Through provision of employment opportunities as well as the operation and maintenance of its facilities, the Arkansas Department of Correction has a broad positive impact on the economic life of Jefferson County. Even so, those individuals who pass through ADC, not as employees, but as inmates (and as parolees or probation clients), also have an impact on the economic fortunes of the county. Their impact is much more mixed.
It is a fact of human society that we will always have law-breakers; and likewise, we will always be obliged to deal with them. One of the ways in which we deal with those whose offenses are serious enough is to stigmatize them as “felons” or “criminals.” While this labeling is a necessary part of the punishment process, for many who have paid their debt to society, a continuation of that labeled status hinders their efforts to do exactly what we hope they will — become productive members of society.
When we use that phrase, “productive members of society,” typically what we mean is that the person indicated has a job, pays their bills and stays out of trouble. Assuming that individuals returned to society after incarceration want to become “productive,” we need to examine how we as a nation unintentionally hinder that aspiration.
Glenn E. Martin, of the Fortune Society Inc., a non-profit organization devoted to the successful reentry and reintegration of individuals with criminal histories, recently authored a commentary for the Crime Report in which he assails the paradox of this situation. As Martin argues, “The mass incarceration of minority communities, and the resulting mass reentry and lifetime collateral consequences, have created the ‘perfect storm’ to ensure that criminal record-based employment discrimination serves as a surrogate for race-based discrimination.”
To support this argument, Martin cites an astonishing statistic that has tremendous bearing on the economy of southeast Arkansas. As he states, 700,000 individuals will return to their communities from prison this year. Given that our county has a disproportionately high minority population, this then means we will concomitantly see disproportionately higher rates of incarceration and subsequent return of now-stigmatized individuals.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
While it must be recognized that these individuals made a series of choices that put themselves in this predicament, we must also recognize that our county is affected, regardless of whose “fault” it is. Accordingly, we must ask what we can do to facilitate the aforementioned productivity of newly-freed individuals.
In a recent decision the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission approved updated enforcement guidance on potential discrimination resulting from employers’ use of individuals’ arrest and conviction records to make hiring and other employment decisions.
By a 4-1 vote, EEOC clarified that although Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not bar use of criminal background checks, employers may violate Title VII if they intentionally discriminate among individuals with similar criminal histories or if their policies have a disproportionate adverse impact based on race, national origin, or other protected category, and employers cannot demonstrate “business necessity.”
While this is a small step toward correcting systematic injustices, a larger question looms: Can we reasonably continue to informally penalize individuals for their crimes when the state declares their debt to society paid? While no one could argue rationally that felons should be placed in positions of public trust (i.e. become police officers, firefighters or government officials), we owe it to ourselves to facilitate their path to successful reentry. If we fail to do so, then we place ourselves at a disadvantage by at once creating expectations that cannot be met, while simultaneously having to foot the bill when former inmates fail to thrive.
Situations such as these create an odd nexus of liberal and conservative interests. Both perspectives want former inmates to “do right.” Both want the taxpayers to get their money’s worth. Both want society to be the better for it.