1. Post Incarceration Reintegration into the Workforce
Asia E. Marche
Abstract
This research examines racial bias in employment of ex-convicts. Participants read a scenario about a White, Black or Latino ex-convict or non-ex-convict and rated the likelihood that they would hire this individual. It was hypothesized that White ex-convicts would be more likely to find employment than Black or Latino ex-convicts.
Discussion
These results show that while there was no main effect for race there was both a main effect for ex-con status as well as a race x status interaction on two of the dependent measures. Two of the most interesting findings from this study relate to the two race x status interactions. The quality of work-ethic speaks volumes of someone because it determines how hard they are willing to work, regardless of extrinsic motivation. According to my research, participants perceived African-American ex-convicts to have a stronger work-ethic than White and Latino ex-convicts. Yet, participants perceived White non-ex-convicts to have a stronger work-ethic than African-American and Latino non-ex-convicts. Both outcomes are reasonable because it can be concluded that African-American ex-convicts feel that they have something to prove because the society is already working against them because of the fact that have been incarcerated; the idea of White Privilege can hold validity in some circumstances, but punishment, such as incarceration can diminish self-esteem, but because Whites don’t have a history of enslavement and overcoming, it makes sense that African-American ex-convicts would dominate in the area of work-ethic. White non-ex-convicts are perceived to have a stronger work-ethic because African-Americans non-ex-cans feel as if the societal system is set up to fail them, so why work hard in the first place?
The outcome in terms of hiring was that, African-American ex-convicts were more likely to get hired than White and Latino ex-convicts. This result is understandable because it correlates well with the results in responsibility, knowledge, dependability, capability, likelihood to bring trouble to the work environment, work-ethic, and promotion opportunity. Yet, Latino non-ex-convicts were more like to be hired than African-American and White non-ex-convicts. It was a very interesting result and as a researcher, it sparks an inspiration to dig deeper and find out why
References
Introduction
The prison population in the US exceeds that of any other advanced country. . Research also shows that reintegration efforts of ex-offenders are mostly unsuccessful (Shivy, Wu, Moon, & Mann, 2007). Successful reintegration for an ex-offender can be defined as, steady employment, family support, the participation in substance abuse programs and mental stability. Those in positions to recruit potential employees are reluctant to hire ex-cons. It is no secret that there is a societal stigma associated with serving time in prison or jail.
Research illustrates that there is a racial bias associated with incarceration rates (Eberhardt, 2010; Nelson, 2005; (Bobo & Thompson, 2010)African-Americans and Hispanics make up a larger proportion of the prison population than would be expected based upon percentages in the US population. Thus reintegration is especially problematic for these minorities. . For example, various studies have shown that the unemployment rate for various minorities is 50% or higher for ex-offenders nine months to one year after their release (New York Times, 2011).
I have hypothesized that not only is an ex-offender’s reentry into society difficult, but the difficulty of landing employment is due to implicit racial, stereotyped and prejudiced attitudes of employers. In addition, I predict that the difficulty of finding employment will be greater for ex-convicts who are African-American and Latino than who are Caucasian
  Method
Participants: 31 females and males ages ranging from enrolled at Rider University.
Procedure: The participants were provided with a scenario that included information regarding job position and an applicant’s demographic information as well as criminal, family, and educational backgrounds. They were asked to rate the potential job applicant on a number of characteristics. In addition they were asked to indicate the likelihood that they would hire the applicant, whether the applicant would do a good job, whether the applicant would cause trouble on the job, and a number of other behaviors. .
Figure 1
Figure 4
Figure 2
Results
. Figure 1 illustrates the means of the perceived applicant characteristics of trustworthiness, responsibility, knowledge, dependability and honesty for the ex-convict condition. Figure 2 illustrates the means of the perceived applicant characteristics of trustworthiness, responsibility, knowledge, dependability and honesty for the non-ex-convict condition. Figure 3 illustrates the ace x Status interaction on the variable of work-ethic of the applicant for both the ex-convict and non-ex-convict condition. Figure 4 displays the Race X Status interaction for the likelihood that the job applicant would be hired
Bobo, L., & Thompson, V. (2010). Racialized Mass Incarceration: Poverty, Prejudice, and Punishment. In Doing Race (pp ). W. W. Norton & Company.
Durose, M., Cooper, A., & Snyder, H. (2005). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to Retrieved May 23, 2015, from
Eberhardt, J. (2010). Enduring Racial Associations: African Americans, Crime, and Animal Imagery. In Doing Race (pp ). W. W. Norton & Company.
James, D., & Glaze, L. (2006). Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates. Retrieved May 22, 2015, from
Jobs harder to find for ex-offenders. (2012, July 6). Retrieved June 2, 2015, from
Nelson, T. (2005). OLD-FASHIONED VERSUS MODERN PREJUDICE. In The Psychology of Prejudice (2nd ed., pp ). Pearson.
Second Chance Act. (n.d.). Retrieved June 1, 2015, from
Shivy, V., Wu, J., Moon, A., Mann, S., Holland, J., & Eacho, C. (2007). Ex-offenders Reentering the Workforce. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), doi:0.1037/
Figure 3
Mean
Standard Deviation
3.16
1.57
3.37
1.93
7.09
1.34
6.19
1.78
5.58
2.19