How do you help convicted criminals re-enter society after they’ve done their time? Ideally, you do it carefully.
One popular idea that is not so careful, embraced by the Obama administration and its Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is a “ban the box” provision, which 24 states have adopted. This would prevent employers from asking about criminal convictions on job applications. The EEOC tried under former President Barack Obama to go even further than that, establishing a process that might have required businesses to justify their decision not to hire ex-cons after a background check turned up past crimes.
There are big problems with that in any legal environment where vicarious liability is a serious issue. Employers can be sued for employees’ illegal behavior on the job toward customers or other employees. With that threat hanging over their heads, as well as the possibility that they could become victims of theft or even violence, most employers would just rather not deal with convicts at all.
But what if you could pay an employer for the risk he or she is taking by hiring an ex-con? A lower recidivism rate is in everyone’s interest, after all, and the stick is not the only means of providing incentives.
In Michigan, the state legislature is looking at using a carrot instead, and there’s bipartisan support for the idea, Crain’s reports.
Michigan’s proposed employer grant is modeled after a federal government tax credit worth up to $2,400 to employers who hire ex-offenders within a year of their release. The state program would award no more than $7,200 per year for as many as three employees who work for more than 10 weeks.
“Businesses and industries are concerned about hiring ex-offenders, and if it’s possible for them to recognize a small financial benefit to take that risk … then we’ve married two very important goals together,” [Republican state Sen. John] Proos said. “The first is economic success for our businesses, and the second is a returning citizen breaks the cycle of incarceration.”
There are concerns here about the details. For example, should the period of employment required be made longer? And the $7,200 price tag might be viewed as a corporate giveaway.
But if you think of the employer as a temporary contractor for the prison system, it might not be such a bad deal. That amount it is a fraction of what you’d have to pay to house a convict who reoffends. If you look at re-entry as another part of the criminal justice process — and a part that makes taxpayers safer in the long run — this becomes an interesting idea that other states’ legislators should keep an eye on and consider.
