Unemployment Insurance Programs - Research Paper Example

 Table of Contents I. Abstract 2 II. Introduction 3 III. Unemployment and insurance – aspects and regulation 5 IV. Effectiveness of current unemployment insurance programs 11 V. Weaknesses of unemployment insurance programs 13 VI. Unemployment insurance programs in Florida 14 VII. Suggestions for improvement of current unemployment insurance programs – the role of law 19 VIII. Conclusion 20 Works Cited Appendix I. Abstract The protection of the rights of employees has been one of the priorities of most governments worldwide. In this context, a series of relevant principles are set in order to ensure the provision of appropriate financial support to people that have been left unemployed for a specific period of time. The funds required for the development of such projects are usually high; for this reason the participation of the state1 in the realization of such projects is limited. More often, insurance firms that have developed relevant contracts with the employees (or the state) have the responsibility for the financial support of unemployed people – but under specific terms and conditions described precisely in the insurance contracts. Current paper focuses on the examination of the current status of unemployment insurance programs in USA with a special reference to the state of Florida. Relevant legislation2 and case law have been included in this study; both the legal framework and the literature on unemployment insurance programs lead to the conclusion that the latter need to be thoroughly reviewed and updated in order to meet the needs of people across the country - including the state of Florida. II. Introduction In order to understand the position of the state regarding the rights developed because of unemployment, it would be necessary to refer primarily to the general principles of employment policies applied across a specific region. In other words, employment plans of a state are usually expected to be differentiated from the similar plans of other states that have different social and cultural structure but also different financial status (referring to the level of development of the local economy). On the other hand, employment rights are often overlooked because other issues – related with the social or political framework of a state – are promoted3. In this context, the environment or the economy are usually the priorities of governments in both developing and developed countries while employment is often omitted from most governmental plans developed internationally. The level of unemployment of a particular country is usually related with the status of the national economy; however, other factors4, like temporary political or social turbulences may also affect the level of unemployment5 developed within a particular state. At a next level, unemployment has been found to be depended on a series of other factors, like the introduction and the expansion of advanced IT systems that have led to the decrease of the number of employees in companies worldwide – replacement of humans in the production line. Governments around the world need to take the necessary measures in order to ensure the protection of employees’ rights, especially of their right to work. The above target is often difficult to be achieved. For this reason, most governments internationally have tried to ensure the provision of appropriate compensation to people that were fired from their work – or to people that cannot work because of specific conditions of their life (children or illness). Current paper focuses on the examination of the various aspects of unemployment insurance program in Florida. The reference to both the state and the federal law regarding the specific issue has led to the assumption that the provision of unemployment compensation in the specific state is appropriately developed by the state; however the fact that local entrepreneurs are called to cover all the funds necessary for the realization of this program has led to severe pressures on the state’s entrepreneurial activity. It should be mentioned that the amount of money paid on unemployment compensation benefits in Florida proves that the effects of this policy on the development of the local economy can be crucial. However, no particular measures6 have been developed up to now by the state government in order to face the specific problem; the legal provisions that regulate all the aspects of the unemployment insurance program in the state are well structured but their effectiveness is limited by the fact that there are no appropriate mechanisms for controlling the application of these rules across the state. III. Unemployment and insurance – aspects and regulation The development of compensation for unemployed individuals in USA has been started approximately in 1911 when the first laws for the protection of unemployed individuals were established7. Through the years the unemployment insurance programs were expanded in order to cover the needs of the population8; however, the criteria for the provision of the relevant benefit were differentiated. Today various unemployment insurance programs have been developed across USA in accordance with the social, political and financial characteristics of each state but also the level of development of the local entrepreneurial activity (defining the ability of local enterprises to participate in the relevant programs). In order to understand the dependency of unemployment on insurance we should refer to the general aspects of their relationship – taking into consideration the fact that the unemployment insurance programs cannot have the same provisions in all regions internationally. Referring especially to the case of USA – and specifically to Florida – it could be mentioned that the main principles of the unemployment insurance programs developed in this state should be primarily set by the government; at a next level, the financial institutions participated in the project (partially financing these schemes) could decide on the structure (and the benefits offered) of these programs in accordance with the government’s guidelines. The various aspects of unemployment insurance programs in USA are regulated by a series of statutes (both state and federal)9. The Social Security Act of 1935 is the main legislative text on which all the main aspects of insurance programs (included the provision of compensation for unemployment) are based. At a next level, local/ state statutes can define the terms under which the provision of compensation for unemployment is permitted. When an individual becomes unemployed, he has the right to ask for compensation by the state in accordance with the provisions of law. It should be noticed that the legal framework developed in Florida regarding the unemployment insurance programs includes its own terms for the provision of compensation to unemployed people. In this context, the status of unemployment10 – as a term for the provision of compensation is precisely described in the Florida 2008 statutes, chapter 443. Only individuals that meet the relevant requirements can apply for compensation11. Apart from the general provisions of law regarding the provision of compensation within the framework of a unemployment insurance program, there are also other issues that may appear when the provision of this benefit is under examination. More specifically, an individual can meet the general rules of law referring to the provision of compensation because of unemployment; however, there may be other reasons that prohibit the provision of this benefit. The specific issue is usually examined by the Court that has the power to decide on the criteria of interpretation that should be used for a specific legal rule. One of the most significant examples of the above case is the rejection by the state of the claim for unemployment benefit to individuals that have been dismissed from their work as a result of their own fault12; however, because the conditions under which the dismissal took place are not always easy to be identified, the court needs to examine carefully the claims of the employee trying to understand the conditions in which the services of the employee were provided and especially whether his/ her dismissal from the firm/ enterprise under examination was caused because of his/ her own fault. On the other hand, in specific cases, the right of an individual to claim unemployment benefit can be justified if it is proved that the employer’s initiative to dismiss the employee was not acceptable since there was no violation of the terms of employment by the employee’s side13. The procedure for filling a claim of unemployment compensation in Florida is precisely described in the law14. In accordance with the article 60BB‑3.021 of Florida’s Administrative Code, an individual can file for such a claim only if specific requirements are met. One of the most important requirements – that also is analyzed through the case law presented in this study – is that the specific individual was not become in this condition (unemployment) because of his/ her own fault. An indicative example it the Edward M. Sinker v. Sweeney (NY Court of Appeal, 1997) decision15 where the court held that the appellant had the responsibility for his dismissal and in this way no claim for unemployment compensation could be justified. Apart from the above requirement, all other terms specifically described in the relevant legal provision need to the met in order for a claim for unemployment compensation to be justified. IV. Effectiveness of current unemployment insurance programs In practice, the effectiveness of unemployment insurance programs developed by the state – as indicatively described above, has been strongly criticized. Relevant studies16 have led to the conclusion that all unemployment insurance programs have weaknesses especially regarding the availability of funds for the sufficient – and fair – compensation of employees. Because of the ineffectiveness of unemployment insurance programs in many states across USA, courts are often asked to decide on disputes related with the rights of people to claim benefits using a relevant program. The courts proceed to a decision based not only on the provisions of law but also on the facts related with each specific case. It should be noticed that the courts have the right to recognize or reject a claim for compensation17 through an existing unemployment insurance program taking into considerations the relevant legal framework, the text/ content of the specific program and the conditions of the case under examination. On the other hand, employees can choose to sign a contract with a privately owned insurance firm which could compensate them in case of job loss. In this case, the right for receiving unemployment benefit by the state is not lost; an additional amount can be paid to the employee simultaneously if becoming unemployed. In this way, the right of employees to unemployment benefit can remain powerful if the terms of the federal/ state law are not met. Certain aspects of the existing law regarding the protection of employees in case of unemployment could be unfair for employees. More specifically, the right to ask for unemployment compensation can be developed locally; in other words, there can be no such right for employees that live far from their place of work and offer their services through the Internet18. Working from a distance cannot lead to the development of such a right – even if the services provided are of the same quality with the ones provided by employees offering their services within the workplace. The above fact is of a significant importance because the development of the work through the Internet is rapid and the specific term – prohibition of provision of unemployment benefit in case of working from a distance – could lead to the violation of the rights of employees. The relevant issue was set in the New York Court of appeals and the judges decided that no benefit for unemployment compensation could be claimed by the employee. The above issues should be taken into consideration by employees that work through the Internet and need to be protected in case of their dismissal from work. In this case, the insurance program chosen – no matter the provisions of the federal or state law – should be carefully examined as of the specific term; private insurance firms would be chosen in that case that would be more likely to offer coverage in the case of unemployment even if the work is provided through the Internet. V. Weaknesses of unemployment insurance programs Currently, a specific procedure is applied regarding the resolution of any disputes referring to the provision of unemployment compensation benefit in Florida19. The effectiveness of this procedure would be doubted taking into consideration the fact that still across the state the phenomena of un-justified claims for unemployment compensation are developed. On the other hand, it should be noticed that the weaknesses of existing unemployment insurance programs could be identified only if all the aspects of these programs – as developed across USA and especially in Florida – are presented; however, this task would be proved a challenging one – if taking into consideration the fact that these programs are regulated both by the federal and the state law (as described through the paper) while in the case law, controversial views regarding the content/ explanation of these provisions have been developed. The weaknesses of the existing unemployment insurance system of USA have been highlighted in the literature and the empirical research20. The relevant studies have all led to the conclusion that a series of changes is required in the country’s unemployment insurance system taking into consideration the provision of the federal and the state law but also the ability of the local government to respond to the needs of such projects. In states, like in Florida, where the needs of these plans are funded by the enterprises, it is necessary that appropriate measures are taken ensuring the fair and equal participation of all enterprises in the specific projects. The financial status of each enterprise should be also taken into consideration in order to decide on the level of its participation (financial) to the unemployment insurance system of the specific state. VI. Unemployment insurance programs in Florida Unemployment insurance program in Florida is regulated by a series of Federal and State Statutes as well as by the USA Constitution – indirectly. The particular legal provisions that define all the aspects of the specific program in the region is the U.S. Social Security Act (1935) as well as the 2008 Florida Statutes (ch. 443). We could particularly refer to the Chapter 443 of Florida Statutes 2008 (article 443.191 and onwards) which refers to all the aspects of unemployment compensation21 provided to people across the specific state - only to those that meet the criteria of the above law. The local government has established the Unemployment Compensation trust fund, an organization that deals with the provision of unemployment compensation to all the beneficiaries (those that have to be given this benefit in accordance with the existed law provisions). In order to understand the effectiveness of unemployment programs in Florida it should be necessary to describe primarily the development of the level of employment across the specific state (i.e. the potential increase/ or decrease in the number of people working in the specific region). Currently, the level of occupation in Florida is rather satisfactory. In accordance with a series of statistics22 published by the US Department of Labor, the number of people working in Florida for the period ending on May 2007 was estimated to 7,963,010 (see Figure 1, Appendix). The specific figure could be considered as relatively high if taking into consideration the global crisis in employment but also the strong political and financial turbulences both in USA and internationally. In 2008, the statistics published by the US Department of Labor regarding the level of wages in Florida are encouraging. In fact, in accordance with these statistics, the average level of wage in most parts of Florida has been increased (see also the statistics presented in Figure 2, Appendix section) – the highest increase has been noticed in the country of Duval County (the increase reached the level of 6.7%) while employment reached its highest level in the Miami-Dade County (reaching the 1,012,400 employees); the latter has been ranked among the counties with the highest level of weekly wage – compared to all other regions across the country23. The above figures prove that the practices that are currently followed by the local authorities in Florida are rather effective towards the stabilization of the region’s growth – referring to the state growth through the increase of employment across the specific area. It should be mentioned that the provision of unemployment benefits in Florida has caused severe pressure on the local economy24; despite the fact that the specific program is sponsored by employers and administered by the state, the unemployment compensation benefit has been related with the decrease in the profitability of businesses – especially the small ones – in the specific region. In this context, the effects of unemployment insurance programs on the state’s economy could be characterized as controversial: unemployed individuals are paid for the period required for entering again the workforce while businesses struggle to pay the relevant funds to the Revenue – the authority that administers the specific program in Florida. Even under this context, the participation of firms in Florida in the unemployment insurance program is necessary25 in order for the state’s unemployed population to be able to respond to everyday expenses – the quality of living in the state is kept at good – average – level. On the other hand, in Florida, the number of claims for unemployment benefit represents the financial pressure in population across the state. More specifically, in accordance with a series of statistics published in the State’s Accountability Report (2007) it is clear that the amount of money paid within the context of the specific program is extremely high; the specific fact indicates that a growing trend of unemployment is developed across the state. The response of the local authorities should be immediate26 towards the limitation of unemployment in all the state’s industrial sectors. However, the increase of the number of unemployed individual across the state cannot lead to the assumption that the amount paid as a compensation for unemployment in Florida is fair. In fact, it has been proved through relevant research that the amount paid as unemployment compensation in Florida is relatively low27 if compared with similar benefits paid in other states across USA. In this context, apart from the measures required for the limitation of unemployment in Florida specific initiatives should be made for the improvement/ increase of the unemployment compensation paid to individuals in the specific state. VII. Suggestions for improvement of current unemployment insurance programs – the role of law The development of unemployment insurance programs has helped individuals to recover from a job loss28 but also to search for another position that would be in accordance with their qualifications; in this context, the social structure of a society is protected and the social and political turbulences are avoided. In this context, the value of unemployment insurance programs in USA can be characterized as significant. On the other hand, it has been proved that the effectiveness of these programs may not be the required one – under the influence of certain terms and provisions that exclude unemployed individuals from taking the relevant benefit. In this case, the development of unemployment insurance programs by financial institutions would be the only solution to avoid a social and political crisis. In this context, the intervention of Government of Florida in the improvement of the state’s unemployment compensation insurance program would be immediate; existing law should be reviewed ensuring that the relevant program is funded not only by employers – a fact that has caused severe delays to the development of the local economy as it is proved through the data provided throughout the paper – but also by the state. On the other hand, the state’s mechanisms for the examination of the validity of the claims filled in relation with this program should be also improved. It is already explained above that in USA many claims for unemployment compensation benefits have been found to be invalid – or wrong as of the amounts required. For this reason, the improvement of the quality of services in the specific sector would lead to the limitation of such phenomena and the improvement of the whole insurance system. VIII. Conclusion The effectiveness of the unemployment insurance programs developed in USA could be doubted. Despite the fact that the USA government has made significant efforts to offer to unemployed individual adequate support, it seems that in practice the relevant measures were not appropriate towards the achievement of the targets set29. In the case of Florida, the unemployment insurance programs are funded by employers. The specific fact has caused severe constraints to the development of entrepreneurial activity in the specific region. The consequences are more severe for small businesses that do not have the necessary financial deposits in order to respond to the demands of the specific projects. On the other hand, the state faces a severe recession, a fact that acts negatively on the development of entrepreneurial activity and the relevant development of the state economy30. This recession which has been further worsened under the influence of the strong financial turbulences across USA could cause severe constraints in the development of the economy of Florida31. The latter has managed to keep the level of employment across its counties at high levels – however, in many of the state’s counties the crisis in employment has been unavoidable. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the identification of all the problems related with the provision of unemployment compensation in Florida – as also in all states across USA – is a challenging task mostly because there are no data available by the state32 – apart from the general statistics published through the relevant governmental offices – presented throughout this study. In this way, the actual level of the problem regarding the provision of unemployment compensation benefit in Florida cannot be measured – only estimations can be made taking into consideration the complaints developed by unemployed individuals in surveys conducted across the state. At a next level, the various aspects of the unemployment insurance program in Florida – as presented through this study – can lead to the conclusion that the specific state has made significant efforts for the development of the specific sector; however, more mechanisms should be established for the monitoring of all the stages of the relevant procedure. Works Cited Fishback, P., Kantor, S. (1998) The Adoption of Workers' Compensation in the United States, 1900–1930, 41(2) The Journal of Law and Economics, 305, 342 (1998) Grossman, R. (2006) Unemployment insurance system at risk: Snapshot of a troubled partnership. 49 (3) Business Horizons, 193, 199 (2006) Howard, C. Workers' Compensation, Federalism, and the Heavy Hand of History. 16, Studies in American Political Development, 28, 47 (2002) Kethineni, S. & David N. Falcone, Employment and ex-offenders in the United States: Effects of legal and extra legal factors, 54 (1) Probation Journal. 36, 51 (2007) Kim, W. (2007) Social Risk and Social Insurance - Political Demand for Unemployment Insurance. 19 (2) Rationality and Society, 229, 254 (2007) Long, S., Shen, Y. (2004) Low-Income Workers with Employer-Sponsored Insurance: Who’s at Risk When Employer Coverage Is No Longer an Option? 61 (4) Medical Care Research and Review, 474, 494 (2004) O'Leary, Christopher J. and Wandner, Stephen A.,Unemployment Compensation and Older Workers. W.E. Upjohn Institute Working Paper No. 00-61 (January 2002) Siegel, R. Global Policy: Employment and Human Rights, 11(3) International Political Science Review. 349, 359 (1990) Howell, D. Increasing Earnings Inequality and Unemployment in Developed Countries: Markets, Institutions, and the "Unified Theory" 30(2) Politics and Society, 193, 243 (2002) Reports More Guidance and Evaluation of Worker-Profiling Initiative Could Help Improve State Efforts, U.S. Government Accountability Office Report GAO-07-680, June 2007, last accessed on 21/10/2008, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07680.pdf Enhancing Program Performance by Focusing on Improper Payments and Reemployment Services, U.S. Government Accountability Office Testimony GAO 06-696T, May 2006, last accessed on 21/10/2008, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06696t.pdf Websites Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, 20/10/2008, accessed on 21/10/2008, available at http://www.bebr.ufl.edu/content/florida-economic-outlook-called-dim Cornell Law School Database (2008), last accessed on 20th October 2008, available at http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Unemployment_compensation#content Florida Department of Revenue (2008), What employers need to know about Florida Unemployment Compensation Law, accessed on 21/10/2008, available at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/uc/GT-800058.html Official Internet Site of the Florida Legislature (2008) last accessed on 20th October 2008, available at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0443/ch0443.htm U.S.A. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, News Releases, Florida, Thursday, May 22, 2008, online, last accessed on 21/10/2008, available at http://www.bls.gov/ro4/qcewflorida.pdf U.S. Department of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Florida, accessed on 21/10/2008, available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_fl.htm#b00-0000 TC Palm – Florida News. Florida among nation's worst in unemployment pay (June, 16, 2008), last accessed on 21/10/2008, available at http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/jun/16/30gtfla-lagsin-pay-for-jobless-workers/ Office for the Florida Legislature. Florida Government Accountability Report, last accessed on 21/10/2008, available at http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/profiles/6135/print.asp Legislation FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE - CHAPTER 60BB‑3 Florida Statutes [2008] US Code Collection Code of Federal Regulations U.S. Constitution Case Law Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Florida, Sigried Goodman, et al., Appellants, v. Barnard College and Commissioner of Labor, Respondents. New York Court of Appeals, Int. 59 [2000] District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Bd. Of Trade, 506 U.S. 125 [1992] United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 125 [1997] Rousey v. Jacoway (03-1407) 544 U.S. 320 (2005) – Supreme Court Collection Howard Delivery Service, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. co. (No. 05-128) [2006] – Supreme Court Collection Edward M. Sinker, appellant, v. John E. Sweeney, as Comm'r of labor et al., respondent. New York Court of Appeals. 89 N.Y.2d 485, 678 N.E.2d 454, 655 N.Y.S.2d 842 [1997]. Maxine Allen, Appelant, Commissioner of Labor, Respondent, New York Court of Appeal, Int. 100 [2003] Appendix All Occupations Wage Estimates Occupation Code Occupation Title Employment Median Hourly Mean Hourly Mean Annual Mean RSE 00-0000 All Occupations 7,963,010 $13.87 $17.91 $37,260 0.3 % Figure 1 – Occupational Statistics in Florida, for May 2007 (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Florida) Figure 2 – Employment – wages in USA and in 22 counties (the largest ones) in Florida for the 3rd quarter of 2007 (source: U.S.A. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, News Releases, Florida, Thursday, May 22, 2008) Resources The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 41 (October 1998)] © 1998 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-2186/1998/4102-0001$01.50 DOI: 10.1086/467392 The Adoption of Workers' Compensation in the United States, 1900–1930* Price V. Fishback Shawn Everett Kantor University of Arizona and National Bureau of Economic Research Abstract Workers' compensation was established by a coalition of workers, employers, and insurers who anticipated gains from replacing negligence liability. Employers anticipated reduced uncertainty and administration costs and were able to pass some of the costs of workers' compensation benefits on to workers through lower wages. The average worker anticipated higher postaccident benefits. Even if lower wages meant they “bought” better benefits, they anticipated better “insurance” of accident risk. Insurers expected to expand their coverage of workplace accidents. Legislative action was required because the courts did not recognize private contracts in which workers waived their rights to negligence suits prior to an accident. Changes in employers' liability served as the catalyst uniting the groups in support of the legislation. Workers' compensation was adopted earlier in states where employers' liability costs were increasing more, unions were stronger, plant sizes were larger, and to some extent where the Progressive movement was stronger. Cited by Available at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/467392 ----------------------------------------------------------- doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2005.08.005     Copyright © 2005 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University Published by Elsevier Inc. Unemployment insurance system at risk: Snapshot of a troubled partnership Robert J. Grossman School of Management, Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, USA Available online 1 April 2006. References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article. Abstract The unemployment insurance (UI) system in the United States is in trouble. Millions in tax dollars are going to undeserving claimants due to fraud and, more often, mistakes or poor UI claims management. State administration of UI is suffering from a lack of both financial and human capital. At the same time, too many employers are overpaying unemployment taxes, not only because of fraud and abuse, but also because they have opted out of the system. Additionally, many employers are failing to respond to UI requests for documentation and are choosing not to contest claims, as they believe the system is hopelessly skewed against them. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W45-4JM6KD2-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d0ebbd03797233cab03d45bd763362f0 -------------------------------------------- Workers' Compensation, Federalism, and the Heavy Hand of History Christopher Howard a1 a1 College of William & Mary Workers' compensation was the first social insurance program to gain widespread acceptance in the United States, and as such became one of the foundations of the modern American welfare state. 1 Most states passed workmen's compensation laws between 1911 and 1920, and all but two states did so by 1935. The other major social policy innovation of this era were mothers' pensions laws, which were targeted at the poor children of single mothers. These laws also spread rapidly in the 1910s and were on the books in virtually every state by 1935. 2 The major histories of the American welfare state 3 always acknowledge the importance of workmen's compensation and mothers' pensions in the early twentieth century, and some authors 4 argue that these two programs established the major fault lines of social provision – between social insurance and public assistance, between employed male workers and unpaid mothers – for the rest of the century. Footnotes 1 The original and more gendered name for this program was workmen's compensation. The term “workers' compensation” did not become common until the 1970s. I will use both names in this article, depending on the context. 2 Although minimum wage and maximum hours laws for women also passed in many states prior to the New Deal, they have generally received less scholarly attention than workmen's compensation or mothers' pensions. 3 Edward D. Berkowitz, America's Welfare State: From Roosevelt to Reagan (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991); Edward D. Berkowitz and Kim McQuaid, Creating the Welfare State: The Political Economy of Twentieth-Century Reform revised ed. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1992); Michael B. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York: Basic Books, 1986); Roy Lubove, The Struggle for Social Security, 1900–1935, 2nd ed. (1968; Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986; Charles Noble, Welfare As We Knew It: A Political History of the American Welfare State (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Theda Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992); Theda Skocpol, Social Policy in the United States: Future Possibilities in Historical Perspective (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); Walter I. Trattner, From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America, 6th ed. (New York: Free Press, 1999); Margaret Weir, Ann Shola Orloff, and Theda Skocpol, eds., The Politics of Social Policy in the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). 4 Barbara J. Nelson, “The Gender, Race, and Class Origins of Early Welfare Policy and the Welfare State: A Comparison of Workmen's Compensation and Mothers' Aid,” in Women, Politics, and Change, ed. Louise A. Tilly and Patricia Gurin (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1990), 413–35. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=D94F81C36C7B0380D73089A63AB25908.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=116047 ------------------------------ 36 Probation Journal The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice Article Employment and ex-offenders in the United States: Effects of legal and extra legal factors Sesha Kethineni, Illinois State University David N. Falcone, Illinois State University Abstract One of the critical issues facing the US correctional system is recidivism among male offenders. Although some studies suggest a link between postincarceration unemployment and crime, others have taken a contrary theoretical approach and consider unemployment to be a major risk factor. To address the unemployment–crime relationship, this article examines the following: rates of incarceration; cultural factors and social pathologies; factors in prison affecting inmates’ ability to gain employment skills; post-prison factors such as stigma, employers’ concerns toward hiring ex-offenders, and legal barriers restricting the employment of ex-offenders. Keywords employment, ex-offenders, hiring ex-offenders, incarceration, legal barriers, post-prison factors, unemployment Introduction Between 1995 and 2004, the rate of incarceration in the USA increased from 601 per 100,000 persons to almost 724 (Harrison and Beck, 2005a: 2). This compares with rates of 116 in Canada, 145 in England and Wales, 88 in France, 97 in Germany, and 60 in Japan (The Sentencing Project, 2005: 1). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (2001) reports that approximately nine out of 10 incarcerated persons are eventually released. These incarceration numbers, in relation to reportedly high levels of recidivism, are an important public safety issue. For many offenders, especially young men, prison is a revolving door; they commit serious crimes, are arrested and incarcerated, serve their time in prison, are released, commit new crimes, and are arrested and re-incarcerated, a cycle that will continue through multiple incarcerations (Freeman, 2003). For example, a 2002 special report on recidivism by the Bureau of Justice Statistics demonstrated that 67.5 per cent (183,675) of 272,111 state prisoners released in 1994 from prisons in 15 states had committed new crimes within three years. The crimes for which they were re-arrested were either felonies1 (similar to indictable offences in England) or serious misdemeanours.2 Recidivism was measured using re-arrest, reconviction, re-sentencing, and return to prison with or without a new sentence. Overall, the measurement of recidivism included both in-state and out-of-state crimes. Of those subjects released, 46.9 per cent were reconvicted in state or federal court for a new crime and 25.4 per cent were re-sentenced to prison. These statistics did not include those offenders who were sent to local jails (Langan and Levin, 2002: 1). A major concern is how correctional systems can manage the release of vast numbers of inmates and how communities can absorb and reintegrate them as lawabiding citizens. To understand the outcomes of various approaches, it is important to identify the cultural and social factors that influence post-release criminal behaviour, focusing on those that mitigate against offenders’ successful social reintegration. The role of employability is particularly important in ex-offenders’ efforts to avoid recidivism. Although some initiatives to rehabilitate ex-offenders and integrate them into society have shown promise, others – public and private sector initiatives, collateral consequences (a delimitation on certain civil rights and liberties following a felony criminal conviction as well as a statutory barrier to various forms of employment), and case law – undermine the potential for success and increase the likelihood of recidivism. Prior studies of the unemployment of exoffenders generally focus on one or two issues (e.g. see Travis, 2002; Uggen and Manza, 2002; Wheelock, 2005) as impediments to employment. Those studies, although informative, provide only a partial picture of the overall factors affecting this endemic social problem. This article, however, takes a more holistic approach by addressing multiple issues involved in the inability of ex-offenders to secure viable employment in contemporary America. Female offenders constitute about 14.5 per cent of those incarcerated in the combined state and federal correctional systems in the USA (Harrison and Beck, 2005a: 5), but this article focuses on the evidence relating to adult male offenders. Social pathologies, medical/mental learning disabilities and racial discrimination The National Research Council (1993) argues that unemployment influences crime both directly and indirectly through social pathologies such as drug and alcohol use (considered to be precursors to violence and property crimes). The life-course trajectories of criminal career studies also show how losing a job can lead to substance abuse, which in turn leads to child and family violence. Medical problems, mental problems and learning disabilities Freeman (2003) finds that a disproportionate percentage of inmates have medical problems that further affect their employability. At the higher end, 21 per cent of prisoners report some medical condition that limits their ability to work, compared to 11 per cent in the general population. One of the significant medical conditions reported was mental illness. Between 10 and 16 per cent of inmates have been either diagnosed or self-reported as having mental illnesses. These figures are in sharp contrast to the estimated 2 per cent in the general population. Similar trends are also reported for learning disabilities. Approximately 10 per cent of the prison population report learning disabilities, which is over three times the proportion reported for the general population (Freeman, 2003: 19), affecting their chances in the legitimate job market. Racial discrimination in arrest and conviction In addition to lack of education and work skills, a disproportionate number of arrestees and convicted offenders are black males. A study conducted by the Policy Institute reported that African Americans in Maryland make up 68 per cent of all drug arrests and 90 per cent of the state prison population incarcerated for non-violent drug offences (Williams, 2003). A study in Oklahoma reported similar racial trends. For example, African Americans in Oklahoma comprised 32 per cent of all incarcerations, while their percentage of the general population for the same period constituted only 12 per cent. The incarceration rate is 3452 per 100,000 black people and 572 per 100,000 for white people (Camp, 2004: 1). Factors in prisons affecting inmates’ ability to gain employment skills According to Freeman (2003), the incarceration experience should change offenders’ assessments of the cost of crime in relation to the benefits. The ideal criminal justice system should alter its values and assist released offenders in finding employment in the legitimate labour market and in making positive contributions to society. Historical prison mandates and political agendas to keep unemployment rates low have impeded the reforms that might have expanded employment opportunities for ex-inmates. Historical prison mandate In the 19th century, the main flaw concerning prison inmates was their ‘absence of employability’; thus prison labour ‘was exploited and rationalized as a mechanism to enhance felons’ vocational knowledge, skills, and abilities’ (Krienert and Fleisher, 2004: 42). In the 1930s, organized education started to emerge in prisons across the country (Albright and Denq, 1996). Introduction of vocational education was intended to shift the focus from agricultural to technological jobs. A general educational curriculum was introduced to assist inmates in correcting their shortcomings and to aid in adjusting to society (Wallack et al., 1939). Since then, inprison educational programmes, vocational training, counselling, work-release programmes and on-the-job training have expanded to almost all prisons programmes in the USA. The rehabilitative era of the 1970s and early 1980s saw an expansion of many treatment and educational programmes. By the mid- to late-1980s, these programmes were viewed as irrelevant, ineffective and inconsistent with the mission of the correctional system, whose policy thrusts moved from rehabilitation to retribution and punishment (Pollock, 2004). The concept of ‘pure rehabilitation’ where offenders were considered ‘sick’ and thus in need of treatment in a setting that approximates a normal society, is now considered naive and without merit (Allen and Simonsen, 2000: 62). Under the pure rehabilitation model, all aspects of the correctional organization had to be directed towards treatment programmes designed to rehabilitate prisoners (Clear et al., 2006). Along with the shift in American correctional policy, criminological research has also taken a different direction and depicts inmates as having strong propensities to seek ‘money without work, sex without courtship, revenge without court delays’ (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990: 89). Therefore, it is deemed essential to keep these thrill-seekers compliant both inside and outside prison walls by providing effective vocational and educational programmes (Carlson, 2004). However, some contemporary criminological thought takes a more moderate approach, suggesting that the relationship of crime to employment is much more complex (Tarling, 1982). That perspective argues that social deprivation and economic disadvantages play an indirect and interactive role in explaining the complex relationship between unemployment and crime. Political agendas to keep unemployment rates low The 2004 employment status of civilian non-institutional data, which did not include prisoners, shows that 5.5 per cent (8,149,000) of the labour force is unemployed (US Department of Labor, 2005: 1). One of the reasons why US unemployment rates look so low in comparison to other industrialized democracies is that 2,131,180 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or local jails as of 30 June 2004 – currently the highest incarceration rate in the world (Harrison and Beck, 2005b: 1). If the institutionalized population were included, unemployment statistics would be at least 2 per cent higher than the reported unemployment levels (Western and Beckett, 1999). Western and Beckett further argue that in the short run US incarceration lowers conventional unemployment measures by removing able-bodied, working-age men from labour force counts. Social survey data show that incarceration raises unemployment in the long run by reducing the job prospects of ex-convicts (Western and Beckett, 1999: 1030). One could counter this argument by stating that the job skills of inmates are so deficient that if the inmates were trying to get into the outside job market, they would fail to push employment rates up. The political agenda of maintaining low unemployment rates in the USA, according to the authors, depends on the willingness of the policy makers to expand the prison system. Such a policy, they note, will further deepen inequality by incarcerating more black males. Employment opportunities for ex-offenders are also affected by post-prison factors such as the stigma of being incarcerated, the unwillingness of employers to hire ex-convicts, and state and federal statutes restricting employment of ex-convicts in certain professions (collateral consequences as mentioned previously). Post-prison factors influencing ex-offenders’ employment potential Ross and Richards (2003) believe that the three basic needs of ex-convicts are employment, housing and someone to believe in them. Other factors include stigma for having a criminal record, state and federal restrictions on hiring exoffenders and employers’ concern for legal liability. Yet, according to Pollock (2004: 257), employment, housing, family adjustment, influence of old friends and the difficulties and loneliness of the outside world are the main barriers to exoffenders’ readjustment into society. Stigma/discrimination In 2004, one in every 138 US residents was incarcerated (Harrison and Beck, 2005a). Of those, one in every 109 men and one in every 1563 women were serving sentences in a state or federal prison. As a result of the high incarceration rate of males, researchers have recently started focusing on the consequences of this massive intervention on both white and black men (Harrison and Beck, 2005a; Kling, 1999; Needles, 1996). Using an experimental audit approach, Pager (2003) tested the degree to which a person’s criminal record affects future employment opportunities. The methodology included having matched pairs of individuals apply for an entry-level job. In particular, the author studied the negative credentials associated with a criminal record. He posited that the state certifies individuals who are incarcerated in ways that qualify them for discrimination or social exclusion. The official status of this negative credential separates it from other forms of social stigma. The fieldwork for the Pager (2003) project took place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the economic conditions were moderately stable, ranging from a high of 5.2 per cent unemployment to a low of 4 per cent. The job openings for this study were selected from a local newspaper and an internet job services site. At the time of interview, roughly 75 per cent of the employers asked explicit questions on the application form about the applicant’s criminal history even though, in most cases, employers were not allowed to ask criminal history questions. About 27 per cent of employers performed official background checks on the experimental subjects. The results showed that there was a reduction of 50 per cent in the likelihood of being invited for a follow-up interview (call-backs) if there was a criminal record. The second question Pager (2003) addressed was the effect of a criminal record when the ex-offender was of minority ethnic extraction. White non-criminals served as the baseline representing the non-stigmatized group relative to black people and those with criminal records. Black non-criminals received 14 per cent call-backs, compared to 34 per cent of white non-criminals. The effect of race on employment is made more obvious from the fact that even white people with criminal records received more call-backs (17%) than black people with no criminal records (14%). Numerous empirical studies support this contention (e.g. Pettus, 2005; Tonry, 1995; Wheelock, 2005). Racial minorities, especially African Americans, face numerous social disadvantages, which, when coupled with their disproportionate involvement with the criminal justice system, clearly impede their chances of gainful employment. Employers’ concerns The extent to which employers are willing to hire ex-offenders has been addressed by Holzer et al. (2002) and Petersilia (1999). Petersilia conducted a survey in five cities and found that 65 per cent of all employers were not willing to hire exoffenders under any circumstances. Holzer et al. (2002) found there was little interest in hiring ex-offenders, even compared to other disadvantaged groups of workers, such as welfare recipients and those who had been unemployed for a long time. Employers make their decisions either based on criminal history records of ex-offenders or, in the absence of such records, by discriminating against those perceived to be ex-offenders. Holzer et al. (2003) also noted some predictable patterns: (1) there was a strong reluctance on the part of employers to hire exoffenders charged with violent offences; (2) employers were somewhat reluctant to hire those who were recently released from prison and were without work experience; and (3) employers were less averse towards hiring ex-offenders who were charged with drug and property offences. Employers are genuinely concerned with workplace violence and property loss, which affects not only employees, but customers as well. The workplace is a major source of violent and property crimes. Bachman (1994) reported that the workplace is the location of 8 per cent of the rapes, 16 per cent of the assaults, and 7 per cent of the robberies nationally. The 2001 National Study by Hollinger and Davis (2003) shows losses from employee theft reaching $32.2 billion in 2000. Employee theft alone accounted for 46 per cent of retail inventory shrinkage while shoplifting amounts to 30.8 per cent of loss by retailers. Employee theft and shoplifting together accounted for the largest source of property crime committed annually in the United States. Obtaining gainful employment is not easy for most ex-offenders. Having the label of ex-offender carries with it a social stigma that cannot be erased easily. Many of the offenders had employment prior to their arrest and conviction. Going back to their old job upon release is often impossible. Even finding a new job for less money can be difficult. Studies have shown that ex-offenders often work in low-paid, low-skilled jobs (Dale, 1976; Taggart, 1972) earning less than $6.00 per hour (Sharp, 1992). Lack of education and deficient job-skills have been cited as reasons for such low-paid jobs (Albright and Denq, 1996). Ex-offenders’ criminal records made it even more difficult to obtain gainful, let alone well-paid, employment. State statutes, programmes and case law With growing concern about employee violence, theft and other criminal conduct, more employers are using criminal background checks to screen potentially problematic job seekers. Employers in certain professions, such as childcare, are required by state statutes to screen applicants. Where there are no such statutes, employers conduct these searches voluntarily to improve the safety and quality of their workforce. Although criminal background checks can be useful tools to filter potential troublemakers, employers must be cautious, as many states place limitations on how such checks may be used (Salgado, 2004). Twenty-one states have standards governing the relevance of criminal conviction to the occupational licences sought by applicants, while 29 states have no such standards. State-licensing agencies also prohibit employers in certain professions (such as home healthcare, nursing, education, eyeglass dispensing, plumbing and barbering) from hiring ex-offenders, even when their convictions are unrelated to the job or licence sought. States such as Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho and New York have no automatic ban for employment of ex-offenders in home health care, whereas in Wyoming individuals with criminal records who apply for a job in health care must submit to background checks (Legal Action Center, 2004). Although states have the power to lift those bans by offering certificates of rehabilitation, only six states (Arizona, California, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey and New York) offer either certificates of rehabilitation or a similar mechanism to remove occupational barriers to the employment of ex-offenders (Legal Action Center, 2004). Only 21 states have standards that require the applicant’s criminal history to have a ‘direct’, ‘rational’ and ‘reasonable relationship’, to the licence sought. Delaware law, for example, prohibits ex-felons from obtaining licences to work in over 30 occupations. This means that convicted felons are no longer entitled to work as athletics trainers, barbers, clinical social workers, cosmetologists, electricians, landscape architects and plumbers. In Illinois, for example, convicted felons are prohibited from working as journeyman plumbers (Krienert and Fleisher, 2004). Colorado, South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia are rated worst in terms of limiting ex-offenders’ employment opportunities. When it comes to hiring ex-offenders for department of corrections (DOC) jobs, Montana, New Jersey and New Hampshire report having no formal policy or state statutory guidelines. Other states have either state statutory guidelines or internal policies (US Department of Justice, 2000). For example, California has a one-year employment ban following a misdemeanour for those wishing to become a police officer, and for parolees seeking employment in law, real estate, medicine, nursing, physical therapy and education. Arizona and Alaska ban employment in prison and probation work for marijuana conviction. Utah, for example, has a five-year ban for a hard drug use conviction. When state statutes allow consideration of felony and misdemeanour convictions only to the extent they are related to applicants’ suitability for employment for certain positions, how many employers really know the intent of those statutes? Some situations are obvious: a convicted child sexual predator can almost certainly be rejected for a teaching position. However, many situations are not clear. There is little guidance for employers to judge the justification of denying a job applicant an accounting job when the job applicant had been previously convicted of a violent crime. Should an employer take a chance in hiring such an applicant, thereby placing other employees at risk or deny him or her the job and face legal liability? Can an employer be certain that such a person would not pose a threat to other employees or customers? They may not understand the type of offences that fall under misdemeanours or felonies in their particular states. Although some states classify the same crimes as felonies, others report them as misdemeanours. These discrepancies in offence classification have created legal problems for employers. For example, VIP Companion-Care in central New York was sued in 2004 by the New York Attorney General for failure to conduct mandatory criminal background checks on employees who provided companion home care for aged clients. In at least two cases the company hired individuals with criminal histories. One of the two workers stole a credit card and an expensive ring from two elderly clients. Among other penalties, the company was ordered to pay approximately $18,000 in restitution and fines (Office of the New York State Attorney General, 2004). The imposition of liability for employers arises not only from denying employment based on criminal backgrounds checks when statutes ban such practice, but also from negligent retention of ex-felons. In one case, a Burger King employee – Paul Leahy – had been convicted of 24 separate offences, including sex offences. On 17 July 2002, Ally Zapp stopped at the restaurant to use the bathroom where she was attacked and stabbed to death by Leahy (Voss, 2002). The employer was responsible for negligent hiring and retention if the employer fails to make reasonable inquiry at the time of hiring or when the employer knows or should have known the applicant’s criminal inclinations (Usry and Mosier, 1991). The doctrine of negligent retention liability is intended to provide safe working environments for employees, customers and third parties by holding employers liable for negligent retention. Pennsylvania, for example, permits employers to consider applicants’ felony and misdemeanour convictions, partly or wholly, in hiring decisions. As in Hawaii, Michigan, Kentucky and Missouri, criminal convictions in Pennsylvania may only be considered to the extent they relate to an applicant’s suitability for the specific job in question. If an applicant is denied solely because of his or her criminal conviction, the employer must inform the applicant in writing. An applicant denied a position can sue an employer challenging his/her reliance on the background check. If, for example, an employer denies employment based on a conviction unrelated to the job, or if the employer relied on a mere arrest, the Criminal History Record Information Act allows actual and real damages, as well as punitive damages (up to $10,000). Unlike Pennsylvania, criminal history record statutes in New Jersey, Oklahoma and Delaware do not limit the use of criminal background checks for hiring purposes. However, under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), employers may not automatically bar applicants based merely on arrest records. Instead, the EEOC, following the position stated in the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires the employer to evaluate the arrest and determine whether the conduct for which the applicant was arrested is both job-related and of recent origin. The EEOC’s position regarding criminal convictions is similar in that an employer cannot bar applicants with convictions without applying the rationale of ‘business necessity’. For instance, in a business necessity an employer denied a delivery job to an applicant who had a conviction on a drug-related offence within the past year. Conversely, an employer was not permitted to deny employment for a housekeeping job to an applicant who had a 15-year-old drug conviction (Doerner, Saunders, Daniel and Anderson Law Firm, 2004). Not only are criminal convictions considered relevant in employment decision of ex-convicts, but also arrest records. In this regard, most states (37) have laws permitting employers and occupational licensing agencies to ask questions about and consider arrests that never led to convictions in making employment decisions. Only 10 states prohibit employers and occupational licensing agencies from considering arrests in employment decisions if those arrests did not lead to convictions, and three states prohibit certain employers from using arrest information in employment decisions (see Legal Action Center, 2004). When it comes to employment decisions by private employers, 45 states have no standards restricting private employers from considering arrest and conviction in hiring decisions. In Arkansas, for instance, private employers can ask prospective job applicants about arrests not leading to conviction. Similarly, while employers in Alaska can ask job applicants about arrests, applicants may answer ‘no’ if their arrest records have been sealed by the court (see Legal Action Centre, 2004). To encourage job opportunities for ex-convicts, the City Council in Cleveland is proposing an anti-discrimination law for ex-offenders who want to re-enter the workforce. Under the proposed ordinance, the city would cancel contracts of companies that do business with the city if they discriminate against ex-offenders (Townsend, 2004). Companies could still ask applicants about their criminal record and would not be liable for failure to hire if applicants’ prior offences are related to the job. These statutory restrictions have limited the number of occupations in which exoffenders can work (Petersilia, 1999). Placing ex-offenders in high-quality jobs based on their job skills seems to have more positive effect on recidivism than just any employment. Uggen (1999: 144) found that high-quality jobs decrease the likelihood of criminal behaviour. This research raised significant policy questions: ‘Assuming that placing ex-offenders in high-quality jobs reduces recidivism, how can policymakers justify restricting their access to those jobs?’, ‘How can policymakers justify such a costly stance?’, and ‘How do policymakers justify the elimination of such barriers when the public believes scarce, high quality jobs should go to the most, not the least deserving in a large, needy underclass?’. Uggen (1999) suggests that one way to overcome this dilemma is to provide such incentives in a comprehensive, yet costly, national employment and training strategy. the conduct for which the applicant was arrested is both job-related and of recent origin. The EEOC’s position regarding criminal convictions is similar in that an employer cannot bar applicants with convictions without applying the rationale of ‘business necessity’. For instance, in a business necessity an employer denied a delivery job to an applicant who had a conviction on a drug-related offence within the past year. Conversely, an employer was not permitted to deny employment for a housekeeping job to an applicant who had a 15-year-old drug conviction (Doerner, Saunders, Daniel and Anderson Law Firm, 2004). Not only are criminal convictions considered relevant in employment decision of ex-convicts, but also arrest records. In this regard, most states (37) have laws permitting employers and occupational licensing agencies to ask questions about and consider arrests that never led to convictions in making employment decisions. Only 10 states prohibit employers and occupational licensing agencies from considering arrests in employment decisions if those arrests did not lead to convictions, and three states prohibit certain employers from using arrest information in employment decisions (see Legal Action Center, 2004). When it comes to employment decisions by private employers, 45 states have no standards restricting private employers from considering arrest and conviction in hiring decisions. In Arkansas, for instance, private employers can ask prospective job applicants about arrests not leading to conviction. Similarly, while employers in Alaska can ask job applicants about arrests, applicants may answer ‘no’ if their arrest records have been sealed by the court (see Legal Action Centre, 2004). To encourage job opportunities for ex-convicts, the City Council in Cleveland is proposing an anti-discrimination law for ex-offenders who want to re-enter the workforce. Under the proposed ordinance, the city would cancel contracts of companies that do business with the city if they discriminate against ex-offenders (Townsend, 2004). Companies could still ask applicants about their criminal record and would not be liable for failure to hire if applicants’ prior offences are related to the job. These statutory restrictions have limited the number of occupations in which exoffenders can work (Petersilia, 1999). Placing ex-offenders in high-quality jobs based on their job skills seems to have more positive effect on recidivism than just any employment. Uggen (1999: 144) found that high-quality jobs decrease the likelihood of criminal behaviour. This research raised significant policy questions: ‘Assuming that placing ex-offenders in high-quality jobs reduces recidivism, how can policymakers justify restricting their access to those jobs?’, ‘How can policymakers justify such a costly stance?’, and ‘How do policymakers justify the elimination of such barriers when the public believes scarce, high quality jobs should go to the most, not the least deserving in a large, needy underclass?’. Uggen (1999) suggests that one way to overcome this dilemma is to provide such incentives in a comprehensive, yet costly, national employment and training strategy. innovative models of practice instead of funding employment services to exoffenders (Finn, 1998). Another federal initiative is the Placement Program Branch created by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 1996. The goal of the programme is to improve federal inmates’ chances of employment after release by way of offering mock job fairs, special training in resumé preparation, and listings of job openings. The most recent legislation was the Workplace Investment Act (WIA), enacted in 1998. WIA consolidated a number of Labor Department job-training programmes and established one-stop-centres in all states (Almanac of Policy Issues, 2001). Finn (1998) evaluated three innovative programmes: Safer Foundation, the Center for Employment Opportunities, and Project Rio. These programmes provided basic services of life skills training, job preparation skills, job placement, social support and follow-up assistance. All three programmes provided follow-up services after job placement of released offenders. Initial evaluations showed no clear evidence that they were able to help large numbers of ex-offenders to remain employed and crime-free. Conclusions and recommendations One of the obvious facts about incarceration is that eventually all of these released inmates will live among us. These individuals will either adjust to the rigors and temptations of life outside prison or will fail because of the ‘suspended animation’ of prison life they had experienced. Studies have shown that prison populations have serious medical and mental problems along with low education and low employment skills, and they are in disadvantaged positions. Generally persons with physical and mental problem, limited educations and poor job skills do poorly in the US job market independent of a criminal record. As Freeman (2003: 11) states, ‘Getting an ex-offender a job does not mean that they [he or she] will eschew a criminal opportunity if it arises’. Therefore, to minimize recidivism and improve employment opportunities, issues such as medical problems, mental illnesses and values or preferences with which ex-offenders assess legitimate activity have to be considered. Although there are several issues that the criminal justice system can address to reduce recidivism, one of the essential parts of offender reintegration is improving employment potential for exoffenders. To achieve this objective: (1) the criminal justice system should assist ex-offenders through skill-building while in prison and help them gain employment upon release, even if not released under formal supervision; (2) employers should be given incentives to hire ex-offenders; (3) clear statutory guidelines should be established for employers, both in public and private sectors; and (4) crime prevention efforts to reduce opportunities for criminal behaviour should be given priority. A programme known as Better People implemented in Multnomah County, Oregon, has shown some success. The goal of the programme was to reduce the number of people returning to crime through Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT), a type of cognitive behavioural therapy programme, and to provide job placement for qualified ex-offenders. The programme was developed by Little and Robinson (1989). The programme consists of 12–16 steps dealing with moral development and draws on the earlier works of Kohlberg (1972) and Piaget (1973). It focuses on addressing cognitive and behavioural issues and was first implemented in Shelby County, Tennessee, in the mid-1980s. Participants must demonstrate prosocial behaviour in order to advance to the next treatment step. The job placement occurs after clients move through the initial stages of treatment of the MRT programme. The agency accepts jobs that pay a minimum of $8.00 per hour, in addition to health benefits. The average wage for job placement for Better People’s clients was higher ($8.79/hr), compared to reported average wages of other exoffender employment programmes in New York ($6.30/hr) and in St. Louis ($7.25/hr). The programme also showed a strong retention rate of over 70 per cent, compared to 50–55 per cent in other ex-offender employment programmes. The strong retention rate means that businesses continue to hire ex-offenders and begin to see ex-offenders as a valuable source of reliable talent (Better People, 2000). Somewhat similar government initiated programmes dealing with employment assistance for ex-offenders in the UK started in the late-1990s and are based on social-justice philosophies. For example, ASSET and Surrey Springboard Schemes were designed to improve employability and employment of convicted criminal offenders. However, these programmes are devoid of the moral development component present in the American MRT programmes. Another programme found in the UK attempting to deal with the relationship between crime and unemployment (the New Deal), involves a proactive strategy by providing government assistance to a broader range of clients than that provided by MRT programmes in the USA (Sarno et al., 2000). To improve ex-offenders’ employment opportunities and to provide quality jobs, employers need to be willing to hire ex-offenders. Some states are allowing employers free business insurance policies that protect employers from loss due to employee dishonesty. The policy serves as an incentive to companies to hire job applicants who are ex-offenders or have some other risk factors. It insures employers against employee theft, forgery, larceny or embezzlement, but does not cover liability due to poor work and job-related injuries or accidents. Research on workplace risk posed by employees with criminal histories is at best scanty. Thus, the question is how one can inform law and policy about workplace risk so that informed decisions are made based on empirical data rather than fears. Sceptics may argue that the reason we have limited research linking employees with criminal histories to workplace violence, is because the laws and regulations have, thus far, been effective in reducing or eliminating workplace violence posed by those individuals. Statutes barring ex-offenders from securing and retaining gainful employment are tradeoffs. In terms of reducing workplace crime, such laws will have trickling risk effects. Studies have shown that those who are unemployed pose a greater risk to society than those who are employed. Therefore, barring individuals with criminal histories from the labour market leads to more crime, thereby posing greater risk to society more generally, not just in the workplace. These recommendations are in no way endorsing employment for all ex-offenders, irrespective of their propensities to criminal behaviours. What is suggested here, are reasonable measures to reduce recidivism. Notes 1 Felonies are crimes of greater severity than misdemeanours and are punishable by death or incarceration in a penitentiary for one year or more. 2 Minor misdemeanours are generally punishable by a fine or imprisonment (or both) to be served in jail, typically for only brief periods of time, while serious misdemeanours are punishable by incarceration far longer periods, e.g. for up to a full year. References Albright, S. and F. Denq (1996) ‘Employer Attitudes toward Hiring Ex-offenders’, Prison Journal 76 (2): 118–138. Allen, H.E. and C.E. Simonsen (2000) Corrections in America: An Introduction (9th edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Almanac of Policy Issues (2001) Job Training and Vocational Education. URL (accessed 19 October 2004): http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/ job-training.shtml Bachman, R. (1994) Violence and Theft in the Workplace. Crime Data Brief: National Crime Victimization Survey. NCJ-148199. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Better People (2000) 2000 Annual Report. URL (accessed 15 October 2004): http://www.betterpeople.org./docs/report2.pdf Bureau of Justice Statistics (2001) Prison Statistics. URL (accessed 15 October 2004): http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm Bureau of Justice Statistics (2003) Compendium of State Privacy and Security Legislation: 2002 Overview. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of the Justice Programs. Camp, D. (2004) Incarceration Rates by Race. URL (accessed 15 October 2004): http://www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/OCJRC94/940650k.htm Carlson, P.M. (2004) ‘Something to Lose: A Balanced and Reality-based Rationale for Institutional Programming’, in J.L. Krienert and M.S. Fleisher, Crime and Employment: Critical Issues in Crime Reduction for Corrections, pp. 61–74. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Clear, T.R., G.F. Cole and M.D. Reisig (2006) American Corrections (7th edn). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Dale, M. (1976) ‘Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders’, Crime and Delinquency 22: 322–7. Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson Law Firm (2004) Oklahoma Employment Law Letter. URL (accessed 24 October 2004): http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/ document?_m=ec30d185e5242736b535f790b8ce2f5f&_docnum=7&wchp= dGLbVzz-zSkVb&_md5=b27e93cab9b359e6870b3a2adfc225d.4 Federal Statutes Authorizing Criminal Background Checks for Nursing Facility Job Applicants and Employees (2004) URL (accessed 2 October 2004): http://www.cms.hhs. gov/medicaid/reports/backchks.pdf Finn, P. (1998) ‘Job Placement for Offenders in Relation to Recidivism’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 28 (1/2): 89–106. Finn, P. (1999) Washington State’s Corrections Clearinghouse: A Comprehensive Approach to Offender Employment. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Freeman, R. (2003) Can We Close the Revolving Door? Recidivism vs. Employment of Ex-offenders in the US. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University National Bureau of Economic Research. Gottfredson, M. and T. Hirschi (1990) A General Theory of Crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Harrison, P.M. and A.J. Beck (2005a) Prisoners in 2004. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 210677. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Harrison, P. M. and A.J. Beck (2005b) Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2004. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 208801. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Hollinger, R.C. and J.L. Davis (2003) National Retail Security Survey: Final Report. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Holzer, H., S. Raphael and M.A. Stoll (2002) Will Employers Hire Ex-offenders? Employer Preferences, Background Checks and their Determinants. Institute for Research on Poverty, Discussion Paper No. 1243–02. URL (accessed 15 October 2004): http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/pubs/dp124302.pdf Holzer, H.J., S. Raphael and M.A. Stoll (2003) Employer Demand for Ex-offenders: Recent Evidence from Los Angeles. URL (accessed 15 October 2004): http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent /ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=8388 Kling, J. (1999) The Effects of Prison Sentence Length on the Subsequent Employment and Earnings of Criminal Defendants. Woodrow Wilson School Discussion Paper no. 208. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kohlberg, L. (1972) ‘A Cognitive Developmental Approach to Moral Education’, Humanist 32 (2): 13–16. Krienert, J.L. and M.S. Fleisher (2004) ‘Economic Rehabilitation: A Reassessment of the Link between Employment and Crime’, in J.L. Krienert and M.S. Fleisher, Unemployment and Crime: Critical Issues in Crime Reduction for Corrections, pp. 39–56. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Langan, P.A. and D.J. Levin (2002) Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Legal Action Center (2004) After Prison: Roadblocks to Re-entry. A Report on State Legal Barriers Facing People with Criminal Records. URL (accessed 2 October 2004): http://www.lac.org/lac/main.php?view=law&subaction=4 Little, G.L. and K.D. Robinson (1989) ‘Effects of Moral Reconation Therapy upon Moral Reasoning, Life Purpose, and Recidivism among Drug and Alcohol Offenders’, Psychological Report 64: 83–90. National Research Council (1993) Losing Generations: Adolescents in High-risk Settings. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Needles, K.E. (1996) ‘Go Directly to Jail and Do Not Collect? A Long-term Study of Recidivism, Employment, and Earnings Patterns among Prison Releases’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 33 (4): 471–96. Office of the New York State Attorney General (2004) Press Release, Central NY Firm Violated Criminal Background Check Law. URL (accessed 25 October 2004): http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/oct/oct13b_04.html Pager, D. (2003) ‘The Mark of a Criminal Record’, American Journal of Sociology 108 (5): 937–75. Petersilia, J. (1999) ‘Parole and Prison Re-entry’, in M. Tonry and J. Petersilia, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 26, pp. 30–43. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pettus, K.I. (2005) Felony Disenfranchisement in America: Historical Origins, Institutional Racism, and Modern Consequences in Criminal Justice: Recent Scholarship. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Piaget, J. (1973) The Child and Reality: Problems of Genetic Psychology. New York: Grossman Publishers. Pollock, J.M. (2004) Prisons and Prison Life: Costs and Consequences. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Ross, J.I. and S.C. Richards (2003). Convict Criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomas Learning. Salgado, T. (2004) Criminal Background Checks in Hiring Decisions. URL (accessed 5 October 2004): http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00153/003531/title/ Subject/topic/Constitutional%20Law_Religion,%20Freedom%200f/filename/ constitutionallaw_2_1927 Sarno, C., I. Hearnden, C. Hedderman and M. Hough (2000) Working Their Way out of Offending: An Evaluation of Two Probation Employment Schemes. Home Office Research Study 218. Sentencing Project, The (2005). New Incarceration Figures: Growth in Population Continues. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. URL (accessed 10 April 2005): http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1044.pdf Sharp, J. (1992) Windham School System and Other Prison Education Programs: A Performance Review, Schools Behind Board. Huntsville, TX: Texas Controller Public Account. Taggart, R. (1972) The Prison of Unemployment: Manpower Programs for Offenders. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tarling, R. (1982) ‘Unemployment and Crime’, Home Office Research Bulletin 14: 28–33. Tonry, M. (1995) Malign Neglect: Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Townsend, A. (2004) Cleveland May Ban Bias Against Ex-offenders. URL (accessed 24 October 2004): http://web.lexis-lexis.com/universe/document?_m= eba8b261c36f12706a2ead4a5fcbb410 Travis, J. (2002) ‘Invisible Punishment: An Instrument of Social Exclusion’, in M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds), Invisible Punishment: Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, pp. 15–36. New York: New Press. Uggen, C. (1999) ‘Ex-offenders and the Conformist Alternative: A Job Quality Model of Work and Crime’, Social Problems 46 (1): 127–51. Uggen, C. and J. Manza (2002) ‘Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States’, American Sociological Review 67: 777–803. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (2000) Corrections Employment Eligibility for Ex-offenders. URL (accessed 10 October 2004): http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2002/018209.pdf US Department of Labor (2005) Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. URL (accessed 30 June 2005): http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm# overview Usry, M.L. and G.C. Mosier (1991) ‘Negligent Hiring: Headaches for the Small Businessperson’, Journal of Small Business Management 29 (1): 72–6. Voss, G. (2002) Last Exit. URL (October 2002, accessed 30 June 2005): www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/last_exit. Wallack, W., G. Kendall and H. Briggs (1939) Education within Prison Walls. New York: Columbia University Press. Western, B. and K. Beckett (1999) ‘How Unregulated is the US Labor Market? The Penal System as a Labor Market Institution’, American Journal of Sociology 104 (4): 1030–60. Wheelock, D. (2005) ‘Collateral Consequences and Racial Inequality: Felon Status Restrictions as a System of Disadvantage’, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 21 (1): 382–90. Williams, R. (2003) Could Incarceration be Race Driven? Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Unemployment Compensation and Older Workers Christopher J. O'Leary W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Stephen A. Wandner U.S. Department of Labor January 2000 W.E. Upjohn Institute Working Paper No. 00-61 Abstract:      Unemployment compensation in the United States is provided through a federal-state system of unemployment insurance (UI). UI provides temporary partial wage replacement to active job seekers who are involuntarily out of work. For older workers, UI is an important source of income security and a potential influence on work incentives. For many, the transition from full-time work in a career job to retirement is voluntary and orderly. For others, job displacement greatly disrupts plans. The transition often involves many intermediate steps. The chain of transitions may include full- or part-time work on another job which most often is not in the same industry and occupation (a bridge job). There may also be movement between bridge jobs, perhaps back from a bridge job to a career job, and finally a gradual movement into full retirement while out of the labor force. Many issues at the forefront of current UI policy debate are also issues of prime importance to those in the second half of their working life. Issues occur in all the standard areas of UI policy: coverage, eligibility, benefit adequacy, duration of benefits, work incentives, benefit financing, and interaction with other programs. This paper provides a brief background sketch of the labor market situation of older workers to examine issues of prime concern to older workers in these areas of UI policy. Our survey of policy issues suggests that changes in UI rules concerning, initial eligibility, continuing eligibility, wage replacement, and partial benefits should all be examined to evaluate effects on the likely employment patterns of older workers. Particular attention should be given to UI features affecting the choice of self-employment, part-time work, seasonal work, and agricultural jobs. The financing consequences of possible UI program changes should also be estimated, as should the macroeconomic impact of broadening recipiency. UI program features which would promote flexible and extended labor force participation by older workers should also enrich the employment choice environment for other workers. Therefore, it would be useful to examine the impact of such program changes on UI as a built-in stabilizer of aggregate expenditures. While younger workers are usually committed to long-term participation in the labor force, older citizens are often more flexible in choosing to use their time. Worsening labor shortage conditions in the United States mean that efforts to retain older workers in the labor force will intensify. The current and potential influence of UI on the income security and labor force participation of older workers should be well understood. Keywords: unemployment insurance, unemployment compensation, O'Leary, Wandner, older, workers JEL Classifications: J6, J4, H3 Working Paper Series Date posted: November 22, 2001 ; Last revised: April 10, 2002 Suggested Citation http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=291405 ---------------------------- -------------------------------- International Political Science Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, 349-359 (1990) DOI: 10.1177/019251219001100305 Global Policy: Employment and Human Rights Richard L. Siegel Department of Political Science, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno NV, 89557, USA It is advantageous to combine international regime and global policy approaches to employment. Sources of the relative ineffectiveness of regional and global employment policy are found primarily in conflicting missions of intergovernmental organizations, ideological conflicts and the inadequate resources and powers of such organizations. Employment suffers from the existence of higher economic and human rights priorities in virtually all international policy arenas. Although evolutionary progress can be expected in the present regime structure, fundamental change will require truly global policies in a more highly developed regime that integrates economic and human rights principles and goals. http://ips.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/3/349 -------------------------------------------------- Read More