Ruth Graham How Criminal Records Hold Americans Back

The United States of America and its prison system have been a controversial talking point for some time; the country has the highest incarceration rates of any other and for profit prisons are making a killing because of it. With 750 per 100,000 Americans arrested annually, there is a growing population of ex-offenders with their criminal records available to the eyes of possible employers. With this information, companies are able to make informed decisions on who they believe is a quality candidate for the job. Although the ability to sort through potential liabilities for a company is a much needed tool, these records can have a huge impact on the ex-offender community, making it much harder for them to find work and essentially secluding

In the article, “How criminal records hold Americans back” author Ruth Graham demonstrates the intensity of the ex-offender’s battle with employers and background checks. Graham states “about a quarter of the US population carries some kind of record, with about 9 percent bearing felony convictions.” which when calculated equals 7.3 million ,she also states: “69 percent of organizations say they conduct criminal background checks on all job candidates.” With a significant portion of the population carrying criminal records and a majority of organizations checking for these records, finding employment can be a daunting task - depending on the severity of the case, and the applicant's

What may be keeping ex-offenders out of jobs could simply be the pessimistic outlook of employers towards those with criminal records. Brentin Mock’s article The Case For Hiring Ex-Offenders writes “about 5.9% of sales workers with a criminal record are discharged for misconduct compared with 3.1% of other sales workers, a difference of 2.8%.” showing the slight difference between someone with and someone without a record. Millions of ex-offenders struggle to find a job after being released because of an extra 2.8% chance. “the amount that an employer saves through the lower turnover of hires with criminal records, $746, is much higher than the amount an employer risk losing because of an act of misconduct” Another interesting point brought up in Mock’s article, shows that even if the ex-offender employee creates losses for the company, the cost is negligible compared to the amount saved by the company due to low turnover rates for those with criminal records. Employers worried about recidivism, and choosing not to hire ex-offenders are unknowingly increasing the rates of recidivism, as the effect has been shown to decrease if the person has a place of employment. Employers keeping ex-offenders out of their business are increasing the negative outlook most have against people with criminal