a job for 30 days had a
three-year recidivism rate of 16 percent, compared with Illinois’
general recidivism rate of 48 percent.
And each ex-offender who finds employment and stays out of prison
reduces the burden on taxpayers of police, incarceration and
judicial costs. In Illinois those costs add up: Taxpayers pay over
$40,000 every time an ex-offender returns to prison, to say nothing
of the burdens borne by crime victims or the lost economic
productivity that results. Given that nearly half of those released
from Illinois prisons return within three years, Illinois taxpayers
will foot the bill for $5.7 billion in recidivism costs over the
next five years if the recidivism rate holds steady.
Ex-offenders need jobs, and as the new study shows, they can be good
hires. Illinois needs to reform its hiring-liability laws to remove
obstacles for former offenders trying to turn around their lives.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
