Pager Dissertation on the Consequences of a Criminal Record 2002

• Topics: Sentencing, Collateral consequences of prison

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.
Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:
Document Title:

The Mark of a Criminal Record

Author(s):

Devah Pager

Document No.:

198320

Date Received:

December 2002

Award Number:

2002-IJ-CX-0002

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.
To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to
traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

THE MARK OF A CRIMINAL RECORD

by
by
DevahPager
Devah Pager

dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
fidfillment of
A dissertation

•

requirements for the degree of
the requirements

Doctor of Philosophy
(Sociology)
(Sociology)

at the

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

2002

F1NAt.. REPORT
l\pprOved By: - - _.........
, .,........-_.--

Dat~: - . - - - - - - - - - - - -

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view
expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official
position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

•

LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Professor Robert M. Hauser, Sociology
Professor Erik Olin Wright, Sociology
Professor Lincoln Quillian,
Quillian, Sociology
Professor Franklin Wilson, Sociology
Professor Jamie Peck, Geography
Dr. Marc Bendick, Jr.,
Jr., Economic Consultant

•

•
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view
expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official
position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

•

11
11

ABSTRACT:
ABSTRACT:
THE MARK OF A CRIMINAL RECORD
by Devah Pager
Over the past three decades, the number of prison inmates has increased by more than
incarceration rate in
500 percent, leaving the United States
States the country with the highest incarceration
the world.
world. With over two million individuals
individuals currently incarcerated,
incarcerated, and over half a
million prisoners
prisoners released each year, the large and growing numbers of men being
processed through the criminal justice system raises important questions
questions about the·
the
consequences ofthis
This paper focuses
focuses on the
of this massive
massive institutional
institutional intervention.
intervention. This

consequences of incarceration
incarceration for
for the employment
employment outcomes
outcomes of black and white job
consequences

•

seekers.
seekers.

The manuscript is comprised of two studies:
studies: the first,
first, a large-scale
large-scale experimental
experimental
employers in Milwaukee,
Milwaukee, used matched pairs of young men to apply for real
audit of employers
entry-leveljobs to measure
measure the extent to which employers
employers use information
information about criminal
criminal
entry-level
histories
histories and race
race to screen
screen out otherwise
otherwise qualified
qualified applicants.
applicants. Indeed,
Indeed, the results
results of the
audit
audit study
study provide clear evidence
evidence for
for the dramatic
dramatic impact of both a criminal
criminal record and
race on employment
employment opportunities:
opportunities: Ex-offenders
Ex-offenders are
are one-half to one-third aslikely
as likely to

receive initial
initial consideration
consideration from employers
employers relative
relative to
to equivalent
equivalent applicants
applicants without
without
receive
criminal records.
records. Perhaps
Perhaps most striking,
striking, the
the results
results show
show that even
even blacks
blacks without aa
criminal
criminal
criminal record fare
fare no
no better-and
better-and perhaps
perhaps worse-than
worse-than do
do whites
whites with criminal
records.

•

...

111

The
The second
second study,
study, a telephone
telephone survey
survey ofthese
of these same employers, gathered selfreported
reported information
information about the considerations
considerations and concerns of employers in hiring entrylevel
reactions to applicants with criminal
level workers,
workers, with a specific
specific focus
focus on employers'
employers’ reactions
backgrounds.
of the employer survey, I
backgrounds. By linking results
results from the audit study to those of
find
find that employers'
employers’ self-reports
self-reports vastly understate the barriers faced by both blacks and
ex-offenders
ex-offenders seeking
seeking entry-level
entry-level employment.
employment. Though employer surveys can tell us a
great deal
of employers, extreme
deal of useful
usefbl information about the relative preferences of
caution
estimates of actual behavior.
caution should
should be used in generalizing these results to estimates
The
The findings
findings of this project reveal an important, and much under-recognized,
mechanism of stratification.
stratification. A criminal
criminal record presents a major barrier to employment,

•

with important implications
implications for racial disparities.
disparities.

•

iv
IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Theysay
case, it has taken a department and a
They say it takes a village to raise a child; in my case,
community to raise me through graduate school.
school. The number of people who have offered
support,
support, insight, and compassion through these years has been extraordinary.
extraordinary.

First and foremost I thank Robert M. Hauser for his years of wisdom,
guidance,
wisdom, guidance,
and encouragement.
encouragement. Bob took me in after having been twice orphaned,
orphaned, transforming a
tumultuous graduate school
school beginning into an enriching and edifying
edifying experience.
experience. Over
the years, Bob has been unwavering in his support,
support, guiding me skillfully
skillhlly through the
worlds of grant-writing,
grant-writing, job searching,
searching, and dissertation completion.
completion. In his dedication to

integrity as a scholar,
scholar, Bob has been-and
been-and continues to be-an
be-an inspiring
inspiring
research and his integrity

•

role model, setting
strive to achieve.
achieve. Together, Bob and Tess
setting the standard
standard to which I strive

forward to many more years as part of the
have been like a family to me, and I look forward
Hauser tribe.
tribe.

sharing with me his charismatic,
charismatic, endearing,
endearing, and
I thank Erik Olin Wright for sharing
always brilliant sensibilities.
sensibilities. Erik has the uncanny ability
ability to bring a deep
deep understanding
understanding
always
topics well outside
outside the realm of his own work, to pinpoint the critical
critical axis
axis of
to topics
intellectual debate,
debate, and to express
express the central
central ideas
ideas with more precision and flare
flare than the
intellectual
done. Erik's
Erik’s commitment
commitment to community,
community, intellectual and
author herself could have ever done.
otherwise, has been a model for
for me,
me, and in his appreciation
appreciation for
for the quirky
quirky and quixotic,
quixotic, I
otherwise,
have found
found a kindred spirit.
spirit.

Grusky for
for his mentorship
mentorship from
from the very beginning of my career in
I thank David Grusky

•

sociology. David was patient with me as
as I struggled
struggled with the existential
existential dilemmas
dilemmas of a
sociology.

•

first-year graduate
graduate student, and offered what seemed to be limitless
limitless generosity
generosity with his

time and feedback
feedback inthe
in the years to follow.
follow. Throughout the years, David has been an
inspiring
inspiring mentor, pushing me to think more clearly and to execute my research with
greater precision. Following
Following David to Wisconsin after my first
first year was the best decision
I could have made; I thank him for making that opportunity
opportunity available
available to me.
Lincoln Quillian
Quillian has been a wonderful colleague.
colleague. I have had the great fortune
fortune of
engaging with Lincoln through brownbag discussions,
discussions, through our own academic
academic
collaboration,
collaboration, and through his extensive advice
advice and feedback on my own research.
research.
Lincoln has been consistently
consistently generous
generous with his time and has improved the quality
quality of my

research immensely.
immensely.

•

supportive colleague,
colleague, not the
Franklin Wilson has been an energetic mentor and a supportive
committee. I thank
least of which he demonstrated when serving on my dissertation committee.
Jamie Peck for expressing
expressing such enthusiasm
enthusiasm for my project and for encouraging me to

specific geographic dimensions of my project and of future
future research.
think about the specific
Initial inspiration for this project came while volunteering at the Transitional

facilitating my time there, and the
Housing Authority of Madison, and I thank Lisa for facilitating
(especially Greg)
Greg) for sharing
sharing their experiences
experiences with me. The design and
many clients (especially
implementation of the audit study benefited greatly from
from the extensive
extensive advice
advice and
implementation
scholars with an expertise in this methodology.
methodology. I thank Marc Bendick,
Bendick, Jr.
Jr.
guidance of scholars
& Egan Consultants
Consultants for generous
generous advice and feedback
feedback during the
from Bendick &

development of this project; Margery Turner,
Turner, Wendy Zimmerman,
Zimmerman, and Doug Wissoker
development

•

from the Urban Institute;
Institute; Carla Wirthum at the Milwaukee
Milwaukee Fair Housing Project;
Project; and
from
Linda Garcia at 9t05.
9to5.

•

vi
VI
The audit
audit study
study would not have
have been possible
possible without
without the
the generous
generous support
support of
those in the Milwaukee
Milwaukee community.
community. I thank the Benedict
Benedict Center
Center for
for donating
donating office
office
space
space during
during the course
course of my project;
project; in particular,
particular, I thank
thank Kit McNally,
McNally, Sura
Sura Faraj,
Faraj,
Emily Durway,
Durway, and
and Lenard
Lenard Wells.
Wells. Members
Members of the Sociology
Sociology department
department at the
University
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Wisconsin-Milwaukeealso
also provided
provided space
space and
and logistical
logistical support
support for
for this
this
project;
project; I thank Stacey
Stacey Oliker,
Oliker, Don Noel,
Noel, and
and Deb Kolberg.
Kolberg. Finally,
Finally, I thank
thank the testers
testers
participating
participating in this project,
project, whose hours
hours of driving,
driving, applying
applying for
for jobs, and
and filling
filling out

papenvork represented
represented the backbone
backbone of this research.
research. Without their dedication
dedication and
and
paperwork
conscientiousness,this
this project would not have been possible.
possible.
conscientiousness,
thank Jerry Marwell
Marwell and
and Jeremy
Jeremy Freese
Freese for
for sharing
sharing some
some of the
the most delightful
delightful
I thank

•

final year in Madison,
Madison, helping
helping me to elevate
elevate karaoke
karaoke to the
the status
status of
moments of my final
department ritual.
ritual. These
These events
events represented
represented far
far more than the union of exhibitionism
exhibitionism and
and
department

of the
deafhess; rather,
rather, they epitomized
epitomized the collective
collective spirit
spirit and
and friendly
friendly enthusiasm
enthusiasm ofthe
tone deafness;
Wisconsin community from
from which
which I have gained
gained so
so much.
much.
Wisconsin
Mitch Duneier
Duneier has
has been the best colleague
colleague and
and friend
friend a person
person could
could ask for.
for. His
His
Mitch
companionship on the social
social science
science building's
building’s "night
“night shift,"
shift,” his reflections
reflections on the broad
companionship
sociology, and
and his compassion
compassion for
for humanity
humanity have been a continual
continual source
source of
world of sociology,
world
learning and
and inspiration.
inspiration.
learning
Friends and
and colleagues
colleagues from
from the
the Wisconsin
Wisconsin Sociology
Sociology department
department have
have provided
provided
Friends
immense encouragement
encouragement and
and I have
have learned
learned a great deal
deal from
from each
each of them over the
immense
years: I thank
thank Kelly Musick,
Musick, Eric
Eric Grodsky,
Grodsky, Amy Godecker,
Godecker, Tom Macias,
Macias, Shelley
Shelley
years:

•

Correll, Mustafa
Mustafa Emirbayer,
Emirbayer, Gary Sandefur,
Sandefur, Irving
Irving Piliavin,
Piliavin, Chris
Chris Uggen,
Uggen, Ann Meier,
Meier,
Correll,
Alair MacLean,
MacLean, and
and Laura
Laura Dresser.
Dresser. lowe
I owe aa great
great deal
deal of gratitude
gratitude to
to the
the highly
highly capable
capable
Alair

•

vii
assistance
assistance of Jeffrey Petersen,
Petersen, Janice
Janice Deneen, Carol
Carol Tetzlaff,
Tetzlaff, Sandy Ramer,
Ramer, and Toni
Toni
Schulze.
Schulze.

Colleagues from
from the broader sociological
sociological community
community have also
also made their mark
Colleagues
on this dissertation.
dissertation. Bruce Western has been a source
source of inspiration from the start of this

numerous ways in which his advice and generosity has
project, and I thank him for the numerous
project. Harry
Harry Holzer's
Holzer’s input improved the content and quality ofthis
of this
touched this project.
Jeff Mama has provided helpful guidance in ways
dissertation in many respects.
respects. And JeffManza
dissertation
extend far beyond this dissertation.
dissertation.
that extend
continuing friendship
friendship and support
support of a number of
I have been lucky to have the continuing
close friends
friends from
from many parts of my life.
life. These
These special
special individuals
individuals have comforted
comforted me in
close

•

success. In particular,
particular, I thank Kristen
Knsten
times of sorrow and celebrated with me in times of success.
Carey, Anne Escaron, Nisha Ganatra,
Ganatra, Emilio
Emilio Castilla,
Castilla, Peter Condon,
Condon, Rodger Roundy,
Roundy,
Carey,
Sallman, Chad Kautzer,
Kautzer, Mike Spittel,
Spittel, Mary
Mary Beth Spittel,
Spittel, David Silver,
Silver, Aaron
Jolanda Sallman,
Sachs, Christine
Christine Evans,
Evans, Tim Johnson,
Johnson, Ellen Pechman,
Pechman, and Audrey Smolkin.
Smolkin.
Sachs,
years. Tom
for his love
love and companionship
companionship over the past two years.
I thank Tom Leith for
has endured some of the lowest lows and the highest highs of my graduate
graduate school
school career,
career,
anxieties and excitement.
excitement. Tom's
Tom’s gentle
gentle and perceptive
each of which brought its own anxieties
insights have comforted me in times
times of strain;
strain; his openness,
openness, curiosity,
curiosity, and broad
insights
intellectual interests
interests have
have made
made him a challenging
challenging partner and a loving
loving friend.
friend.
intellectual
Finally, I thank my family
family who have been a continual source
source of stability
stability and
Finally,
from the very (very)
(very) beginning.
beginning. My parents, Sylvia
Sylvia and David, are
are unique
unique
support from

•

individuals with a passion for
for exploration
exploration and adventure.
adventure. Their
Theirjoie
joie de vivre has spread
individuals
throughout our family,
family, and it is the inspiration behind so
so many of my own greatest
greatest

•

...

viii
Vlll

adventures. Sean and his new wife Sheryl
Sheryl are themselves intellectual and geographic
geographic
adventures.
travels are a model for the balance of career and personal
explorers, and their recent travels
fulfillment. And Chet has brought his wit and incisive
incisive intellect to our every
fulfillment.
communication; his limitless
limitless energy and infinite
infinite charm leave
leave him endearing even after 28
communication;
94. This
This dissertation is dedicated
dedicated to my family.
hours on highway 94.

•

ix
IX

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
The Mark of a Criminal Record

.....
Abstract ............................................................................................. .ii-iii
11-111

....

Acknowledgements...........................................................................

..IIV-VIlI
v.viii

Chapter 1.
1 . Introduction:
Introduction: The Consequences
Consequences of Incarceration
Inequalities......................................................
for Labor Market Inequalities

•

1.6
1-6

2. Mass
Mass Incarceration:
Incarceration: An Historical
Historical Overview
Overview...................................
Chapter 2.

7.28
7-28

Chapter 3.
3 . The Mark ofa
of a Criminal
Criminal Record:
Record:
An Employment
Employment Audit of Race and Criminal
Criminal Record .......................

.2
9.76
29-76

Chapter 4.
4 . Two
Two Strikes
Strikes and You're
You’re Out:
Out:
The Intensification
Intensification of Racial
Racial and Criminal
Criminal Stigma
Stigma..........................

77-97
.7
7.97

5 . Employers'
Employers’ Perspectives
Perspectives......................................................
Chapter 5.

..9
8.139
98-139

Chapter 6.
6. Walking the Talk:
Talk: What Employers
Employers Say Versus What They Do .........140-164
140-164
Chapter 7.
7. Racial and Criminal
Criminal Stigma:
Stigma: A Theoretical
Theoretical Overview
Overview....................

165-187
165- 187

8 . Conclusions:
Conclusions: Bigger Problems
Problems and Possible Solutions
Solutions...................18
8.206
Chapter 8.
188-206

Implications for
for Stratification
Stratification Research ...................................
Epilogue: Implications
Epilogue:

.20
7.2 16
207-216

References ....................................................................................
'"
References

2 17-235
217-235

•
Chapter 1. The Consequences of Incarceration
for Labor Market Inequalities

•

INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
focus on schools,
While stratification
stratification researchers typically focus
schools, labor markets, and the family
family
as primary institutions
institutions affecting
affecting inequality, a new institution
institution has emerged as central to the
sorting and stratifying
men: the criminal justice system.
stratifying of young and disadvantaged men:
system.
individuals currently incarcerated,
incarcerated, and over half a million
With over two million individuals
prisoners
prisoners released each year, the large
large and growing
growing numbers
numbers of men being processed
through the criminal
criminal justice system raises important questions
questions about the consequences
consequences of

intervention. This
This dissertation
dissertation represents
represents one attempt to come
this massive institutional intervention.
to terms
terms with the consequences
consequences of incarceration for labor market inequalities.
inequalities.
Over the past three decades, the number of prison inmates has increased by more

•

States the country with the highest incarceration rate
than 500 percent, leaving the United States
in the world (Mauer,
(Mauer, 2001).
2001). During this time, incarceration
incarceration has changed
changed from
fiom a

heinous offenders
offenders to one extended to a much
punishment reserved primarily for the most heinous
range of crimes
crimes and a much larger segment of the population.
population. Recent trends
trends in
greater range
crime
crime policy have led to the imposition
imposition of harsher sentences
sentences for
for a wider range of

offenses, thus
thus casting
casting an ever widening net of penal intervention.
intervention.
offenses,
While the recent 'get
‘get tough on crime'
crime’ policies
policies may be effective
effective in getting
While
criminals off the streets,
streets, little
little provision has been made for
for when they get back out.
out. Of
criminals
two million individuals
individuals currently incarcerated,
incarcerated, roughly 95
95 percent will be
the nearly two
released, with more than half a million inmates
inmates returning
returning this
this year alone
alone (Slevin,
(Slevin, 2000).
2000).
released,
According to one estimate,
estimate, there
there are
are currently
currently over 12
12 million ex-felons
ex-felons in the United
According

•

States, representing
representing roughly
roughly 8 percent ofthe
of the working-age population (Uggen
(Uggen et al.,
al.,
States,
2000). Ofthose
Of those recently released,
released, nearly two-thirds
two-thirds will be charged
charged with new crimes
crimes and
2000).

•

over 40 percent will return to prison within three years (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Statistics,
2002c).
2002~).Certainly some of these outcomes are the result of desolate opportunities
opportunities and
deeply ingrained dispositions,
dispositions, grown out of broken families,
families, poor neighborhoods, and
little
little social control
control (Sampson
(Sampson &
& Laub, 1993;
1993; Wilson, 1997).
1997). But net of these
contributing
contributing factors,
factors, there is evidence that experience
experience with the criminal
criminal justice system in
itselfhas
itself has adverse
adverse consequences for subsequent
subsequent opportunities.
opportunities. In particular, incarceration

fkture employment opportunities
opportunities and earnings
earnings potential
is associated with limited future
(Freeman,
(Freeman, 1987;
1987; Western, 2000), which themselves
themselves are among the strongest predictors
predictors of

& Laub, 1993;
1993; Uggen, 2000).
2000).
recidivism (Shover,
(Shover, 1996;
1996; Sampson &
The expansion of the prison population has been particularly
particularly consequential for

•

blacks.
blacks. The incarceration rate for young black men aged 25 to 29 in the year 2000 was
percent, compared
nearly 10
10 percent,
compared to just over one percent for white men in the same age group
group
(Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2001a).
2001a). Young black men today have a28
a 28 percent

lifetime (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 1997),
1997), a
likelihood of incarceration during their lifetime
figure which rises above
above 50 percent among young black high
h g h school dropouts
dropouts (Pettit &
&
figure
2001). These
These vast numbers of inmates translate
translate into a large and increasing
Western, 2001).
ex-offenders, returning to communities
communities and searching
searching for work.
population of black ex-offenders,
work. The
face in reaching economic
economic self-sufficiency
self-sufficiencyare compounded
compounded by the
barriers these men face
status and criminal
criminal record.
record. The consequences
consequences of such trends for
stigma of minority status
disparities are potentially profound (see
(see Western & Pettit,
Pettit, 1999;
1999; Freeman
widening racial disparities
&
& Holzer,
Holzer, 1986).
1986).

•

Not surprisingly,
surprisingly, the massive rise in the prison population has caught the attention
attention
social scientists.
scientists. A majority of the existing
existing research in this area,
area, however, has focused
focused
of social

•

on the causes
causes of expanding criminal justice system rather than on the consequences (e.g.,
Garland,
Garland, 2001;
2001; Tonry,
Tonry, 1999).
1999). Only recently have researchers within and beyond the
subfield
implications of
of the expanding penal system
subfield of criminology begun to consider the implications
for
of incarceration affects
for social
social and economic inequality.
inequality. Asking how the experience of
subsequent individual
individual and aggregate opportunities, researchers are beginning to consider
the role of the prison as an emerging institution of
of stratification.
stratification.
of this research, the
Despite promising directions
substantive focus of
directions in the substantive
empirical
of causal
empirical study of the effects of
of incarceration have been plagued by questions of
inference.
of society,
society, it is easy to
inference. Because
Because inmates
inmates represent such an extreme segment of
imagine
imagine that their employment
employment outcomes would be poor irrespective
irrespective of their incarceration

•

experience.
incarceration and
experience. Studies
Studies which find
find aggregate
aggregate associations
associations between incarceration

employment, therefore,
therefore, may be merely reflecting
reflecting pre-existing differences
employment,
differences between those
who
who do
do and
and do
do not go
go to prison.
prison.

In an
an attempt
attempt to
to resolve
resolve the
the substantive
substantive and methodological questions
questions surrounding
In
the consequences
consequences of incarceration,
incarceration, this dissertation
dissertation provides both an experimental and
the
observational approach
approach to studying
studying the barriers
barriers to employment for individuals
observational
individuals with
incarceration-as opposed to any
criminal records.
records. Focusing
Focusing on the
the stigma
stigma of incarceration-as
criminal
transformative effects
effects which
which may occur
occur within the prison-this
prison-this work allows
allows me to isolate
transforrnative
the "credentialing"
“credentialing”aspect
aspect of incarceration,
incarceration,by which
which those
those convicted
convicted of crimes
crimes become
the
branded as
as aa distinct
distinct class
class of individuals,
individuals, with an associated channeling
channeling toward the lower
branded
tiers of
of the
the social
social hierarchy.
hierarchy. This
This manuscript examines
examines the
the changes in employment
employment
tiers

•

prospects for
for individuals
individualswith
with criminal
criminal records,
records, exploring
exploring the ways in which incarceration
incarceration
prospects
shapes and
and constrains
constrains subsequent
subsequent opportunities.
opportunities.
shapes

•

4
4
I begin in Chapter 2 with an historical overview of the rise of mass incarceration
in the United States.
States. The U.S. has emerged as a major international outlier in its use of
imprisonment,
imprisonment, despite
despite relatively average
average levels of crime.
crime. I discuss the major changes
changes in
public policy which facilitated
facilitated massive prison growth over the past three
three decades,
decades, and its
disproportionate
disproportionate effect on racial minorities.
minorities. The available
available evidence
evidence suggests
suggests that the rate

incarceration is far from
from a simple
simple function
function of the level of crime.
crime. Rather,
Rather, specific
specific social
social
of incarceration
and political influences
influences have led to incarceration becoming the accepted
accepted if not preferred
means of managing social
social disorder.
disorder. By contrast, very little
little consideration has been given

decisions.
to the possible implications of these policy decisions.
consequences of incarceration
incarceration become abundantly
abundantly clear in Chapter 3. Here I
The consequences

•

design and primary results from
fi-om an experimental audit study
study of
present the research design
employers in Milwaukee.
Milwaukee. In this study,
study, matched pairs of young black and white men
employers
entry-level jobs using fictitious
fictitious resumes
resumes and assumed criminal
criminal records.
records.
applied to real entry-level
differences in outcomes
outcomes experienced by these groups-on the basis ofboth
of both race
The vast differences
criminal record-is
record-is testament to the extreme
extreme impact these characteristics have on
and criminal
opportunities. Equally qualified applicants
applicants are excluded from
from half or more
employment opportunities.
opportunities purely on the basis oftheir
of their race or criminal
criminal background.
background. Given
of all job opportunities
the massive
massive number of men-young
men-young black men, in particular-with
particular-with criminal records, the
implications of these results
results for labor market inequalities are profound.
profound.
possible implications
additional analyses
analyses from
from the audit study,
study, Chapter 44 focuses
focuses on the
Based on additional
criminal record across
across three domains,
domains, illustrating
illustrating the ways in which
effects of race and criminal

•

employers respond differently
differently to applicant
applicant types on the basis of personal contact,
contact,
employers
occupation. In each of these comparisons,
comparisons, black ex-offenders
ex-offenders appear to face
face
location, and occupation.

•

heightened disadvantage,
of race or criminal record
disadvantage, beyond the simple additive effects of
of characteristics
characteristics results in an
alone.
alone. These
These findings
findings suggest that the combination of
intensification
intensification of stigma,
stigma, with employers
employers reacting more strongly to the overlapping
signals
signals of minority
minority and criminal
criminal status.
status.
ofjob
Chapter
Chapter 5 shifts
shifts the focus
focus from the experiences of
job seekers to a consideration
of employers'
employers’ perspectives on hiring applicants with criminal records. Based on a
telephone
telephone survey
survey of the same sample of employers,
employers, this chapter discusses the ways in
which employers
employers express their hiring preferences and policies, particularly as they relate
differences in employer attitudes
to ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. The findings
findings ofthis
of this chapter point to differences
of marginalized
towards
towards applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records relative to other groups of

•
0

workers; differences
differences in employer attitudes
attitudes across cities (using comparable data collected
elsewhere);
applicants with criminal records depending on
elsewhere); and differences
differences in reactions
reactions to applicants

the type of crime
crime or the context ofthe
of the sanction.
sanction. This investigation
investigation complements the
the
results of the audit study
study by providing additional information about the reasons
results
employers make the hiring decisions
decisions they do.
employers
do.
Chapter 6 compares
compares the responses of employers based on the survey data to the
behavioral measures
measures obtained in the audit study.
study. These comparisons
comparisons demonstrate that
employers report a far higher
hgher likelihood of hiring applicants with criminal records,
employers
particularly in the case
case of black applicants,
applicants, than what is revealed through direct study of
of
particularly
employers’ behaviors.
behaviors. The view of the barriers to employment for ex-offenders based on
employers'
employers’ self-reports
self-reports is relatively benign; the audit study results, by contrast, show a
employers'

•

picture. The analyses
analyses in this chapter demonstrate the extreme caution
very different picture.
required by researchers
researchers in generalizing
generalizing the results of surveys to actual behavior.
behavior.

•

chapters, Chapter 7
Reflecting on the empirical results presented in earlier chapters,
considers the mechanisms by which race and criminal record exert their influence. This
considers
of social stigma,
stigma, and proposes several mechanisms
chapter provides a theoretical account of
interactions and constrain opportunities.
by which stigma may affect employment interactions
of individuals and groups, the
Affecting both the immediate and long-term outcomes of
effects.
markings of stigma can have devastating effects.
In
manuscript.
Tn Chapter 8,
8, I conclude with a discussion
discussion of the main findings
findings of this manuscript.

incarceration not covered by the
In addition, I highlight the broader consequences of incarceration
present analyses,
analyses, pointing to the potential implications
implications for political participation, family
stability. Finally, I consider recent trends in public
welfare, housing, and neighborhood stability.

•

investing in alternatives
alternatives to
opinion and crime policy, suggestive of growing support
support for investing
incarceration.
incarceration.

Overall this manuscript grapples with the implications
implications of incarceration for rising
inequality. As prison increasingly
increasingly serves
inequality.
serves as a temporary home to young disadvantaged
men, it becomes critical
critical to assess
assess the impact of these trends
trends for subsequent
subsequent outcomes.
outcomes.
While in the short run,
run,incarceration may detain criminals
criminals and reduce crime,
crime, in the longrun,
run,we are producing a growing population of men, marked by a criminal record, who
are left with few opportunities
opportunities for legitimate
legitimate work. In studying the consequences
consequences of
incarceration, we can assess the extent to which our crime policies may themselves
incarceration,
contribute to the increasing social and economic
economic stratification
stratification of young men.
men.

•

Chapter 2. Mass Incarceration:
Incarceration: An Historical Overview

•

Incarceration: An Historical Overview
Mass Incarceration:
The
The remarkable
remarkable expansion ofthe
of the U.S. criminal justice system
system over the past three
three decades
decades
has become a central concern of academics
academics and policy makers.
makers. Incarceration rates
rates
doubled in the period between 1972
1972 and 1984,
1984, and then doubled again in the following
following

(Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2000a).
2000a). The U.S. has achieved the dubious
dubious
decade (Bureau
distinction
distinction of becoming the world leader in incarceration,
incarceration, surpassing
surpassing Russia, China,
China, and
South
South Africa
A b c a in its proportion of citizens
citizens behind bars.
bars. With over 2 million individuals
individuals
currently
currently incarcerated and over 4 million currently
currently on probation or parole,
parole, the American
American

criminal justice system has changed from
from a peripheral
peripheral intervention to a major state
state
criminal
institution,
institution, with important
important consequences
consequences for stratification.
stratification.

•

chapter, I1 trace the emergence
emergence of recent trends
trends in incarceration
incarceration in the
In this chapter,
States, linking these trends with the major shifts
shifts in crime policy which gave
gave rise
United States,
them. Placing
Placing recent trends in historical
historical and comparative
comparative perspective, it becomes clear
to them.
levels of incarceration
incarceration are
are far
far from
from the simple
simple response to corresponding
corresponding levels
levels of
that levels
crime. In fact,
fact, while there
there is some
some evidence
evidence that incarceration rates
rates are
are affected by crime
crime
crime.
(Taggart &
& Winn, 1993;
1993; Jacobs
Jacobs &
& Helms,
Helms, 1996),
1996), this relationship accounts
accounts for at
rates (Taggart
small proportion of the overall
overall variation in incarceration
incarceration (Blumstein & Beck,
most a small
1999; Zimring
Zimring &
& Hawkings,
Hawkings, 1997).
1997). Rather,
Rather, it is the broader political orientation toward
1999;
crime and punishment which most influences
influences state
state policies on crime
crime controL
control. In the
following discussion,
discussion, I seek to account for
for the major policy shifts
shifts implicated
implicated in the rise of
following
three decades,
decades, and their implications
implications for
the U.S. penal population over the past three

•

deepening racial disparities.
disparities.
deepening

•

A BriefHistory
Brief Histoly ofIncarceration
of Incarceration in the United States

The
The massive
massive expansion
expansion of the inmate
inmate population in the United States is a relatively recent
th
phenomenon.
ofthe
phenomenon. For most of the 20
20thcentury,
century, the size of
the state and federal prison

population
100,000 residents
population remained fairly
fairly constant, hovering around 110
110 inmates per 100,000
(Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2000a).
2000a). In the early 1970s, however, these trends changed
dramatically
dramatically (Figure
(Figure 2.1).
2.1). Between 1972
1972 and 1984,
1984, the incarceration rate doubled from
93
Statistics, 2000a). This rapid
93 to 188
188 inmates
inmates per 100,000
100,000 residents (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
increase
incarceration rate once again
increase persisted
persisted in the following
following decade,
decade, with the incarceration
of increase
doubling
doubling to 389
389 in 1994
1994 (Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2000a). The rate of

•

slowed somewhat after 1994,
1994, but continued to climb steadily to a rate of
of 478 in the year
slowed
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2001a). Overall,
Overall, the past three decades have shown a
2000 (Bureau of Justice
2000
650 percent increase
increase in the size of the inmate population. By the end of
2000, the
650
of2000,

inmates had reached an unprecedented level of more than two million
number of inmates
200 1a).'
individuals (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2001a).1
individuals

' This
This figure
figure includes
includes inmates
inmates in county jails and local detention centers,
centers, whereas the incarceration
incarceration rates

•

cited earlier
earlier include
include only
only those
those inmates
inmates in state and federal
federal prisons (The reporting
of historical trends in
cited
reporting of
incarcerationrates
rates includes
includes only inmates
inmates in state
state and federal prisons).
incarceration
prisons). In the year 2001, the incarceration
rate including
including jail inmates
inmates was 690
690 per 100,000
100,000 residents
residents (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2002a). Of
Of all
rate
inmates
in
the
year
2001,
61
percent
were
in
state
prison
facilities,
seven
percent
were
in
federal
inmates the
2001,61
facilities,
federal prisons,
of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2002a).
and 32
32 percent
percent were
were in local
local jails (Bureau of
2002a).
and

•

10
10
.-

Figure 2.1. Incareration Rate, 1925-2000
600

-r------------------------,

500
500 f
- ----------------

400 +----------------------~'--_1

g
c. 300

------------------1----;

200f----

Source: Sourcebook
Sourcebook of Criminal
Criminal Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics,2000.
Source:

•

Figure
Figure 2.2. Rates
Rates of Violent and PropertY-Property

---I

Victimization
and Inca......'.n.
Incarceration, 1973-2000
1973-2000
V'ctlm'..'''' and

20000

- - - - - _ . - ._--_.- .-....- , . - -

_Violent Victimization
Ratex10
1‫סס‬oo

o -I--,-.,.....,.....,......-

1_- Property Crtme

._----.-

Victimization Rate

...,....,....-r-.......,-";''--::;:::;:::;:::;::::;::::;:::;:::;:::;::::;:::;''''''....,...,.....J.

...",,,,,, ...",,,., ...",,,'1 ...",,,,,, ",'0'" ...",~ ...",~ ...",<Ii-

•

100

_Incarceration Rate

...",'0'"

...",,,,,,, ...",,,,,,, ...",,,,., ...",~ ...",,,,,,,

- - - - - - -~

Source:
Source: National Crime Victimization Survey,
Survey, Uniform Crime Reports,
Sourcebook on Criminal Justice Statistics,
Statistics, and Prisoners in 2000, BJS.
BlS.
Violent crimes
crimes per 100,000
100,000 persons age 12 or older (x10);
(xl 0); property crimes
per 100,000 households;
households; incarceration rates per 100,000 persons.

•

11
11
During this time, media accounts
accounts and public opinion surveys
surveys seemed to suggest that a
menacing surge in crime was the source
source of rising incarceration
incarceration (Beckett,
(Beckett, 1997).
1997). And yet,
over much of this period,
period, official crime and victimization rates remained stable
stable or
declined
declined even as the number of inmates
inmates continued
continued to rise (Figure 2.2).
2.2).*2 As a result of
these disparate
disparate trends,
trends, the number of prison inmates
inmates per reported crime over the past
three decades
1973, there were 23
23 state and federal
federal
decades has increased
increased substantially.
substantially. In 1973,
prisoners
prisoners in custody for every 1000
1000 index crimes reported;
reported; by 1998,
1998, this number had
increased by over 400 percent (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002a).
2002a). The growth in
incarceration
incarceration therefore
therefore far outpaced
outpaced any corresponding
corresponding growth in crime.
crime. If we were to
include
include the numbers of inmates in county jails and local detention
detention centers,
centers, also
also rapidly

•

increasing during this period,
ratios would be larger still (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Justice
increasing
period, these ratios
Statistics,
Statistics, 2002a).
2002a).
The disparate trends in crime and incarceration
incarceration are indeed provocative, and they

source of heated debate among academics
academics and policy makers.
makers. To some,
some,
have been the source
the trends provide clear evidence
evidence for the effectiveness
effectiveness of incarceration:
incarceration: As dangerous
dangerous
3
criminals
criminals are removed from
from the streets,
streets, the level of crime
crime falls
falls proportionally.
pr~portionally.~

•

sources of crime
crime statistics in the United States
States are the FBI's
FBI’s Uniform Crime Report
2* The two major sources
(UCR) and the National
Crime Victimization Survey
Survey (NCVS).
(NCVS). The UCR uses seven "index
“index crimes"
crimes” to
(UCR)
National Crime
proxy overall crime rates.
include: murder and non-negligent manslaughter,
forcible rape, robbery,
robbery,
rates. These include:
manslaughter, forcible
aggrevated assault,
assault, burglary,
burglary, larceny-theft,
larceny-theft, and motor-vehicle
motor-vehicle theft.
theft. Figure 2.2 reports
reports victimization rates
rates
aggrevated
include data on burglary,
burglary, motor vehicle theft,
theft, theft, rape, sexual assault,
assault, robbery,
from the NCVS which include
from
aggravated and simple assault,
assault, but do not include
include homicide
homicide rates (Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 200lb).
2001b).
and aggravated
Neither crime measure includes
includes data on drug offenses.
offenses. Victimization rates are thought to provide more
complete information
information on lower-level crimes that may not be reported to the police.
police. It is important
important to
complete
remember, however,
however, that trends can differ depending
depending on the crime
crime measure
measure used.
used. Differences
Differences across
across crime
remember,
crime included in
crimes not reported to the police,
police, differences
differences in the types of crime
measures can result from crimes
measure, and changes
changes in the official defmitions
definitions of criminal acts.
acts. See Cohen and Cork (2002)
(2002) for a
each measure,
discussion of how to account
account for and accommodate
accommodate differences
differences among crime indicators.
indicators.
lucid discussion
3
analyses at the state level demonstrate
demonstrate that the rate of growth
growth in incarceration
incarceration is virtually
3 Though analyses
& Mauer,
Mauer, 2000).
2000).
state-level changes
changes in crime
crime rates (Gainsborough
(Gainsborough &
uncorrelated with state-level

•

12
12
According to Dilulio
(1991),
DiIulio and Piehl
Piehl(l99
l), for example,
example, each newly imprisoned offender
results in the reduction of an average
average of 141
141 crimes
crimes per year (see also
also Piehl & DiIulio,
1995;
1995; Zedlewski,
Zedlewski, 1987).
1987). Others, by contrast,
contrast, argue
argue that increases
increases in incarceration since
since

account for only a small
small proportion of crime
crime reduction over this period (Cohen
(Cohen
1975 can account
& Cane1o-Cacho,
Canelo-Cacho, 1994),
1 994), and that increasing
increasing incarceration
incarceration has diminishing
diminishing returns
(Zedlewski,
(Zedlewski, 1987).
1987). Recent estimates
estimates by two separate
separate researchers, for example, indicate
that the increases
increases in incarceration
incarceration over the past three decades
decades can account for
approximately
25 percent of the reduction in crime (Spelman,
(Spelman, 2000; Roselfeld,
Roselfeld, 2000).
2000).
approximately 25

Thus, while incarceration
incarceration certainly
certainly may be effective
effective in detaining
detaining individuals who would
Thus,
otherwise continued committing crimes, it is not at all clear that incarceration is the
have otherwise

•

main source of crime reduction.
reduction. Particularly
Particularly beyond a certain threshhold,
threshhold, it seems
seems that

increases incarceration
incarceration can have only marginal benefits for the overall level of reported
increases
crime. Rather, decreases
decreases in crime, particularly decreases
decreases over the past decade, can be
crime.
immediately tied to a complex
complex set of changing
changing economic
economic and social
social conditions,
conditions,
more immediately
including
includingjob growth, age composition,
composition, handgun access,
access, drug use, and the availability
availability of

services for abused women (related
(related to a sharp decline
decline in intimate-partner
intimate-partnerhomicide)
services
(Blumstein &
& Rosenfeld,
Rosenfeld, 1998;
1998; Blumstein &
& Wallman,
Wallman, 2000; Fagan et aI.,
al., 1998).
1998).
(Blumstein
Spelman (2000), incarceration did facilitate
facilitate crime reduction, but the crime
crime
According to Spelman
fallen anyway.
anyway.
rate would have fallen
influence of incarceration
incarceration on crime rates is moderate
moderate to low,
low,
Just as the causal influence
likewise evidence
evidence that the effect of crime rates on incarceration is also
also minimal.
minimal.
there is likewise

•

fact, a recent study by Blumstein &
& Beck (1999)
(1 999) indicates
indicates that, between 1980
1980 and
In fact,

•

1996,only
1996, only 12
12 percent of the increase
increase in incarceration
incarceration can be accounted for by increases
increases
in crime.
crime. The remaining 88
88 percent can be attributed
attributed rather to changes in crime control
control
policies,
policies, including
including a 51
5 1 percent increase
increase in the likelihood of incarceration
incarceration following
following
4

conviction
conviction and a 37 percent increase
increase in the average
average length of sentences.
sentence^.^ More recently,
rising imprisonment
imprisonment rates
rates have also
also been influenced
influenced by the increasing
increasing number of
individuals
individuals sent back to prison for minor parole violations
violations (Caplow
(Caplow & Simon,
Simon, 1999).
1999).
Between 1990
1990 and 1998,
1998, the number of new court commitments to prison increased by
only seven percent while the number of return parole violators
violators increased by 54 percentS
percent’
(Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2002a). These trends offer strong
strong indication
indication that crime
if not more from social
political influences
control strategies
control
strategies result as much if
social and political
influences as from

•

actual levels of crime.
crime. According to David Garland, "[I]t
“[Ilt is clear enough that criminal
criminal
adopts.. . [I]t is not
conduct does not determine
determine the kind of penal action that a society adopts...
‘crime’
criminological knowledge about crime which most affects policy
'crime' or even criminological
decisions,
problem' is officially perceived and the
decisions, but rather the ways in which 'the
‘the crime problem’
perceptions give rise”
rise" (Garland, 1990:20).
political positions to which these perceptions
1990:20). What
appropriate responses to dealing with crime has changed
Americans consider appropriate
substantially
substantially since
since the 1960s.
1960s. Whereas once prison was seen as a last resort for
offenders, it now represents one of
of the dominant strategies
strategies for dealing with social
offenders,

disorder among largely marginalized populations (Wacquant, 200
1).
2001).
4
4

•

Of
by the
Of the increases
increases in incarceration due to rising crime, a huge proportion can be accounted for
forby
growth in drug offenses, measured by drug arrests rather than by reported crimes (as is the case for other
crime types).
types). Excluding drug offenses from this decomposition,
decomposition, the growth in incarceration due to
increases
increases in crime is negligible,
negligible, with over 99 percent of
of the upward trend associated with changes in crime
policy, including the increasing
increasing likelihood of
of incarceration (42 percent) and increases in the length of
of time
served (58 percent) (Blumstein
(Blumstein & Beck, 1999).
1999).

•

14
14

Very recently,
recently, there
there has
has been a small
small drop
drop in the rate
rate of incarceration
incarceration (Bureau
(Bureau of
Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics,2001a).
2001a). The
The number of inmates
inmates in state
state prisons
prisons fell
fell by half a percent
(roughly
(roughly 6000
6000 prisoners)
prisoners) during
during the second
second half ofthe
of the year 2000,
2000, representing
representing the first
first
6
decline
It remains
decline since
since 1972.
1972.6
remains to be seen whether this
this represents
represents part of a larger
larger trend

toward decarceration
decarceration or whether it is merely a small
small fluctuation
fluctuation in an otherwise
otherwise steady

trajectory.
upward trajectory.

Crime and Punishment in International
International Perspective
Crime

international perspective,
perspective, recent levels
levels of incarceration
incarceration in the United
When placed in international
States appear all the more astonishing.
astonishing. Figure
Figure 2.3 presents
presents the incarceration
incarceration rate for the
States

•

U.S. relative to seventeen
seventeen other industrialized
industrialized countries.
countries. Here we see that the U.S. is a

international outlier,
outlier, with rates
rates of incarceration
incarceration between five
five and 15
15 times those of
major international
other countries.
countries. How can we explain these vast differences
differences in the pervasiveness
pervasiveness of
incarceration
incarceration between the U.S. and other countries?
Again, our first instinct may be to look for the "smoking
“smoking gun”
differences in the
gun" in differences
levels of crime and violence found among these countries.
countries. Many people associate
associate
levels
American society
society with extreme and pervasive fonns
forms of violent crime.
Indeed,
crime. Indeed,
comparative
comparative statistics show that, in terms
tenns of
of homicide, the United States
States far surpasses its
international counterparts.
counterparts. In 1999,
1999, the homicide rate in the United States
States was 5.7 per
international

•

5 Of parole violators sent back to prison, roughly 60 percent had been convicted
convicted of
of a new crime while 40
percent had merely committed a technical violation of
of their parole (Gainsborough
(Gainsborough &
& Mauer, 2000).
6
6 Trends show that state prison growth is typically smaller in the second half
half of
of the year relative to the frrst
fIrst
(Bureau of
of Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2002a).
2002a). The figures for the full
full year 2000, including state and federal inmates,
demonstrate an overall increase by 1.2 percent. Nevertheless, this figure represents the smallest annual
increase since 1972
1972 (Bureau of
of Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2001).
2001).

•

100,000
100,000 individuals,
individuals, relative
relative to
to rates
rates only
only a fraction
fraction of this
this size
size in Europe (Bureau of
Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics,2001b;
2001b; U.K.
U.K. Home Office,
Office, 2001).7
2001).7
It
It is
is important
important to
to recognize,
recognize, however,
however, that homicide represents a very small

proportion
proportion of crime
crime in any
any society.
society. Among state
state prison admissions
admissions in the U.S. in 1999,
only
only 3.2
3.2 percent were
were for
for homicide
homicide (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 1999a).
1999a). The vast
majority
majority of
of prison admissions
admissions are
are for
for less
less serious
serious crimes,
crimes, with more than 70 percent of
of
recent
recent prison admits
admits convicted of entirely nonviolent offenses
offenses (Bureau of
of Justice
Statistics,
countries in
Statistics, 1999a).
1999a). How,
How, then,
then, does
does the U.S.
U.S. compare to other industrialized
industrialized countries
victimization
terms
terms of more
more general
general indicators
indicators of crime and safety?
safety? Figure 2.4 presents victimization
rates
rates for
for the
the same
same seventeen
seventeen industrialized
industrialized countries.
countries. As is clear from
fiom this picture, the

•

8
U.S.
,9 Analyses of
of specific
specific crimes
U.S. is
is below average
average in its overall
overall level ofvictimization.
of vi~timization.~’~

rates
of
rates across
across countries
countries (not shown here), such as burglary, theft, and even overall levels of

’

The disproportionate
disproportionate number of murders in the U.S.
U.S. can largely be traced to the availability of
7 The
of firearms.
ftrearms.
Guns are
are much more prevalent in American
American households than in other Western countries (Tonry, 2001), and
Guns
are responsible
responsible for
for over halfof
half of all homicides in the U.S. (Bureau of
of Justice Statistics, 2002). While it
they are
country, there is fairly
is not
not clear
clear what
what the
the homicide
homicide rate
rate would be if guns were less
less accessible
accessible in this country,
is
strong evidence
evidence suggesting
suggestingthat a substantial
substantial number of assaults,
assaults, robberies, and other violent crimes would
strong
of firearms (Zinrring,
(Zimring, 1972;
1972; Blumstein 8z
rrove less
less fatal
fatal in the absence
absence offrrearms
rrove
& Rosenfeld, 1998).
1998).
come from
fiom the
the International Crime
Crime Victimization Survey.
Survey. As in the victimization trends reported in
Data come
2.2, these
these data include
include trends
trends in personal
personal and property victimization across a wide range of
Figure 2.2,
of offenses
Figure
(excluding homicide).
(excluding

•

16
16

violent
violent crime
crime (excluding
(excluding homicide),
homicide), also
also demonstrate
demonstrate the
the U.S.
U.S. to
to be at
at or
or below average
average
in international
international comparisons
comparisons (U.K.
(U.K. Home
Home Office,
Office, 2001;
2001 ;see
see also
also Zimring
Zimring &
& Hawkings,
Hawkings,
1997;
1997;Kurki,
Kurki, 1997).
1997). The
The "American
“American exceptionalism"
exceptionalism” in incarceration
incarceration rates,
rates, then,
then, can
scarcely
scarcely be explained
explained by relative
relative levels
levels of crime.
crime. The
The U.S.
U.S. has
has taken a qualitatively
qualitatively
different
different approach
approach to
to crime
crime control,
control, resulting
resulting in unprecedented
unprecedented levels
levels of imprisonment.
imprisonment.

•

n incidence of
9 Trends i
in
of victimization (number of
of incidents), as opposed to prevalence of
of victimization
(percent victimized once or more), shows the US.
U.S. as somewhat higher in this international ranking.
n victimization rates, however defined.
Nevertheless, the US.
U.s. is far from the leader iin

•

Figure
Fgure 2.3.
2.3. Incarceration
IncarcerationRate
Rate for
for 17
17 Industrialized
IndUStriBlizedCountries
Countries
USA
Poland
Po land
portugal
Portugal . . . . .

England
8 Wales
Wales • • •11
England&

Canada • • •11
Canada
Scotland
Scotland • • •
Spain
Spain (Catalonia)
(Catalonia)
Australia
Australia
France
France
Netherlands
Netherlands
Switzerland
Switzerland
Belgium
Belgium
Northem
Northern Ireland
Ireland
Denmark
Denmark
Sweden
Sweden
Finland
Finland
Japan
Japan

_ _l--_-l-_--I-_-+_---<

-I-_-+-_-1-~---I-

•

100
100

200
300
400
SOO
600
200
300
400
500
600
Incarceration
Persons
lncarcetationRate
Rate per '00,000 Persons

mO
, OO

700

800
80

Source:
Statistical Research.
Research. 2001. ‘‘International
"International
Source: UK Home
Home Office for Statistical
Comparisons
Statistics, 1999.”
1999." By Barclay,
Barclay, Gordon,
Criminal Justice Statistics,
Comparisons of Criminal
Cynthia
ArsalaanSiddique.
Cynthia Tavares,
Tavares, and
and Arsalaan
Siddique.

Figure 2.4. Victimization
Victirrization Rate in 17 hdustrhleed
ndustrialized Countries
Fgure
Australia

.iiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiir-,

England 8
England
& Wales
Netherlands • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Netherlands
Sweden
Sweden

Canada
Canada • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Scotland
Scotland

Denma&
Denmark

Poland
Poland

Belgium
France
France • • • • • • • • • • • • •
USA
Finland
Spain (Catalonia)
(Catalonia)
Switzerland
Switzerland • • • • • • • • • • •
Portugal
portUgal • • • • • • • • •
Japan
Japan

•

Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland

!~~~~~~~~l--L--L--l-J

10
10

15
15

20
20

25
25

30
30

35
35

Percent
Percent Victimized
Victimized OnceorMore
Once or M ore in
in 1999
1199

Source:
Source: Dutch Ministry of
of Justice.
Justice. 2000.
2000. “Criminal
"Criminal Victimisation
Victimisation in
in I7
17 Industrialized
Industrialized
Countries,
Countries, 1999.”
1999." By John van Kesteren,
Kesteren, Pat Mayhew,
Mayhew, Paul
Paul Nieuwbeerta.
Nieuwbeerta.

•

18
18
Incarceration
Racial Disparities in Incarceration
While the enonnous
enormous growth of incarceration
incarceration over the past three decades
decades has been a

1997,
national trend, no group has been more affected than have African-Americans.
African-Americans. In 1997,
population, 28 percent of those arrested,
blacks comprised 13 percent of the nation's
nation’s population,
arrested, 43

of those in prison (Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics,
percent of those in jail, and 48 percent ofthose
0
2000a).
1 At each stage
2000a).10
stage of the criminal justice system,
system, blacks become more heavily

overrepresented.
overrepresented.
seriously affected
affected population.
Black men, in particular, have been the most seriously
population. As
incarceration among black men was already six times
shown in Figure 2.5, the rate of incarceration
steadily over time. Today black
higher than that of white men in 1985,
1985, and has grown steadily

•

men are incarcerated
incarcerated at nearly eight times the rate of white men across all age groups
(Bureau of Justice Statistics,
a). Among young men ages 25 to 29, nearly 10
Statistics, 2001
2001a).
10 percent
ofblacks
of blacks are incarcerated at any given time, compared to just over one percent of white

men in the same age group (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2001a).
2001a).

•

l o Jail is generally
generally reserved
awaiting trail or serving
serving sentences
sentences ofless
of less than a year; prison is
10
reserved for inmates awaiting
more.
inmates serving
serving sentences
sentences of one year or more.
usually for inmates

•

19
Figure
Figure 2.5.
2.5. Incarceration
IncarcerationRates
Rates
by
by Race
Race and
and Gender,
Gender, 1985·1997
1985-1997
8000
!!
c::
\I)
:2

7000

....

f--.

/A'

6000 1---

....

5000
':S
"0
l'll

0
0
0

4000
4000

3000

<5
~

lii
a.
$

..-.-

~.-'Y

.....

-+- Black male I---White
4White male
_Black female I--~White female

2000
2000

l'll

0::

1000
~

Source:
Source: Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics,2000a.
2000a. Note:
Note: Incarceration
Incarceration rate
includes
jails.
includes inmates
inmates in
in state
state and
and federal
federal prisons
prisons and local
local jails.

•

These
These cross-sectional
cross-sectional comparisons
comparisons demonstrate the vast racial disparities
disparities that pervade the

criminal justice system.
system. But it is the lifetime projections
projections which more hlly
criminal
fully demonstrate
demonstrate
the extent
extent to
to which
which prisons
prisons have become
become a dominant institution
institution in the lives of
of Africanthe
American men:
men: Young
Young black men today have a 28 percent likelihood of incarceration
incarceration
American
1997), a figure
figure which rises above 50
during their
their lifetime
lifetime (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 1997),
during

percent among
among young black high school
school dropouts
dropouts (Pettit &
& Western, 2001).
percent
2001). According to
these estimates,
estimates, young
young black high school dropouts
dropouts are more likely to go to prison than to
these
graduate from
fiom college,
college, serve
serve in the military, or to be in the labor market (Pettit &
&
graduate
Western, 2001).
2001). Incarceration
Incarceration is thus
thus becoming an increasingly
increasingly normative
Western,
normative experience
experience in
the lives
lives of young
young disadvantaged
disadvantaged men.
men. The implications
implications of these trends for new forms of
of
the
racial stratification
stratificationhave
have yet to be fully
fully appreciated.
appreciated.
racial

•

is more
more difficult
difficult to assess
assess the extent to which these racial disparities reflect
It is
differences in
in the
the level
level of criminal
criminal activity
activity between groups versus differential
differential
differences

•

enforcement.
enforcement. Certainly
Certainly there
there is evidence
evidence of a substantial
substantial zero-order
zero-order correlation
correlation between
race and criminal
criminal activity
activity (Blumstein,
(Blumstein, 1982,
1982, 1993).11
1993)." And yet no measure
measure of criminal
involvement
involvement matches the levels
levels of disparities
disparities found in the criminal
criminal justice system
system
(Blumstein,
(Blumstein, 1993;
1993; Miller,
Miller, 1996).
1996). In fact,
fact, among
among drug crimes
crimes (discussed below),
below), which
have been a major source
source of growing racial disparities
disparities in imprisonment,
imprisonment, there
there is evidence
evidence
to suggest that whites outnumber blacks in both consumption and distribution
distribution (U.S.
(U.S.
Department
Department of Health and Human Services,
Services, 1998).
1998). Once again,
again, therefore, it is difficult
difficult to
neatly link criminal
criminal enforcement
enforcement with criminal
criminal activity.
activity. While certainly
certainly there are
are
legitimate
legitimate reasons for targeting
targeting criminal surveillance
surveillance and enforcement
enforcement in minority
communities,
communities, which are more likely to be areas
areas with high concentrations
concentrations of drug

•

trafficking and/or violence, it would be difficult
difficult to argue
argue that these are the only factors
factors
that determine
determine who ends up behind bars.

The Mission ofthe
of the Prison: From Rehabilitation to Retribution
The
Retribution
Trends
Trends in U.S. incarceration
incarceration over time, cross-nationally,
cross-nationally, and by race demonstrate
demonstrate the

extraordinary character of the American criminal justice system.
system. Though it is beyond the
extraordinary
scope of this study to explain the underlying causes of crime policy, a subject wellscope
1999; Garland,
1997), I do want to
authors (e.g.,
(e.g., Tonry, 1999;
Garland, 2001; Beckett, 1997),
. covered by other authors
explicitly discuss the primary policy shifts
shifts which gave rise to the current state of
American imprisonment.
imprisonment.

•

11 A zero-order correlation
correlation implies a gross association,
association, without controlling for other related characteristics
such as family income, neighborhood
neighborhood poverty,
poverty, family structure,
structure, etc.
etc. Controls
Controls for these characteristics
account for much if not all observed racial disparities
disparities in criminal activity (e.g.,
(e.g., Sampson, 1987).

•

21
th
In the middle
of
middle part of the 20
20thcentury,
century, prison was viewed as an institution of

rehabilitation
rehabilitation and reform.
reform. Individuals
Individuals who committed crimes were seen as needing
supervision,
supervision, resocialization,
resocialization, and assistance
assistance in acquiring the necessary psychological
foundation
counseling, education, and jobfoundation for re-entering society.
society. It was believed that counseling,
training were central
central to criminal desistance
desistance and that active intervention could have lasting
effects.
effects. Finding
Finding empirical
empirical support for these intended effects, however, proved to be a
difficult
difficult task.
task. A series
series of studies
studies conducted in the late 1960s and the early 1970s found
the
worst. 12 A landmark
the effects
effects ofprison
of prison programs
programs to be variable
variable at best, nonexistent at worst.”
study
"nothing works”
works" in
study by Martinson
Martinson (1974)
(1974) became widely known for its message that “nothing
the
1981).
the rehabilitation
rehabilitation of offenders
offenders (see Allen, 1981).

•
0

As policy makers
dissatisfied with seemingly
makers and the public grew increasingly
increasingly dissatisfied
ineffective
ineffective attempts
attempts at rehabilitation,
rehabilitation, an alternative
alternative orientation
orientation took hold. Building on
public
perceptions of
of disorder following the
public reactions
reactions to rising crime
crime rates and increasing
increasing perceptions
Civil
Nixon's 1968 presidential
Civil Rights
Rights Movement
Movement and protests
protests of the Vietnam war, Nixon’s

campaign was
was the
the first
first to
to feature
feature the theme
theme of "law
“law and order"
order” as a centerpiece
centerpiece of
of his
campaign
platform. This
This marked
marked the
the beginning
beginning ofan
of an era of widening criminal justice intervention
platform.
and more
more punitive
punitive approaches
approaches to crime
crime control.
control.
and
Since 1970,
1970, crime
crime policy has represented
represented a central focus
focus of every administration,
Since
irrespective of political
political orientation.
orientation. Efforts
Efforts to appear "tough
“tough on crime"
crime” have resulted in
irrespective
the passage
passage of numerous
numerous state
state and federal
federal acts
acts to escalate the policing, prosecution,
prosecution, and
the
imprisonment of offenders.
offenders. Across this
this landscape
landscape of penal reform, two major changes in
imprisonment

•

12
12

Subsequentstudies
studies of program effectiveness
effectiveness have questioned
questioned whether this early pessimism was
Subsequent
warranted. Several
Several well-designed
well-designed studies
studies have shown
shown significant
significant rehabilitation
rehabilitation effects for certain groups of
warranted.

•

22
crime policy stand out as central to understanding the rapid expansion of the criminal
criminal

justice system:
system: changes
changes in sentencing
sentencing policy and the War on Drugs.
Drugs. In the remainder of
this chapter, I provide a brief
brief overview of each ofthese
of these policy changes,
changes, and discuss
discuss the
ways in which they directly resulted in the rapid growth in incarceration.
incarceration.

Changes
Changes in Sentencing Policy

Though prison reform took on many dimensions,
dimensions, one of the most influential
influential changes to
th
century,
the system concerned sentencing
sentencing policies. Throughout
Throughout the 20
20th
century, virtually all

states had followed
followed a system of indeterminate sentencing,
sentencing, whereby judges were given
states
substantial leeway in determining
determining the strength of sanction, depending
depending on a range of
substantial

•

factors
factors pertaining to the individual
individual and the offense. Rather than assigning
assigning a fixed
fixed amount
oftime,
of time, judges would provide a minimum and maximum sentence, with the actual
actual
boards.
amount of time served depending
depending on the evaluation ofperiodic
of periodic reviews by parole boards.

sentenceswas
was meant to provide incentives
incentives for inmates to follow
follow
The indeterminacy of sentences
rules and to demonstrate a commitment
commitment to reform.
reform. The possibility of
of early parole was
was

‘carrot’ to accompany
accompany the 'stick'
‘stick’ of incarceration
incarceration(Mauer,
(Mauer, 2001).
2001). With
intended as the 'carrot'
scrutiny of the criminal justice system from
fiom politicians
increasing scrutiny
politicians and the public,
sentencing came under sharp attack.
attack.
however, indeterminate sentencing
Ironically, vocal criticism of indeterminate sentencing
sentencing came from
from both liberals
Ironically,
conservatives (Allen, 1981;
1981; Garland,
Garland, 2001). Liberals argued that the large degree
degree of
and conservatives
sentencing decisions
decisions left the system
system wide open to the influence of
discretion involved in sentencing

•

arbitrary judgments. These critics called for the adoption of
discriminatory and arbitrary
~

offenders (Palmer,
(Palmer, 1975;
1975; McGuire,
McGuire, 1995).
1995). Unfortunately,
government programs are designed
designed with
offenders
Unfortunately, few government

•

determinate
determinate sentencing
sentencing as
as a means of making
makmg the criminal
criminal justice system more fair and
representing a
more transparent.
transparent. Likewise,
Likewise, the rhetoric
rhetoric of rehabilitation
rehabilitation was rejected as representing
legitimating
legitimating ideology
ideology of social
social control,
control, rather than a genuine
genuine service
service to offenders. The
involuntary
involuntary imposition
imposition oftreatment
of treatment was seen as a coercive
coercive means of subduing inmates,
requiring
requiring that they submit not only to physical containment but to psychological
perspective, the
containment
containment as
as well (Wright,
(Wright, 1973;
1973; Allen,
Allen, 1981).
1981). According
According to this perspective,
process
process of deigning
deigning individuals
individuals as "fit"
“fit” or "unfit"
“unfit” to re-enter society was morally
inherently subjective
subjective
bankrupt;
bankrupt; instead,
instead, liberal
liberal critics
critics called for the removal of these inherently
discretionary
offenses.
discretionaryjudgments and the instatement
instatement of fixed
fixed terms for specific
specific offenses.
At the same
same time, conservatives
conservatives believed that the discretion afforded to judges

•

be·
and parole
parole boards
boards afforded
afforded too much leniency:
leniency: offenders
offenders convicted of homicide could be
sentenced
sentenced to anything
anything from
from one year to life
life in prison; and once in prison, they could be
behavior." Criticizing
Criticizing the
. released
released long
long before the completion
completion of their sentence
sentence for "good
“good behavior.”
sentencing
current
current system
system as
as being "soft
‘‘soft on crime,"
crime,” these
these groups lobbied for mandatory sentencing
policies which would impose
impose fixed
fixed terms for specified
specified crimes and stricter limits on early

release.
release.
The combined voices
voices ofliberals
of liberals and conservatives
conservatives led to the rapid adoption of
The
of
determinate sentencing
sentencing structures
structures over the next two decades.
decades. By 1996, all states had
determinate
some form
form of mandatory
mandatory sentencing
sentencing guidelines
guidelines ensuring fixed
fixed sentences for specified
some
crimes (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Justice Assistance,
Assistance, 1996)
1996) and half ofthe
of the states had some form of
crimes
“truth-in-sentencing,”mandating
mandating that inmates
inmates would not be released before a majority of
"truth-in-sentencing,"

•

sentence had been served (Clark et aI.,
al., 1997).
their sentence
evaluation in
in mind,
mind, leading
leading to
to great
great difficulty in obtaining accurate
accurate estimates
estimates of treatment
treatment effects.
effects.
evaluation

•

24
consequences of
of these policies were devastating for the millions of
of
The consequences
individuals processed under this new regime. Whereas in the past, first-time
first-time or low-level
individuals
of in prison, new sentencing
sentencing laws
offenders may have been placed on probation instead of
of offenses.
offenses. The chances of
of receiving a
imposed stricter punishments for a broad range of

prison sentence following conviction increased by more than 50 percent as a result of
mandatory sentencing
sentencing laws.
laws. Likewise, the amount ofprison
of prison time served increased
increased
substantially
substantially under new guidelines,
guidelines, with the average
average length of sentences
sentences served
increasing
increasing by nearly 40 percent over the past 15 years (Blumstein
(Blumstein & Beck, 1999).
1999). Crime
did not become more serious over this period;
period; but punishment surely
surely did.
did.

•

The
The War
War on Drugs
The second
second major shift
shift in crime
crime policy drew attention
attention to a new public enemy:
enemy: illicit
drugs.
drugs. Launched under the Reagan administration,
administration, the War on Drugs focused
focused national
attention
attention and federal
federal resources
resources on the problem of drug use and distribution,
distribution, mobilizing
mobilizing
vast public resources
resources to combat
combat this
this emerging
emerging social
social problem.
problem. While
While drug
drug crimes
crimes had
historically been a very small
small proportion of all
all convictions,
convictions, the
the number of drug
drug offenders
offenders
admitted
admitted to prison skyrocketed
skyrocketed during
during this
this period.
period. Between
Between 1980
1980 and 1998,
1998, the
the annual
annual
number of drug
drug offenders
offenders admitted
admitted to
to state
state prison increased tenfold
tenfold (see
(see Figure
Figure 2.6).
2.6). In
1999,
1999, the
the most recent date
date for
for which I have
have data,
data, a higher
higher proportion of state
state prison

admissions were
were for
for drug
drug crimes
crimes than
than for
for violent crimes
crimes (32.4
(32.4 percent versus
versus 27.8
27.8
admissions
percent)
percent) (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2002b).

•

25
25
Figure2.6.
2.6. Annual
AnnualNumber
Numberof
ofDrug
DrugOffenders
OffendersAdmitted
Admitted
Figure
1980-1997
to State
Stateand
andFederal
FederalPrisons,
Prisons,1980-1997
to
120000,
1
2 0 0 0 0 . , . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,I

100000

80000+--~State

80000 + - - - - -

40000 + - - - -

20000

_Federal

--~'--

+------=III~------

Source: Human Rights
Rights Watch,
Watch, 2000
2000
Source:

•

offenders admitted
admitted to federal
federal prisons was not as steep,
steep, as a
Though the rise in drug offenders
proportion of all inmates
inmates it was far more dramatic:
dramatic: While drug offenders
offenders in state prisons
today represent only 2211 percent of all inmates, those in federal
federal prisons rose from 16.3
16.3
percent in 1970
1970 to more than 60 percent in 1999
1999 (Bui-eau
of Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2001a).
(Buteau of
Owing to the legacy of
of Reagan’s
Reagan's domestic war, drug offenders have taken center stage in
the federal prison system.13
system. 13
According to media accounts and political campaigns throughout this period,
illicit drug sales and drug abuse had reached epidemic proportions (Beckett, 1997).
Indeed, the use of
980s, and the
of heroin and cocaine had increased in the early to mid-1
mid-1980s,
~

Though
Though small-time
small-time users
users and
and dealers
dealers have
have borne
borne the
the brunt
brunt of
ofthe
the growing
growing enfoicement
enforcement of
of drug
drug laws,
laws, itit is
is
of
drug
use
and
important
to
acknowledge
that
the
“war
on
drugs”
was
aimed
not
only
at
offenses
important to acknowledge that the "war on drugs" was aimed not only at offenses of drug use and sales
sales but
but
also
also at
at the
the rise
rise in
in violent
violent crime
crime associated
associated with
with the
the drug
drug trade.
trade. The
The homicide
homicide rate
rate increased
increased nearly
nearly 25
25
percent
1, falling
percent between
between 1985
1985 and
and 199
1991,
falling sharply
sharply through
through the
the remainder
remainder of
ofthe
the 90s
90s (Blumstein
(Blumstein &
& Rosenfeld,
Rosenfeld,
1998).
1998). A
A majority
majority of
ofthe
the increase
increase in
in homicide
homic.ide during
during this
this time
time has
has been
been linked
linked to
to warring
warring among
among rival
rival drug
drug
markets
markets and
and the
the increasing
increasing use
use of
ofhandguns
handguns for
for protection
protection and
and retribution
retribution (Blumstein
(Blumstein &
& Wallman,
Wallman, 2000).
2000). ItIt
‘3
13

•

introduction
introduction of crack cocaine
cocaine was of serious
serious concern.
concern. And yet,
yet, the patterns of
incarceration
incarceration of drug offenders
offenders were largely
largely out of step
step with patterns of drug use.
National surveys
1983 and
surveys of drug use indicate
indicate that cocaine
cocaine use rose markedly between 1983
1985,
1985, and then began a steep
steep decline, leveling
leveling off in 1992.
1992. Likewise,
Likewise, the number of
crack users has remained
remained steady since
since 1988
1988 (U.S.
(U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services,
Services,
1999).
1999). As we can see above,
above, however, the number of prison admissions·for
admissions for drug
14

offenders
Despite
offenders rose sharply
sharply just as
as drug
drug use was starting to decline.
de~1ine.I~
Despite the fact that
both cocaine and crack consumption decreased substantially
substantiallyin the 1990s,
1990s, incarceration
rates for
for drug offenders
offenders remained at peak levels.
levels.

developed to fight
fight the War on Drugs
Drugs have
have been intimately
intimately tied with
Policies developed

•

sentencing policies described
described above.
above. Epitomized by the introduction the
changes in sentencing
Rockefeller
Rockefeller drug laws
laws in New York in the early 1970s,
1970s, which imposed harsh mandatory
mandatory

sentences for drug offenders,
offenders, drug convictions
convictions have been a major focus
focus of
prison sentences
determinate
determinate sentencing
sentencing legislation.
legislation. As a result,
result, individuals
individuals convicted of drug crimes
crimes have

substantially affected
affected by the new sentencing
sentencing guidelines
guidelines than those
those convicted
been more substantially
crime: The chances
chances of incarceration
incarceration following
following a drug conviction
of any other type of crime:
500 percent between 1980
1980 and 1992,
1992, and the average
average length of
increased by more than 500
sentences
sentences has nearly doubled
doubled (Tonry
(Tonry &
& Hatlestad, 1997;
1997; Blumstein &
& Beck, 1999).
1999). In

some cases,
cases, prison
prison sentences
sentences for
for drug
drug trafficking
trafficking can be longer
longer than those
those for
for homicide
homicide
some

•

thus important to note that the rise
rise in incarceration
incarceration among
among drug
drug offenders
offenders was influenced
influenced by the wider set
is thus
illicit activities
activities associated
associated with the drug
drug trade.
trade.
of illicit
l4 Though
Though rising prosecution of drug
drug offenses
offenses may have had some
some deterrent
deterrent effects
effects on drug
drug use,
use, most
14
researchers believe that the direct effect of incarceration
incarceration on drug
drug markets
markets is minimal.
minimal. Lead drug
drug king
lung pins
researchers
are rarely arrested
arrested and small-time
small-time dealers
dealers are
are easily replaced.
replaced. Even among
among those researchers
researchers who argue
argue
are
incarceration substantially
substantiallyreduces
reduces crime
crime overall,
overall, drug
drug crimes
crimes remain a notable
notable exception
exception (see
(see DiIulio
DiIulio
that incarceration
& Piehl,
Piehl, 1991;
199 1;Piehl &
& DiIulio,
DiIulio, 1995).
1995).
&

•

27
(Caplow
(Caplow & Simon,
Simon, 1999).
1999). Though recently there has been some movement towards
towards the
diversion
diversion of drug offenders from criminal courts
courts to drug courts and treatment programs
(Nolan, 2001; Berman & Feinblatt,
Feinblatt, 2001),
2001), the number of drug offenders
offenders being processed

through the criminaljustice
criminaljustice system remains immense.
immense.
Finally, it is impossible to discuss
discuss the War on Drugs without acknowledging
acknowledging the
massively disproportionate impact it has had on African-Americans.
African-Americans. No single offense
type has more directly contributed to racial disparities
disparities in imprisonment than drug crimes.
crimes.
The arrest rate for nonwhites convicted of drug offenses has grown steadily since the mid

1960s, with the 1980s
1980s marking the decade of sharpest increase
increase (see Figure 2.7). Between
1960s,
1979 and 1989,
1989, the arrest rate for nonwhite drug offenders grew by more than 300
1979

•

percent, representing
representing a rate of increase nearly twice that of whites. Despite the fact that
overwhelming number of drug users are white (82 percent), and that, even with respect
an overwhelming
cocaine, more users are white than black (National Household Survey on Drug
to crack cocaine,
1988), the brunt of drug prosecutions
prosecutions have fallen
fallen on African-Americans.
African-Americans. Much of
Use, 1988),
accounted for by the concentration
concentration of blacks in
the racial disparity in enforcement can be accounted
surveillance is likely to be more pervasive, as well as the
central cities where police surveillance
harsher penalties for individuals
individuals who sell drugs
drugs within a specified distance
distance of a school or
(Gould, 2002).
2002). Whatever the cause, blacks have paid the price
public housing building (Gould,
decision to manage 'the
‘the drug problem’
for our decision
problem' through courts, jails, and prisons.

•

28
Figure
Figure 2.7.
2.7, Arrest
Arrest Rate
Rate for Drug
Drug Abuse
Abuse Violations
Violations
by Race,
Race, 1965·1992
1965-1992
by

-3rn

1600

1400

:E 1200

I
Source: U.S.
U.S.Department of Justice.
Justice. "Age-Specific
"Age-Specific Arrest Rates
Rates and RaceRaceSource:
Specific
Specific Arrest
Arrest Rates
Rates for
for Selected
Selected Offenses,
Offenses, 1965-1992."
1965-1992."

•

Consequences ofMass
of Mass Incarceration
Causes and Consequences
Incarceration

From this brief overview of incarceration
incarceration in the United States,
States, several
several facts
facts have become
clear: First, the rate of incarceration
incarceration in the United States in unprecedented, both
historically and internationally;
of incarceration
incarceration are only loosely related to
internationally; second, levels of
actual crime rates (including drug use); and third, specific policy decisions,
decisions, namely
mandatory sentencing
sentencing and the War on Drugs, have had profound effects on the resulting
growth of
the prison population. Together, these facts demonstrate
ofthe
demonstrate the degree to which
incarceration is largely a political process, emerging as much from public representations
of
of crime as from the actual incidence
incidence or prevalence of
of criminal activity.
activity. The level of
of
incarceration in the United States, therefore,
therefore, is not an inevitable outcome of
of a society
plagued by corruption, but a highly unusual and extreme response to the ordinary

•

problems of
of crime control.

•

America’s
America's approach to incarceration has been one of
of history’s
history's greatest social
experiments.
experiments. And yet, despite the enormous scale at which this experiment was carried
out, we know very little about the consequences of this massive institutional intervention.
The prison has become a dominant institution in the United States,
States, particularly in the
ofthe
lives of young disadvantaged men; the extent to which the rapid expansion of
the
criminal
criminal justice system has and will have an impact on broader processes of social
social
stratification
unknown. In the following
chapters, I seek to document
stratification remains largely unknown.
following chapters,
some of the consequences
consequences of incarceration
incarceration for labor market outcomes.
outcomes. This work
represents
represents one step
step toward the larger project of assessing
assessing the impact of our fastest
fastest
growing
growing American institution.
institution.

•

Chapter 3. The Mark of a Criminal Record

•

The Mark of a Criminal Record
Record

Incarceration
Incarceration is intended to serve .as
as punishment for individuals
individuals who have broken the law.
law.

And yet, there is reason to believe that the punishing
punishing effects
effects of prison do not end upon an
inmate's
inmate’s release. Rather,
Rather, information about an individual's
individual’s experience
experience with the criminal
criminal
prospective employers, landlords, and creditors,
justice system can be widely accessed by prospective
creditors,
implicating
implicating them within a class of corruption.
corruption. To the extent that this information
infomation results
in the exclusion of ex-offenders from
from valuable social and economic opportunities,
opportunities,
individuals
individuals face
face what is akin to the legal concept of "double-jeopardy":
“double-jeopardy”: being punished

more than once for the same crime.
crime.

•

This chapter focuses
focuses on the consequences of incarceration
incarceration for the employment
outcomes of black and white men.
men. As the more than half a million individuals
individuals being
released each year attempt to make the transition from
from prison to work,
work, the barriers to
employment
employment for ex-offenders have become painfully clear. Less than 21
21 percent of

example, were employed full-time
full-time in the early 1990s;
1990s; only a
California parolees, for example,
fraction
fraction of ex-offenders
ex-offenders are able
able to find jobs paying a living
living wage (Irwin & Austin, 1994;
1994;

Travis, 2001). Examining
Examining the role of incarceration
incarceration in shaping
shaping these poor employment
Travis,2001).
importance.
outcomes has become of critical importance.
fundamental question one needs to ask in assessing
assessing the relationship
relationship between
The fundamental
incarceration and employment is a question
question of causality.
causality. To what extent can the poor
incarceration
outcomes of ex-offenders
ex-offenders be explained by their own predispositions
predispositions toward
employment outcomes

•

influence of an incarceration
incarceration experience.
experience.
unstable work patterns, relative to the direct influence
data, has not been able
able to
The previous research in this area, relying largely on survey data,

•

provide aa definitive
definitive answer
answer to this question,
question, leaving open the possibility that
incarceration
incarceration itself does
does little
little to contribute
contribute to the already bleak employment prospects of
those
those who wind up in prison.
prison.

study, I adopt an
an experimental
experimental design
design which allows
allows me to
In the present study,
effectively isolate
isolate the causal
causal influence
influence of a criminal
criminal record. By using matched pairs of
individuals
individuals to apply for real entry-level
entry-leveljobs, it becomes
becomes possible to directly
directly measure the

record-in the absence
absence of other disqualifying
disqualifying characteristicscharacteristicsextent to which a criminal record-in
serves as a barrier to employment
employment among
among equally
equally qualified
qualified applicants.
applicants. Further,
Further, by
serves
varying"
varying the race of the tester pairs, we can assess
assess the ways in which the effects
effects of race

criminal record interact to produce
produce new forms
forms of labor market inequalities.
inequalities. This
This
and a criminal

•

approach offers conclusive
conclusive evidence
evidence for the role of incarceration in shaping
shaping labor market
approach
outcomes, with the mark of a criminal
criminal record resulting in closed doors
doors and lost
outcomes,
opportunities.
opportunities.

Research
Prior Research

focused on the consequences
consequences of criminal
criminal sanctions,
sanctions, a growing
growing
While little research has focused
evidence suggests
suggests that contact with the criminal
criminal justice system can lead to a
body of evidence
substantial reduction in economic
economic opportunities.
opportunities. Using longitudinal survey
survey data,
data,
substantial
researchers have studied the employment
employment probabilities and income
income of individuals
individuals after
researchers
release from
from prison, finding
finding a strong
strong and consistent negative effect of incarceration
incarceration
(Western &
& Beckett,
Beckett, 1999;
1999; Freeman, 1987;
1987; Nagin &
& Waldfogel,
Waldfogel, 1993).
1993).
(Western
instrumental in demonstrating
demonstratingthe possible
possible
This existing research has been instrumental

•

aggregate effects
effects of incarceration on labor market outcomes.
outcomes. Unfortunately,
Unfortunately, however,
however,
aggregate

•

there are several
several fundamental
fundamental limitations
limitations of survey data which leave the conclusions of
this research vulnerable
vulnerable to harsh criticism.
criticism. First,
First, it is difficult,
difficult, using survey data,
data, to rule
out the possibility that unmeasured differences
differences between those who are and are not
results. Figure 3.1
convicted
convicted of crimes may drive
drive the observed results.
3.1 presents one possible

model of the relationship
relationship between incarceration
incarceration and employment
employment outcomes,
outcomes, with a direct
causal link between the two. In this model, an individual
individual acquires
acquires a criminal record
which then severely limits
limits his later employment opportunities.
opportunities.

Figure 3.1. Model
Model of Direct Causation

•

Incarceration

Employment
Outcomes

Providing
model,however,
Providing conclusive
conclusive empirical support for this theoretical model,
however, proves much

complicated than it seems.
seems. We know, for example, that the population of inmates
inmates is
more complicated
not a random sample of the overall population. What if, then, the poor outcomes
outcomes of exoffenders are merely the result of pre-existing traits which make them bad employees
employees in
offenders
spurious association
association in which there is no
the first place? Figure 3.2 presents a model of spurious
employment outcomes.
outcomes. Instead,
Instead, there are direct
direct link between incarceration and employment
links between various
various pre-existing individual
individual characteristics (e.g., drug/alcohol
drug/alcohol abuse,
abuse,
links
interpersonal skills)
skills) which increase
increase the likelihood
likelihood of both
behavioral problems, poor interpersonal

•

incarceration
incarceration and poor employment outcomes.
outcomes.15 In this model, the association
association between
predispositions
incarceration
incarceration and employment
employment is entirely artificial,
artificial, the result of individual predispositions

deviance.
toward deviance.

Figure 3.2. Model
Model of Spurious Effects
Effects

Alcohol/drug abuse
Behavioral problems
Poor Interpersonal skills

Incarceration
Incarceration

Employment
Outcomes

Consistent
Consistent with Figure 3.2, Kling (1999),
(1999), Grogger (1995),
(1995), and Needels (1996)
(1996) have each

•

argued that the effect of incarceration
incarceration on employment is negligible
negligible at an estimated 0 to 44

percent.
administrative data from
from Unemployment
Unemployment Insurance
Insurance files
files matched with
percent. Using administrative
records from
from the Department of Corrections,
Corrections, these authors
authors contend that the observed
records
association is instead largely determined by unmeasured
unmeasured individual
individual characteristics
characteristicswhich
association
predispose those in prison to poor employment prospects.'6
prospects. 16 The findings
predispose
findings of these authors
authors

literature asserting
asserting a strong link between
stand in stark contrast to the majority of literature
incarceration and employment (Western &
& Beckett, 1999;
1999; Bushway, 1998;
1998; Sampson &
&
incarceration
1993; Freeman, 1987;
1987; Grogger, 1992).
1992). While it remains an open question as
as to
Laub, 1993;
incarceration causes
causes employment difficulties,
difficulties, survey
survey research
research
whether and to what extent incarceration
definitive answer.
answer. The achilles
achilles heel of the survey
is poorly equipped to offer a definitive

•

variables listed here are just a few of the many potential
spuriousness that are virtually
virtually
i5 The variables
potential sources of spuriousness
untestable using survey
untestable
survey data.
l6 Kling used data from
from federal
federal inmates in California;
California; Grogger used data from state
state inmates
inmates in California;
California;
16
from state
state inmates in Georgia.
Georgia.
Needels used data from

•

35
methodology is its inability to escape from
fiom the glaring
glaring problems of selection
selection which

plague research
research in this field (see Winship & Morgan, 1999;
1999; Rubin, 1990;
1990; Heckman et aI.,
al.,
1998).17
1998).17

A second,
second, related limitation
limitation of survey
survey research is its inability
inability to formally identify
mechanisms. From aggregate
mechanisms.
aggregate effects
effects we can infer plausible causal processes, but these
are only indirectly
indirectly supported by the data.
data. Because numerous
numerous mechanisms could lead to
the same set of outcomes, we are left unable to assess the substantive
substantive contribution of any
given causal process.
hypotheses regarding
regarding
process. Survey
Survey researchers
researchers have offered numerous hypotheses
mechanisms which may produce the relationship
relationship between incarceration and
the mechanisms

&
employment. These include:
include: the labeling
labeling effects
effects of criminal
criminal stigma (Schwartz &
employment.

•

Skolnick, 1962);
1962); the disruption
disruption of social
social and familial
familial ties (Sampson & Laub, 1993);
1993); the
Skolnick,
influence
1993); the loss of human capital
capital (Becker,
(Becker, 1975);
1975);
influence on social networks (Hagan, 1993);
institutional
institutional trauma (Parenti,
(Parenti, 1999);
1999); legal barriers to employment (Dale,
(Dale, 1976);
1976); and, of
course,
course, the possibility that all incarceration
incarceration effects
effects may be entirely
entirely spurious
spurious (Kling,
(Kling, 1999;
1999;

Grogger, 1995;
1995; Needels,
1996). Without direct measures
measures of these variables, it is difficult
Grogger,
Needels, 1996).
using survey
survey data to discern which, if any,
any, of these causal explanations
explanations may be at work.
surrounding these mechanisms
motivates the current project.
The uncertainty
uncertainty surrounding
mechanisms motivates
project.
addressing some of the larger consequences
consequences of incarceration,
incarceration, it is essential to first
first
Before addressing
establish conclusively
conclusively the mechanismmechanisms- driving
driving these
establish
mechanism- or at least one of the mechanismsresults.
study, I focus
focus on the effect of a criminal
criminal record on employment
results. In the present study,
~~

Researchers have employed creative techniques for addressing
addressing these issues,
issues, such as looking at pre- and
Researchers
post-incarceration outcomes for
for the same individuals (e.g.,
(e.g., Grogger 1992;
1992; Freeman
Freeman 1992);
1992); comparing
comparing exfuture offenders (e.g.,
(e.g., Waldfogel1994;
Waldfogel 1994; Grogger
Grogger 1995);
1995); estimating
estimating fixed- and random-effects
offenders to future
ofienders
random-effects
(Western 2001);
200 1); and using instrumental
instrumental variables
variables approaches
approaches to correct
correct for
for unmeasured
models (Western
unmeasured
"
17

•

opportunities.
opportunities. This emphasis directs
directs our attention
attention to the stigma associated with criminal
criminal
justice intervention,
intervention, and the ways in which employers respond to this stigma in
considering
considering applicants.
applicants. While certainly
certainly there are additional ways in which incarceration
may affect subsequent
subsequent employment,
employment, this focus
focus allows us to separate
separate the institutional
institutional
effect from
fi-om the individual
individual (or from
from the interaction of the two), and to directly assess
assess one
of the most widely discussed-but
measured-mechanisms of carceral
discussed-but rarely measured-mechanisms
carceral channeling
channeling
(Wacquant,
(Wacquant, 2000). While incarceration may in fact additionally
additionally serve
serve to transform
individuals
individuals (and/or
(andor their social
social ties) in ways that make them less suited to work, my
interest here is in the "credentialing"
“credentialing” aspect of the criminal
criminal justice system. Those sent to
prison are institutionally branded as a particular class of individuals-as
individuals-as are college

•

recipients-with implications
graduates or welfare recipients-with
implications for their perceived place in the

order.
stratification order.

In order to investigate
investigate this question,
question, I have chosen an experimental
experimental approach
approach to
the problem, a methodology best suited to isolating
isolating causal mechanisms. There have, in

studies which have adopted an experimental approach
the past, been a limited number of studies
to the study of criminal stigma.
stigma. These studies
studies have relied on a "correspondence
“correspondence test"
test”
approach,
approach, whereby applications
applications are submitted by mail with no in-person contact.
contact. The

classic study by Schwartz and Skolnick (1962)
(1962) in
most notable in this line of research is a classic
sets of resumes to be sent to prospective
employers,
prospective employers,
which the researchers
researchers prepared four sets
applicants. In each condition,
condition, employers
employers were less likely
varying the criminal record of applicants.

•

heterogeneity (e.g., Freeman 1992).
1992). There remains little consensus,
consensus, however,
however, over the degree
degree to which
these techniques
account for the problems of selection
selection endemic
endemic to this type of research.
techniques effectively account

•

to consider applicants
applicants who had had any prior contact
contact with the criminal
criminal justice system.
system."18
Several
Several later studies
studies have verified these findings,
findings, varying
varying the types of crimes
crimes committed
by the hypothetical
& Fontaine,
Fontaine, 1985;
1985; Cohen &
& Nisbett,
Nisbett, 1997)
1997) or the
hypothetical applicant
applicant (Finn
(Finn &
national
national context
context (Boshier &
& Johnson,
Johnson, 1974;
1974; Buikhuisen &
& Dijksterhuis,
Dijksterhuis, 1971).
1971). Each of
these studies
studies reports
reports the similar
similar finding
finding that, all else equal,
equal, contact with the criminal
criminal

justice system
system leads to worse employment opportunities.
opportunities.
Unfortunately,
Unfortunately, the research design
design of Schwartz
Schwartz &
& Skolnick and others
others using this
approach has several
several limitations.
limitations. First, Schwartz
Schwartz and Skolnick's study,
study, while clearly

demonstrating the substantial
substantial effect of criminal
criminal stigma,
demonstrating
stigma, is limited to one job type only (an
unskilled hotel job). It remains uncertain how these effects generalize
generalize to the overall

•

Ex-offenders face
face a diverse set of
ofjob
openings, some of
population of entry-level jobs. Ex-offenders
job openings,

which may be more or less restricted to applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records.
records.
Second,
of race.
Second, correspondence tests are poorly equipped to address the issue of
While it is possible to designate national origin using ethnic names (see, for example,
Riach & Rich, 1991), it is much more difficult to clearly distinguish
distinguish black and white
applicants
applicants on paper. Given the high rates of
of incarceration
incarceration among blacks and the

•

pervasive media images of
of black criminals, there is good reason to suspect that employers
may respond differently to applicants
applicants with criminal records depending on their race (see
discussion below). Prior research using correspondence
correspondence tests to study the effect of
of
criminal records, however, has not attempted to include race as a variable.
variable.
18
18

•

The four conditions included: ((1)
1 ) an applicant who had been convicted and sentenced for assault;
assault; (2) an
applicant who had been tried for assault but acquitted; (3) an applicant who had been tried for assault,
acquitted,
and had a letter from the judge
judge certifying the applicant's acquittal and emphasizing the
acquitted, and
presumption of
of innocence; and (4) an applicant who had no criminal record. In all 3 criminal conditionsconditions-

•

38
The
The present study
study extends
extends the work of Schwartz
Schwartz and Skolnick
Skolnick to include
include a more
comprehensive
comprehensive assessment
assessment of the hiring process of ex-offenders
ex-offenders across
across a full
full range of
entry-level
entry-level employment.
employment. By using an experimental
experimental audit
audit design,
design, this study
study effectively
isolates
isolates the effect of a criminal
criminal record,
record, while observing employer behavior in real life
employment settings.
settings. Further, by using in-person
in-person application procedures,
procedures, it becomes
possible
possible to assess
assess the
the extent to which aa criminal
criminal record differentially
differentially affects
affects the
the outcomes
outcomes

applicants.
of black and white applicants.
Research Questions
Questions

There are three primary questions
questions I seek to address
address with the present study.
study. First, in
There

•

discussing the main effect of a criminal
criminal record, we need to ask whether and to what
discussing
employers use information
information about criminal histories
histories to make hiring decisions.
decisions.
extent employers
survey research in this area is the assumption
assumption that the signal
signal of
Implicit in the criticism of survey
criminal record is not a determining
determining factor.
factor. Rather,
Rather, employers
employers use information about
a criminal
interactional styles
styles of applicants,
applicants, or other observed
observed characteristicscharacteristics- which may be
the interactional
correlated with criminal recordsrecords- and this explains the differential outcomes
outcomes we observe.
observe.
correlated
signal to employers on its
In this view, a criminal record does not represent a meaningful signal
own. This study formally
formally tests the degree to which employers use information about
own.

criminal histories
histories in the absence
absence of corroborating
corroborating evidence.
evidence. It is essential
essential that we
criminal
conclusively
conclusively document this effect before making larger claims about the aggregate
consequences of incarceration.
consequences

•

even with a letter from the judge-applicants
judge-applicants were less likely to be considered
considered by employers relative to the
non-criminal
control.
non-criminal control.

•

Second,
Second, this study investigates
investigates the extent to which race continues
continues to serve as a
major barrier to emploYment.
employment. While race has undoubtedly played a central role in
shaping the emploYment
employment opportunities
opportunities of African-Americans
African-Americans over the past century, recent
arguments
arguments have questioned the continuing
continuing significance
significance of race, arguing instead that other
factors-such
factors-such as spatial location,
location, soft skills,
skills, social
social capital, or cognitive
cognitive ability--ean
ability--can
explain most or all of the contemporary
contemporary racial differentials
differentials we observe (Wilson, 1987;
1987;
Moss & Tilly, 1996;
1996; Loury, 1977;
1977; Neal & Johnson, 1996).
1996). This study provides a
comparison of the experiences
experiences of equally qualified black and white applicants,
applicants, allowing
allowing

us to assess
assess the extent to which direct racial discrimination persists in emplOYment
employment

interactions.
interactions.

•

The third objective
objective of this study is to assess whether the effect of a criminal
criminal

differs for black and white applicants.
applicants. Most research investigating
investigating the differential
record differs
incarceration on blacks has focused on the differential
differential rates of incarceration
impact of incarceration
addition to
to disparities
disparities in
disparities. In addition
and how those rates translate into widening racial disparities.
also important to consider possible racial
the rate of incarceration, however, it is also
differences in the effects
efects of incarceration.
incarceration. Almost none of the existing literature
literature to date
date
differences
has explored this issue, and the theoretical
theoretical arguments remain divided as to what we might
expect.
expect.

criminal record should
On one hand, there is reason to believe that the signal of a criminal
consequential for blacks.
Research on racial stereotypes
stereotypes tells us that Americans
Americans
be less consequential
blacks. Research
strong and persistent negative
negative stereotypes
stereotypes about blacks, with one of the most readily
hold strong

•

contemporary stereotypes
stereotypes relating to perceptions
criminal
invoked contemporary
perceptions of violent and criminal
dispositions (Smith,
(Smith, 1991;
1991; Sneiderman
Sneideman &
& Piazza,
Piazza, 1993;
1993; Devine &
& Elliott, 1995).
1995). If it is
dispositions

•

the case that employers
employers view all blacks as potential
potential criminals,
criminals, they are likely to
differentiate
differentiate less among those with official criminal
criminal records and those without.
without. Actual
confirmation
confirmation of criminal
criminal involvement then will provide only redundant information,
while evidence
evidence against it will be discounted.
discounted. In this case, the outcomes for all blacks
should be worse, with less differentiation
differentiation between those with criminal
criminal records and those

without.
without.
On the other hand, the effect of a criminal record may be worse for blacks if

employers, already wary ofblack
of black applicants, are more "gun-shy"
“gun-shy” when it comes to taking
employers,
risks on blacks applicants
applicants with proven criminal tendencies. The literature
literature on racial
stereotypes
stereotypes are most likely to be activated
activated and reinforced
stereotypes also tells us that stereotypes

•

stereotype (Quillian &
& Pager,
Pager,
when a target matches on more than one dimension of the stereotype
Neuberg, 1990,
2001;
& Gross,
Gross, 1983;
1983; also see Fiske &
& Neuberg,
1990, pp. 25-26 for a summary).
summary).
2001; Darley &
While employers may have learned to keep their racial attributions
attributions in check through

discrimination, when combined with
years of heightened sensitivity around employment discrimination,
knowledge
knowledge of a criminal history,
history, negative
negative attributions are likely to intensify.
intensify.

possibility, of course, is that a criminal
criminal record affects
affects black and white
A third possibility,
equally. The results ofthis
of this audit study will help to adjudicate between these
applicants equally.
competing predictions.

The Audit Methodology
The

studies was pioneered in the 1970s
1970s with a series
series of housing audits
audits
The method of audit studies

•

al., 1979;
1979;
conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Wienk et aI.,
Hakken, 1979).
1979). Nearly 20 years later,
later, this initial model was modified and applied to the
Hakken,

•

41
41

employment context
Institute (Cross et al.,
aI., 1990; Turner et
context by researchers at the Urban Institute
of
aI.,
al., 1991).
1991). The basic design of an employment audit involves sending matched pairs of
individuals
openings in order to see whether
individuals (called testers) to apply for real job openings
employers
of selected characteristics.
employers respond differently
differently to applicants
applicants on the basis of
The appeal ofthe
of the audit methodology lies in its ability to combine experimental
methods
generalizability than
methods with real-life contexts.
contexts. This combination allows for greater generalizability
a lab
lab experiment,
experiment, and a better grasp
grasp of the causal mechanisms than what we can normally
obtain from
from observational data.
data. The audit methodology is particularly valuable for those
with an
an interest
interest in discrimination.
discrimination. Typically researchers are forced to infer
model- which is
discrimination
statistical modeldiscrimination indirectly,
indirectly, often attributing
attributing the residual
residual from a statistical

•

essentially all
all that is
is not directly
directly explainedexplained- to discrimination.
discrimination. This convention is rather
essentially
unsatisfying
unsatisfying to
to researchers who seek empirical documentation for important social
processes.
research. 19
processes. The
The audit
audit methodology therefore
therefore provides
provides a valuable tool for this research.”

studies have
have primarily been used to study those characteristics
Audit studies
characteristics protected
under Title
Title VII
VI1 ofthe
of the Civil
Civil Rights
Rights Act, such
such as
as race, gender,
gender, and age (Ayes
under
(Ayres &
&
Siegelman, 1995;
1995; Cross
Cross et aI.,
al., 1990;
1990; Turner et aI.,
al., 1991;
1991; Bendick et aI.,
al., 1999;
1999; Bendick,
Siegelman,
1999;Bendick
Bendick et aI,
al, 1994;
1994; Neumark,
Neumark, 1996).
1996). The employment of ex-offenders, of course,
1999;
has not traditionally
traditionally been thought of as
as a civil
civil rights issue, but with the rapid expansion
has
the criminal
criminal justice system
system over the past three decades,
decades, there has been heightened
of the
While the
the fmdings
findings from
from audit
audit studies
studies have
have produced some
some of the most convincing
convincing evidence
While
evidence of
of '
discrimination
available
from
social
science
research,
there
are
criticisms
of
this
approach
discrimination available from social science research,
criticisms
approach which warrant
consideration. Heckman
Heckman and
and Siegelman
Siegelman (1993)
(1993) identify
identify five
five major threats
threats to the validity
validity of results from
consideration.
problems in
in effective
effective matching;
matching; (2) the use of "overqualified"
“overqualified” testers;
audit studies:
studies: (1) problems
testers; (3) limited
audit
samplingframe
frame for
for the
the selection
selection offrrms
of firms and jobs to be audited;
audited; (4) experimenter
experimenter effects;
5 ) the ethics
sampling
effects; and ((5)
of audit
audit research.
research. For aa useful
useful discussion
discussion of these
these concerns,
concerns, see the series of essays published in Fix,
of
l9
19

•

concern over the growing
growing population of men with criminal
criminal records.
records. Recognizing
Recognizing the
increasing
increasing importance
importance ofthis
of this issue,
issue, several states
states (including
(including Wisconsin)
Wisconsin) have passed
legislation
regulations to protect individuals
legislation expanding
expanding the Fair Employment
Employment regulations
individuals with
criminal
criminal records from
fiom discrimination by employers.
employers. Employers
Employers are cautioned that crimes
crimes
may only be considered
considered ifthey
if they closely relate to the specific
specific duties
duties required of the job,
however "shocking"
“shocking” thecrime
the crime may have been (see Appendix 3C). If anything, then, this
the' effect of a criminal
study represents
represents a strong test of the
criminal record.
record. We might expect the
2o
effect to be larger in states
states where no such legal protection is in place.
place.20

Study Resign
Design
S’dy

•

The basic design of this study involves the use of four male auditors
auditors (also called testers),

two blacks and two whites. The testers were paired by race; that is, unlike in the original
Urban Institute
Institute audit studies,
studies, the two black testers fonned
formed one team, and the two white

testers fonned
formed the second
second team (see Figure 3.3).21
3.3).*’ The testers were college
college students
students from
Milwaukee who were matched on the basis of age,
age, race, physical appearance,
appearance, and general

self-presentation. Objective characteristics
characteristics which were not already identical
style of self-presentation.
between pairs-such
educational attainment and work experience-were
experienc+were made similar
pairs-such as educational
for the purpose of the applications.
applications. Within each team, one auditor was randomly

“criminal record"
record” for the first week;
week; the pair then rotated which member
assigned a "criminal
J. Struyk
Struyk (eds.).
(eds.). 1993.
1993. Clear and Convincing
Convincing Evidence:
of
Michael and Raymond J.
Evidence: Measurement of
Discrimination in America. Washington,
Washington, DC: Urban Institute
Institute Press.
Press.
Indeed, in a survey of employer
employer attitudes,
attitudes, Holzer and Stoll
Stoll(2001)
find that Milwaukee
Milwaukee employers
employers were
20 Indeed,
(2001) find
Angeles, Chicago,
Chcago, or Cleveland.
Cleveland.
employers in Los Angeles,
more likely to consider hiring ex-offenders than were employers
Whether employers'
employers’ hiring decisions
decisions are consistent
consistent with their self-reported
self-reported attitudes
attitudes remains an open
question.
question.
t h ~ sstudy was to measure
measure the effect of a criminal
criminal record,
21 The primary goal of this
record, and thus it was important
characteristic to be measured asa
as a within-pair effect.
effect. While it would have been ideal
ideal for all four
four
for this characteristic

*’

•

’

•

presented himself as the ex-offender for each successive week of employment searches,
searches,
such that each tester served in the criminal
criminal record condition
condition for an equal number of cases.
cases.
By varying which member ofthe
of the pair presented himself as having a criminal
criminal record,

unobserved differences
differences within the pairs of applicants
applicants were effectively
effectively controlled.
controlled. No
significant differences
differences were found for the outcomes
outcomes of individual
individual testers or by month of
testing.

Figure
Design
re 3.3. Audit Desi
Fi
White

•

Black

N
N
150 audits
150

N
audits
200 audits

Note: "C"
“C” refers
refers to Criminal
Criminal Record;
Record; "N"
“N” refers to No Record

openings for entry-level positions (defined
(defined as jobs requiring
requiring no previous experience
experience
Job openings
school) were identified from
from the Sunday classified
classified
and no education greater than high school)
advertisement section ofthe
of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
addition, a supplemental
supplemental
Sentinel. In addition,
advertisement
from Jobnet,
state-sponsored website for employment
employment listings
listings which
Jobnet, a state-sponsored
sample was drawn from
was developed
developed in connection with the W-2 Welfare-to-Work initiatives. 22 ,23

•

testers
employers, this
this would have likely aroused suspicion.
suspicion. The testers
testers were thus divided
testers to visit the same employers,
into separate
separate teams
teams by race.
22 Employment
Employment services
services like
like Jobnet have become a much more common
common method of finding
finding employment
employment in
difficult-to-employpopulations such as welfare
welfare recipients
ex-offenders.
recent years, particularly for difficult-to-employ
recipients and ex-offenders.

•

44
44

The
The audit
audit pairs
pairs were
were randomly
randomly assigned
assigned 15
15 job openings
openings each week.
week. The white
pair and
and the
the black pair were assigned
assigned separate
separate sets
sets ofjobs,
of jobs, with the same-race testers
applying
applying to
to the
the same
samejobs.
jobs. One member of the pair applied first,
first, with the second
applying
second).
applying one
one day later
later (randomly
(randomly varying
varying whether the ex-offender
ex-offender was first or second).
A
A total
total of350
of 350 employers
employers were audited during the course of this study: 150
150 by the white
pair and
and 200
200 by the black pair.
pair. Additional
Additional tests
tests were performed by the black pair because
black
black testers
testers received
received fewer
fewer call-backs
call-backs on average,
average, and there were thus fewer data points
with
with which
whch to
to draw
draw comparisons.
comparisons. A larger sample
sample size
size enables
enables the calculation
calculation of more
precise
precise estimates
estimates of the effects
effects under investigation.
investigation.
Immediately
Immediately following
following the completion
completion of each job application,
application, testers filled out a

•

6-page
hnportant
6-page response
response form
form which coded relevant information from the test. Important

variables included type of occupation,
occupation, metropolitan status,
status, wage, size of
variables
of establishment,
establishment,
and
and race
race and
and sex
sex of employer.
employer. Additionally,
Additionally, testers wrote narratives describing the

overall interaction,
interaction, and any comments
comments made by employers (or included on applications)
applications)
overall
specificallyrelated
related to race
race or criminal
criminal records.
records.
specifically
focuses only on the first stage of
One key feature
feature of this
this audit study is that it focuses
of the
One
employment process.
process. Testers
Testers visited employers, filled out applications,
employment
applications, and proceeded as
far as
as they could during
during the course
course of one visit.
visit. If testers were asked to interview on the
far
spot, they did so,
so, but they did not return to the employer for a second visit. The primary
spot,

•

Likewise, a recent survey by Holzer & Stoll
Stoll(2001)
Likewise,
(2001) found
found that nearly half
half of
of Milwaukee employers (46
Jobnet
to
advertise
job
vacancies
in
their
companies.
ercent)
use
vacancies
companies.
f:ercent)
Johnet advertise
Occupations with legal
legal restrictions
restrictions on ex-offenders
ex-offenders were excluded from the sample. These include jobs
3 Occupations
jobs
the health
health care
care industry,
industry, work with children and the elderly,
in the
elderly, jobs requiring the handling of
of firearms (i.e.,
sector. An estimate
security guards),
guards), and jobs in the public sector.
of incarceration
incarceration
security
estimate of the collateral consequences of
also need to take
take account
account of the wide range of employment hlly
fully off-limits to individuals with prior
would also
felony convictions.
convictions.
felony

•

dependent
call-backs from
dependent variable,
variable, then, is the proportion
proportion of applications
applications which elicited call-backs
employers.
employers. Individual
Individual voice
voice mail boxes were set up for each tester to record employer
responses.
responses. If a tester was offered
offered the job on the spot,
spot, this was also coded as a positive
24
response.
I focus
response.24
focus only on this
this initial
initial stage
stage of the emploYment
employment process is because this is

the
the stage
stage likely to
to be most affected by the barrier of a criminal record. In an audit study
of
of age
age discrimination,
discrimination, for
for example,
example, Bendick et al.
al. (1999)
(1999) find that 76 percent of the
emplOYment process.
measured differential
differential treatment
treatment occurred
occurred at this first stage ofthe
of the employment
Given
Given that a criminal
criminal record,
record, like age, is a highly salient
salient characteristic,
characteristic, it is likely that as
much,
stage.
much, if not more,
more, of the
the treatment effect
effect will be detected at this stage.

•

Testerprofiles
profiles
Tester

developing the tester profiles, emphasis
emphasis was placed on adopting
adopting characteristics
In developing
characteristics that
were both numerically
numerically representative
representative and substantively
substantively important.
important. In the present study,
were
the criminal
criminal record
record consisted
consisted of a felony
felony drug conviction
conviction (possession
(possession with intent to
the
distribute, cocaine)
cocaine) and
and 18
18 months of (served)
(served) prison time. A drug crime (as opposed to a
distribute,
crime) was chosen because of its prevalence,
prevalence, its policy salience, and
violent or property crime)
25
its connection
connection to
to racial
racial disparities
disparities in incarceration.
in~arceration.’~
It is important to acknowledge
acknowledge that
its

the effects
effects reported here may differ depending
depending on the type of offense.
offense.26
the
26

In cases
cases where
where testers
testers were
were offered
offered jobs on the
the spot,
spot, they were instructed
instructed to tell the employer
employer that they
In
were still
still waiting
waiting to
to hear
hear back
back from
from another job they had interviewed
interviewed for earlier.
earlier. The tester then called the
were
employer back at
at the
the end
end of the
the same
same day to let him/her
himher know that the other job had come through and he
employer
was therefore
therefore no
no longer
longer available.
available.
was
25 Over
Over the
the past two
two decades,
decades, drug
drug crimes
crimes have been the fastest
fastest growing
growing class of offenses.
25
offenses. In 1980,
1980,
16 inmates
inmates was
was incarcerated
incarcerated for
for a drug crime; by 1999, this figure had jumped to
roughly one
one out
out of every 16
roughly
2000). In federal
federal prisons,
one out
out of every
every five
five (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics
Statistics 2000).
one
prisons, nearly three out of every five
2001). A significant portion of
inmates
is
incarcerated
for
a
drug
crime
(Bureau
of
Justice
Statistics
of this
inmates is incarcerated for drug crime (Bureau Justice Statistics 2001).
increase can
can be attributed
attributed to
to changing
changing policies concerning
concerning drug
drug enforcement.
enforcement. By 2000, every state in the
increase
country had adopted
adopted some
some form
form of truth
truth in sentencing
sentencing laws
laws which impose
impose mandatory sentencing minimums
country
for aa range
range of offenses.
offenses. These
These laws
laws have
have been applied most frequently
frequently to drug crimes, leading to more than
for
24
24

•

In assigning
assigning the educational
educational and work history of testers, I sought a compromise
compromise

between representing the modal group of offenders while also
also providing some room for
variation in the outcome
outcome of the audits.
audits. Most audit studies of employment
employment have created
tester profiles which include some college
college experience,
experience, so that testers will be highly
competitive
competitive applicants
applicants for entry-level
entry-level jobs and so that the contrast between treatment and
control
control group is made clear (see Appendix B in Cross et aI.,
al., 1989).
1989). In the present study,
study,
however, post-secondary schooling experience
experience would detract from
from the representativeness
representativeness
of the results. More than 70 percent of federal
prisoners
federal and nearly 90 percent of state prisoners
have no more than a high school degree
degree (or equivalent).
equivalent). The education level of testers in
this
thm study,
study, therefore,
therefore, was chosen to represent the modal category
category of offenders (high

•

school
school diploma).27
dipl~ma).~’

systematic evidence
evidence concerning the work histories of inmates
inmates prior
There is little systematic
to incarceration.
incarceration. Overall, 77.4
77.4 percent offederal
of federal and 67.4
67.4 percent of state
state inmates
inmates were
1994); there is, however, a
incarceration (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 1994);
employed prior to incarceration
substantial degree
degree of heterogeneity in the quality
quality and consistency
consistency of work experience
experience
during this time (Pager, 2001).
2001). In the present study,
study, testers
testers were assigned favorable
favorable work

histories in that they report steady work experience in entry-level
entry-leveljobs and nearly
histories
employment (until
(until incarceration).
incarceration). In the job prior to incarceration (and, for the
continual employment

•

a four-fold
four-fold rise in the number of drug arrests
arrests which result in incarceration (Mauer 1999).
1999). While the steep
across the population, this "war
“war on drugs"
drugs” has had a disproportionate
disproportionate
rise in drug enforcement has been felt across
African-Americans. Between
Between 1990
1990 and 1997,
1997, the number of black inmates serving time for drug
impact on African-Americans.
offenses increased by 60 percent
compared to a 46 percent
percent compared
percent increase in the number of whites (Bureau of
offenses
Statistics 1995).
1995). In 1999,
1999, 26 percent of all black state
state inmates were incarcerated for drug offenses,
offenses,
Justice Statistics
Statistics 2001).
2001).
relative to less than half that proportion of whites (Bureau of Justice Statistics
employers are substantially
substantially more averse
averse to applicants convicted of violent
26 Survey results indicate that employers
(Holzer et al.
al. 2002;
2002; Pager, 2002,
2002,
crimes or property crimes relative to those convicted of drug crimes (Holzer
Ch.6).

•

47
47
control
control group,
group, prior to
to the
the last
last short-term
short-term job), testers
testers report
report having
having worked
worked their
their way
. . to a supervIsory
.
I e. 28
om an entryro
fiom
entry-level
position
supervisory
role.28
IeveI posItIon
fr
. L
Design
Issues29
eSlgn
ssues 29
D

There
There are
are a number of complexities
complexities involved in the
the design
design and implementation
implementation of an
audit
audit study.
study. Apart from
from the
the standard
standard complications
complicationsof carrying
carrying out a field
field experiment,
experiment,
there
there were several
several specific
specific dilemmas
dilemmas posed in the
the development
development of the
the current
current study
study that
required substantial
substantial deliberation.
deliberation. First, in standard
standard audit
audit studies
studies of race or gender,
gender, it is
is
possible
possible to construct
construct work histories for
for test partners
partners in such
such a way thatthe
that the amount
amount of

experience reported by each tester is
is identical.
identical. By contrast,
contrast, the present study
work experience

•

compares the outcome
outcome of one applicant who has spent 18
18 months
months in prison.
prison. It was
compares
therefore
therefore necessary to manipulate the work histories
histories of both applicants
applicants so
so that this labor
3D
The
market absence
absence did not bias the results.
results.30
The solution
solution opted for here was for the ex-

offender to report 6 months
months of work experience
experience gained while in prison (preceded
(preceded by 12
12
offender
months out of the labor force,
force, representing
representing the remainder
remainder of the total
total prison time).
time). The
The
months
graduating from
from high school
school one-year later
non-offender, on the other hand, reported graduating
(thereby accounting
accounting for 12
12 months)
months) and, concurrent to his partner's
partner’s 6 months
months of prison
(thereby

Forty-nine percent offederal
of federal and 46.5
46.5 percent of state
state inmates
inmates had a high school
school degree
degree (or equivalent)
equivalent)
Forty-nine
1991 (Bureau
(Bureau ofJustice
of Justice Statistics
Statistics 1994).
1994).
in 1991
28
28 Testers
Testers reported working
working either
either as
as an assistant
assistant manager at a national restaurant
restaurant chain or as
as a supervisor
supervisor
store. While it is unlikely that the modal occupational
occupational attainment
attainment for high school
school
at a national
national home retail store.
feature was added to the
graduates (with or without criminal
criminal records)
records) would be a supervisory
supervisory position,
position, this feature
graduates
tester profiles in order to make them more competitive
competitive applicants.
applicants. The solid job histories
histories of these
these
applicants should affect the results
results in a conservative
conservative direction,
direction, offering cues about the tester's
tester’s reliability
applicants
reliability
competence which may offset some of the negative
negative associations
associations with a criminal
criminal background.
background.
and competence
29 See
Appendix A for a discussion
See Appendix
discussion of additional
additional methodological
methodological concerns.
concerns.
30 Though time out of the labor market is in fact one component of the total impact of incarceration,
incarceration, this
30
isolate the effect of criminal
criminal stigma from other potential consequences
consequences of incarceration.
incarceration.
study sought to isolate
estimate of the full
full effect of incarceration
incarceration would also need to take account of employment
employment
Again, an estimate
Again,
difficulties resulting
resulting from
from a prolonged
prolonged labor market absence.
absence.
difficulties
2’
27

•

48
work time, worked for a temporary agency doing a similar kind of
of low-skill work. Thus,
the
of
the actual
actual amount of work experience was equivalent for both testers. The effect of
having the non-criminal
non-criminal graduate from
from high school one year later should impose a
conservative
conservative bias, as graduating from
from high school late may indicate less motivation or
ability.
ability.
A second
second major difference
difference between the audit studies of race or gender and the
present study is
is that criminal
criminal status
status is not something
something that can be immediately discerned
by the
therefore, in order for
the employer.
employer. The
The information
information had to be explicitly conveyed, therefore,
the
the interaction
interaction to become a "test."
“test.” In most cases, the tester was given the opportunity to
communicate
communicate the
the necessary
necessary information
information on the application form provided, in answer to

•

the
of
the question
question "Have
“Have you ever been convicted of a crime?,,3!
crime?”3*However, in the 26 percent of
cases
cases where
where the application
application form
form did not include a question
question about criminal history, it was
necessary to provide
provide an alternate
alternate means of conveying
conveying this information. In the present
study,
study, testers
testers provided two
two indirect sources
sources of information about their prior criminal

involvement. First,
First, as
as mentioned
mentioned above,
above, the tester in the criminal record condition
involvement.
reported work experience
experience obtained
obtained while in the correctional
correctional facility.
facility. Second, the tester
reported
listed his
his parole
parole officer
officer as
as a reference
reference (calls
(calls to whom were recorded by a voice mail
listed
box)?’ These
These two
two pieces of evidence
evidence provided explicit clues to employers
employers that the
box).32
applicant had spent
spent time
time in prison;
prison; and both ofthese
of these strategies are used by real exapplicant
offenders who
who seek
seek to
to account
account for
for empty time by reporting work experience
experience in prison
offenders
31

•

To the
the extent
extent that
that real
real ex-offenders
ex-offenders lie about
about their
their criminal record
record on application
application forms,
To
forms, this approach
criminal record.
record. See Appendix A for a lengthy discussion of
may lead
lead to
to an
an overestimate
overestimate of the
the effect of aa criminal
of
may
this issue.
issue.
this
32 This
This approach
approach was
was developed
developed in
in discussion
discussion with several Milwaukee employment counselors and parole
32
resumes belonging to real ex-offenders.
ex-offenders.
officers, and
and is
is based
based on
on aa composite
composite profile
profile of resumes
officers,
31

•

and/or who wish to have their parole officer vouch for their successful rehabilitation.
neighboring city suggested that this strategy was an
Pilot tests with employers in a neighboring
criminal record condition without arousing
arousing suspicion.
suspicion.
effective means of conveying the criminal

Information
Contextual Information
Milwaukee between June and December of 2001. During this
This project took place in Milwaukee
time, the economic
economic condition ofthe
of the metropolitan area remained moderately
moderately strong,
strong, with
unemployment rates ranging
ranging from
from a high of 5.2 percent in June to a low of 4 percent in
33
September.
It is important to note that the results
September.33
results of this study are specific
specific to the

economic
economic conditions
conditions of this period. It has been well-documented in previous research

•

that the level of employment
employment discrimination
discrimination corresponds
corresponds closely with the tightness
tightness of the
labor market (Freeman &
& Rodgers,
Rodgers, 1999).
1999). Certainly
Certainly the economic
economic climate
climate was a salient
salient

factor in the minds
minds of these
these employers.
employers. During a pilot interview,
interview, for example,
example, an
factor
employer mentioned that a year ago
ago she would have had three
three applications
applications for an entryentryemployer
34
opening; today she
she gets
gets 150.
150.34
for a janitorial service
service mentioned
mentioned
level opening;
Another employer for

previously their company had been so
so short of staff that they had to interview
that previously
virtually everyone
everyone who applied.
applied. The
The current conditions,
conditions, by contrast,
contrast, allowed
allowed them to be
virtually
far more selective.
selective. Since
Since the completion
completion of this
this study
study the
the unemployment
unemployment rate has
far
rise. It is
is likely,
likely, therefore,
therefore, that the
the effects
effects reported
reported here may understate
understate the
the
continued to rise.
impact of race
race and
and a criminal
criminal record
record in the
the context
context of an
an economic
economic recession.
recession.
impact
33
33

•

Monthly unemployment
unemployment rates
rates followed
followed aa U-shaped
U-shaped pattern,
pattern, with
with higher
higher levels
levels of unemployment
unemploymentin
in the
the
Monthly
(5.4%), July
July (5.2%),
(5.2%), August
August (4.8%), September
September
first and
and last
last months
months of the
the study.
study. Specifically:
Specifically:June
June (5.4%),
first
(4.4%),October
October (4.7%), November
November (4.9%),
(4.9%),December
December (4.5%).
(4.5%). National
National unemployment
unemployment rates
rates were
were nearly
nearly aa
(4.4%),
lower in
in June
June (4.6%),
(4.6%),but rose
rose above
above Milwaukee's
Milwaukee’s unemployment
unemploymentrate
rate to
to aa high
high of 5.8%
5.8% in
in December
December
point lower
(Bureau
Labor Statistics
Statistics 2002).
2002).
(Bureau of Labor

•

50
50

As
As mentioned
mentioned earlier,
earlier, the
the job openings
openings for
for this
this study
study were selected
selected from
from the
Sunday
Jobnet, a stateSunday classified
classified section
section of the
the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and from Jobnet,
sponsored
sponsored internet
internet job service.
service. All job openings
openings within a 25
25 mile radius of downtown
Milwaukee
Milwaukee were
were included,
included, with 61
61 percent of the resulting sample
sample located in the suburbs
or
or surrounding
surrounding counties
counties relative
relative to only 39
39 percent in the city of Milwaukee.
Milwaukee. Because a
limited
limited boundary
boundary was covered
covered by this project, the distribution ofjobs
of jobs does not accurately
represent
represent the extent to which job growth has been concentrated in wider suburban areas.
According
of entry-level
of job growth in Milwaukee, nearly 90 percent of
According to
to a recent study
study ofjob
job openings
openings were located in the outlying
outlying counties
counties and the Milwaukee county suburbs,
& Quinn,
with only 44 percent of full-time
full-time openings
openings located in the central city (Pawasarat &

•

2000).
2000).
average distance
distance from
from downtown in the present sample was 12 miles, with a
The average
substantial number ofjob
of job openings
openings located far from reach by public transportation.
transportation.
substantial
Again, testers
testers in this
this study represented a best-case
best-case scenario: all testers had their own
Again,
reliable transportation,
transportation, allowing
allowing them access to a wide range of
reliable
of employment
opportunities. For the average
average entry-level job-seeker, by contrast, the suburbanization of
opportunities.
of
low wage work can in itself represent a major barrier to employment (Wilson, 1996).
1996).
Like other metropolitan labor markets,
markets, the service industry has been the fastest
growing sector in Milwaukee, followed by retail and wholesale trade, and manufacturing
(Pawasarat &
& Quinn, 2000).
jobs in this study reflect similar
2000). Likewise,
Likewise, the sample of
ofjobs
concentrations, though quite a range of
job titles were included overall (Table 3.1).
ofjob
concentrations,

•

34
34

The unemployment rate in Milwaukee had been as low as 2.7 percent i
n September of
in
of 1999 (Bureau of
of
Labor Statistics 2002).
2002).

•

51
51

Table 3.1. Occupational Distribution

Job Title

Waitstaff
Laborer/Warehouse
Laborer/Warehouse
Productionloperators
Production/operators
Service
Service
Sales

18
18
17
17
12
12
11
11
11
11

Delivery Driver
Cashier
Cookkitchen staff
Cook/kitchen
Clerical
Managerial

9
7
5
5
2

Note: An excluded "other"
“other” category combines
combines the remaining 3 percent ofjob
of job titles.
titles.

The most common job types were for restaurant workers (1
8%), laborers
(18%),
laborers or warehouse
operators (12%).
workers (17%),
(17%), and production workers or operators
(12%). Though white collar

positions were less common among the entry-level
entry-level listings,
listings, a fair number of customer
service
positions
service (11
(1 1%), sales (11
(1 1%), clerical
clerical (5%), and even a handful of managerial positions

(2%) were included.35
included. 35
information on the ways employers obtain background
Figure 3.6 presents some information

•

36 In this sample,
information on applicants.
employers asked
applicant^.^^
sample, roughly 75 percent of employers
information
questions on their application forms
forms about the applicant's
explicit questions
applicant’s criminal
criminal history.
Generally this was a standard
question, "Have
Generally
standard question,
“Have you ever been convicted of a crime? If yes,

please explain.”37
cases employers are not allowed to use criminal
exp1ain."37 Even
Ev~n though in most cases
background information
decisions, a vast majority of employers
information to make hiring decisions,
nevertheless
nevertheless request the information.

sample excludes
excludes health care workers-which
category of
35 As noted above,
above, this sample
workers-which represented the largest category
entry-level employment-and
entry-level
employment-and other occupations
occupations with legal restrictions
restrictions on ex-felons.
ex-felons.
36
categories and are thus not meant to sum to 100.
100.
36 These are non-exclusive
non-exclusive categories
questions about criminal backgrounds
37 An overwhelming
overwhelming proportion of employers
employers used generic questions
backgrounds (with the
only major source of variation
stemming from an emphasis on all prior convictions
variation stemming
convictions versus felonies
felonies only).
only).
A handful of
large national companies,
oflarge
companies, however,
however, used questions
questions which reflected a more nuanced
question if
understanding
company, for example,
understanding of the law.
law. One company,
example, instructed
instructed applicants
applicants not to answer the question
they were a resident of certain specified
states; another asked only about prior convictions
specified states;
convictions for theft and
burglary,
offenses.
burglary, ignoring
ignoring all other possible
possible offenses.

’’

•

Figure 3.6.
3.6. Background Checks
'

100
100 .I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,1
sn
! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;I
90
-- +
7 A
80
80 +----1---------------;
70 70
;; 60
60 -

?
~

50 SO

40
30
30
20
20
10
10

Criminal
Criminal
Background
Background
Question,
Question.
(self-report)
(Self-report)

Criminal
Criminal
Background
Background
Check
Check

Reference
Reference
Check
Check

(Official report)
(Official

A much smaller proportion of employers
employers actually perform an official background check.
check.

In my sample,
sample, 27 percent of employers
employers indicated that they would perform a background

•

38
applicant^.^^
figure likely represents
estimate, given that
check on all applicants.
This figure
represents a lower-bound estimate,

disclose their intentions
intentions to do background checks.
checks.
employers are not required to disclose
According to a national survey by Holzer (1996),30
(1996), 30 to 40
40 percent of employers perform
official background checks on applicants
applicants for non-college jobs. The point remains,
however, that fewer
fewer than half of all employers
employers check criminal
criminal background information.
i n f ~ r m a t i o39n . ~ ~
Finally,
Finally, reference checks
checks were included as an outcome
outcome in this study with the

that, for applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records, having former
former employers
employers or a parole
belief that,
competence of the individual would be
officer willing to vouch for the reliability and competence

•

38 The issue of official
official background checks
checks raises some concern as to the validity of the experimental
informationprovided
(dis)confiied on the basis of other sources
sources
condition, given that the information
provided by testers can be (dis)confrrrned
available to employers.
employers. In cases where employers
employers in this
this study
study did perform
background
of information available
performbackground
t l u s study actually had criminal
criminal
checks on testers, the check would come back clean (none of the testers in this
records). It is my expectation
expectation that because employers would not expect
expect someone to lie about haVing
having a
records).
record, and because employers
employers know that criminal
criminal history databases
databases are fraught
fraught with errors,
errors, they
criminal record,
scenario- in this case, the self-report.
would be inclined to believe the worst case scenario-

•

53
53
critical.
critical. Additional
Additional voice mail boxes were set up for references,
references, such that each
application
application could provide numbers
numbers for
for two functioning
functioning references.
references. As it turns
turns out,
out,
however,
however, employers
employers seemed to pay virtually no attention
attention to references whatsoever.
whatsoever. Over
4o

the course ofthe
of the 350 audits
audits completed,
completed, only 44 separate
separate employers
employers checked references.
reference^.^'
Employers
Employers would frequently
fiequently tell testers,
testers, "I'll
“I’ll just check your references
references and then give
you a call
...."
call..
..” or leave
leave messages
messages saying,
saying, "I'm
“I’m going
going to call
call your references,
references, and then I'd
I’d
41

like you to come in for a training..."
training.. .” and yet no calls
calls were registered.
regi~tered.~’

finding emphasizes
emphasizes the point that employers
employers do not go out oftheir
of their way to
This finding
solicit
solicit nuanced information
information about applicants
applicants for entry-level jobs. Rather, it is up to the

applicant to convey the important information
information on the written application.or
application or during a brief
applicant

•

. interview.
interview. It is possible
possible that a larger number of employers
employers do check references at a later
stage
stage of the employment process (see
(see Chapter
Chapter 6).
6 ) . By this point, however,
however, the ex-offender

already likely been weeded out of the pool under consideration.
consideration.
has already
The question now becomes,
becomes, to what extent are applicants
applicants with criminal records
weeded out ofthe
of the process at this initial stage?
stage? To answer this question,
question, I turn
turn to the
weeded
results of the audit study.
study.
results

There is some
some indication
indication that the frequency
frequency of criminal
criminal background
background checks
checks has
has increased
increased since
since
There
11,2001.
Response Security,
Security, Inc.,
Inc., for example,
example, saw a 25 percent increase
increase in employers
employers
September 11,
September
2001. First Response
http://www.maine.rr.com/Around~Town/feates200
11
conducting background
background checks
checks since
since that time
time (see
(see http://www.maine.rr.com/Around_Town/features200
11
conducting
jobsinme/
11-0 1/default.asp).
jobsinme/ll_01ldefault.asp).
Two additional
additional employers
employers made
made calls
calls to the numbers
numbers listed for
for the parole officer
officer on the testers'
testers’
40 Two
for the purpose of obtaining
obtaining additional
additional background
background
applications. These
These calls, however,
however, were not for
applications.
cases, employers
employers had made several
several calls to the tester about
about
information about the candidate.
candidate. Rather,
Rather, in both cases,
information
his voice
voice mail,
mail, and they were
were looking
loolung for
for an alternative
alternative way to reach
reach the
opening; reaching
reaching only his
the job opening;
applicant.
applicant.
41
the voice
voice mail
mail system
system was set up in such a.a way that even hangs-ups
hangs-ups could be detected.
detected.
41 Note: the
39
39

•

The
The Effect ofa
of a Criminal Recordfor
Record for Whites
Whites

I begin with an analysis
analysis ofthe
of the effect of a criminal
criminal record among
among whites. White noncriminals
criminals can serve as our baseline
baseline in the following
following comparisons,
comparisons, representing
representing the
presumptively
presumptively non-stigmatized
non-stigmatized group
group relative to blacks and those with criminal
criminal records.
records.
Given that all testers presented roughly identical
identical credentials~
credentials; the differences
differences experienced
among
among groups oftesters
of testers can be attributed fully to the effects of race or criminal status.
status.
Figure 3.7 shows
shows the percentage of applications
applications submitted by white testers which elicited
call-backs from
from employers,
employers, by criminal
criminal status.
status.

Figure
Figure 3.7. The Effect of a Criminal
Criminal Record
Record on
Employment Opportunities
Opportunities for Whites

•

400-r----------------,
4
,
I
35 +------------"~--~
30 + - - - - - - - -

1j
a20

al 25
25 +----:.-------73

20 +---~----

"E 15
15

E
&
el

10
10
5
o0
Oiminal Record
Record
Criminal

No Record
Reex>rd
No

and statistically
statistically significant
significant (p<.OI).
The effect ofa
of a criminal record is large and
(p<.OI).

above, there is a large and significant effect of a criminal record, with 34
As illustrated above,

percent of whites without criminal records receiving call-backs relative to only 17
17 percent
of
of whites with criminal records. A criminal record thereby reduces the likelihood of
of a
call-back by 50 percent (see Appendix B for coefficients
coefficients from the logistic regression

•

model).

•

There were some fairly
fairly obvious examples
examples documented by testers which illustrate
illustrate
record. In one case,
the strong reaction among employers
employers to the signal of a criminal
criminal record.
case, a
white tester in the criminal
criminal record condition
condition went to a trucking
trucking service
service to apply for a job
as a dispatcher:
dispatcher: The tester was given a long application,
application, including
including a complex math test,
which took nearly 45 minutes
minutes to fill
fill out.
out. During the course of this process, there were
several
several details about the application and the job that needed clarification,
clarification, some of which
involved checking with the supervisor
supervisor about how to proceed. No concerns were raised
about his candidacy at this stage.
stage. When the tester turned the application
application in, the secretary
secretary
brought it into a back office for the supervisor
supervisor to look over and to perhaps conduct an

interview. When the secretary
secretary came back out, presumably after the supervisor
supervisor had had a
interview.

•

chance to look over the application more thoroughly,
thoroughly, he was told the position had already

been filled.
filled. While of course isolated incidents
incidents like this are not conclusive,
conclusive, this was not
an infrequent
infrequent occurrence. Often testers reported seeing
seeing employers'
employers’ levels of

responsiveness
change dramatically
dramatically once they had glanced down at the criminal
responsiveness change
criminal record
question.
question.

Clearly, the results here demonstrate that criminal
criminal records close doors
Clearly,
doors in
situations. Many employers
employers seem to use the information
screening
employment situations.
information as a screening
mechanism, without attempting to probe deeper into the possible context or complexities
of the situation.
situation. As we can see here, in 50 percent of cases, employers
employers were unwilling to
applicants on the basis of their criminal
criminal record.
consider equally qualified applicants
record.
course, this trend is not true among all employers, in all situations.
situations. There
There
Of course,

•

fact, some employers who seemed to prefer workers who had been recently
were, in fact,
released from
from prison.
criminal record condition that
prison. One owner told a white tester in the criminal

•

he
he "liked
“liked hiring
hiring people who had just come out of prison because they tend to be more
motivated,
prison]."
motivated, and
and are
are more likely to be hard workers [not wanting to return to prison].”
Another
Another employer for
for a cleaning
cleaning company attempted
attempted to dissuade the white non-criminal
tester
work." The tester
tester from
from applying
applying because the job involved "a
“a great deal of dirty work.”
with
with the
the criminal
criminal record,
record, on the other hand,
hand, was offered the job on the spot. A criminal
record
record is
is thus
thus not an
an obstacle
obstacle in all
all cases,
cases, but on average, as we see above, it reduces
employment
employment opportunities
opportunities substantially.
substantially.

The
The Effect
EfSect ofRace
of Race
A
African-Americans
A second
second major focus
focus of this
this study concerns
concerns the effect ofrace.
of race. Afkican-Americans

•

continue
continue to
to suffer
suffer from
from lower
lower rates
rates of employment
employment relative
relative to whites, but there is
itself-tremendous
tremendous disagreement
disagreement over the source
source of these disparities.
disparities. The idea that race itself-

from other
other correlated
correlated characteristics-eontinues
characteristics-continues to play
apart from
apart
playaa major role in shaping

employment opportunities
opportunitieshas
has come
come under question
question in recent years (e.g., D’Souza,
employment
D'Souza, 1995;
1995;
Steele, 1991).
1991). The
The audit
audit methodology
methodology is uniquely suited
suited to address
address this question. While
Steele,
this study
study design
design does
does not provide
provide the kind of cross-race matched-pair tests that earlier
this
audit studies
studies of racial
racial discrimination
discrimination have employed,
employed, the between-group comparisons
audit
(white pair vs
vs black pair)
pair) can nevertheless
nevertheless offer an unbiased estimate of
the effect of
race
ofthe
ofrace
(white
.. 42
on emp
employment
opp~rtunities.~~
on
Ioyment opportUnIties.

Between-pair comparisons
comparisonsprovide
provide less
less efficient estimators
estimators but they are nevertheless
Between-pair
nevertheless unbiased,
unbiased, provided
that there
there are
are no
no systematic
systematic differences
differences between the sample
sample ofjobs
of jobs assigned to each pair or between the
that
observed characteristics
characteristicsof the
the black and white
white pair (apart
(apart from
from race).
race). In this study,
study, jobs were randomly
observed
assigned to
to tester
tester pairs
pairs such
such that no systematic
systematic differences
differences should be observed between samples.
assigned
samples. Of course
in
an
experimental
design,
to
rule
out
the
possibility
that
unmeasured
differences
it
is
impossible,
even
differences
it is impossible, even an experimental design,
between the
the black
black testers
testers and
and the
the white
white testers
testers systematically
systematically bias the results.
results. This problem is one of
of the
between
Siegelman 1993).
1993). In the present study,
key limitations
limitations of the
the audit
audit design
design (see
(see Heckman & Siegelman
study, several
key
attempts were
were made
made to
to minimize
minimize this
this source
source of bias:
bias: first,
first, testers
testers were chosen based on
on similar physical and
attempts
42
42

•

Figure 3.8 presents
presents the percent of call-backs received for both categories
categories of black

findings is strikingly
strikingly large.
large.
testers relative to those for whites. The effect of race in these findings
records, only 14 percent received call-backs relative
Among blacks without criminal records,
relative to
34 percent of white non-criminals (p<.OI).
(pC.01). In fact,
fact, even whites with
with criminal
criminal records

favorable treatment (17
(17 percent)
percent) than blacks without criminal
criminal records (14
received more favorable
percent).43 The rank ordering
revealing of employer
percent).43
ordering of groups in this graph is painfully
painhlly revealing

preferences: Race continues
continues to playa
play a dominant role in shaping employment
opportunities,
opportunities, equal to or greater than the impact of a criminal record.

•

Figure 3.8. The Effect
Effect of a Criminal
Criminal Record
Record for
Figure
Black and White Job Applicants
-_I_-

40
40
m
!Xl

35
35

"u 30
30
-al

_I r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,I
+------------.,..==::

= I

+-~--------

~
m 25
25 + - - - - - - - - - U
~ 20
20 +---------¥jrc:
I
14
GJ
15
-1 5 +-----===CI

Ell Crim Ina I
Record
Record

I_No
N c Record
Record

~
GJ
10
10 - f - - n

o0
Black

White

The effects
effects of race and criminal
criminal record
record are
are large
large and statically
statically significant
significant (p<.OI).
(~.01)
The
44
interaction between the two is not significant
significant in the full sample.
sample.&
The interaction

•

dispositional characteristics
characteristics to minimize differences
differences from the outset;
outset; second, testers
testers participated in an
dispositional
extensive training
training (including
(including numerous role-plays)
role-plays) in which they learned
learned to approach employers
employers in similar
similar
extensive
third, testers
testers used identical
identical sets of resumes to ensure their comparability on objective
objective dimensions;
dimensions;
ways; third,
finally, the fact
fact that this study tests only the first
first stage
stage of the employment process means that testers
testers
and finally,
little opportunity to engage in the kind of extensive interaction that might elicit systematic differences
differences
had little
in treatment.
treatment.
43
difference is not significantly
significantly different from zero.
zero. Given,
Given, however,
however, that we would expect black
43 This difference
relative to criminals
criminals of any race, the relevant
relevant null hypothesis
non-criminals to be favored (rather than equal) relative
non-criminals
positive rather than zero, thus
thus generating an even larger contrast.
contrast.
should be positive
44
interaction between race and criminal
criminal record is significant
significant when estimated among suburban
44 The interaction
employers and among employers with whom the testers
testers had personal contact.
contact. See Chapter 4 for a
employers
discussion of these results.
discussion
results.

•

The
The magnitude
magnitude of the race
race effect
effect found
found here
here corresponds
corresponds closely to
to those
those found
found in
previous
previous audit studies
studies directly
directly measuring racial discrimination.
discrimination. Bendick et al.
al. (1994),
(1994), for
for
example,
example, find
find that blacks were 24
24 percentage
percentage points
points less
less likely to receive
receive a job offer
relative
relative to their white
white counterparts,
counterparts, a finding
finding strikingly
strikingly similar
similar to the 20 percent
45
,46 Thus
difference
difference (between
(between white and black non-offenders)
non-offenders) found
found here.
here.45946
Thus in the 88 years
years

since
since the last employment study of race was conducted,
conducted, very little
little has changed
changed in the
reaction of employers
employers to minority
minority applicants.
applicants. Despite
Despite the many rhetorical
rhetorical arguments
arguments
used to suggest that direct racial discrimination
discrimination is no longer a major barrier to opportunity
opportunity
(e,g.,
(e,g., D'Souza,
D’Souza, 1995;
1995; Steele,
Steele, 1991),
1991), as
as we can see
see here,
here, employers,
employers, at least in Milwaukee,
Milwaukee,

•

continue
continue to use race as a major factor
factor in hiring decisions.

of a Criminal Record
Racial Diflerences
Differences in the Effects ofa

final question this study sought to answer
answer was the degree
degree to which the effect of a
The final
criminal record differs
differs depending
depending on the race of the applicant. Based on the results
criminal
criminal record appears
appears more pronounced for
presented in Figure 3.8, the effect of a criminal
statistically significant,
significant, the
blacks than it is for whites. While this interaction term is not statistically
of the difference
difference is non-trivial. While the ratio of callbacks
callbacks for non-offenders
magnitude ofthe

•

45 Here I am relying on percentage differences
studies. As
differences in order to compare
compare equivalent measures across
across studies.
I discuss below, however,
find it useful to rather calculate
calculate relative differences
differences (ratio
(ratio tests) when
however, I fmd
comparing the effect of an effect across
comparing
across two groups with different baseline rates.
rates. Unfortunately,
Unfortunately, the
994) does not include
Bendick et al.
al. (1
(1994)
include the raw numbers in their results and it is thus not possible to
calculate comparative
calculate
comparative ratios in this case.
46
assessment of the full
al. (1994) study included an assessment
46 Note also that the Bendick et al.
full hiring process, from
the
application
ofthe
application to job offer.
offer. The fact that the racial disparities
disparities reported here (at the first stage of
employment
studies provides
employment process) closely mirror those from more comprehensive
comprehensive studies
provides fbrther
further reassurance
reassurance
capturing a majority of the discrimination
discrimination which takes place in the hiring process.
that this design is capturing
process.

•

relative
relative to offenders
offenders for whites is 2:1,
2:1 ,this same ratio for blacks is nearly 3:1.
3: 1.47,48
47948 The
effect of a criminal
criminal record is thus 40
40 percent larger for blacks than for whites.
whites.
This evidence is suggestive of the way in which
whch associations between race and
crime affect interpersonal evaluations.
evaluations. Employers,
Employers, already reluctant to hire blacks, are
even more wary of blacks with proven criminal
criminal involvement.
involvement. These testers
testers were bright
articulate
articulate college students
students with effective
effective styles
styles of self-presentation.
self-presentation. The cursory review
of entry-level
entry-level applicants,
applicants, however, leaves
leaves little room for these qualities
qualities to be noticed.
noticed.
Instead,
Instead, the employment barriers of minority status
status and criminal
criminal record are compounded,

intensifying the stigma toward this group.
group.
intensifying
The salience
salience of employers'
employers’ sensitivity
sensitivity toward criminal
criminal involvement among blacks

•

testers. On three separate
was highlighted in several
several interactions
interactions documented by testers.
separate
occasions, for example,
example, black testers were asked in person (before
(before submitting their

applications) whether they had a prior criminal
criminal history. None ofthe
of the white testers were
applications)
front.
asked about their criminal histories up front.
The strong association
association between race and crime in the minds of employers

provides
“true effect"
effect” of a criminal record for blacks may be
provides some indication that the "true
even larger than what is measured here.
here. If, for example, the outcomes for black testers

criminal records were deflated
deflated in part because employers feared that they may
without criminal
41
47

•

Because the absolute number of call-backs is so low, the standard errors around these estimates are too
statistical significance
significance in the interaction tenn.
term.
large to detect statistical
studies, focusing
focusing on one comparison
comparison only, have often relied on net differences in
48 Previous audit studies,
percentages as the primary measure of discrimination.
discrimination. Extending this approach
approach to the present design, it
compare the percentage
percentage difference
difference in treatment among
among white non-offenders
non-offenders
would likewise be possible to compare
difference in differences
differences approach).
approach). Given that the
relative to offenders relative to that of blacks (a difference
substantially different for blacks and whites, however, this measure would be
baseline rate of call-backs is substantially
absolute sense,
sense, whites have greater opportunity
opportunity overall and thus have more to lose.
lose.
misleading. In an absolute
misleading.
account this differential baseline,
Taking into account
baseline, we see that the relative effect of a criminal record is in fact
among blacks.
blacks.
smaller among whites than it is among

•

nevertheless have criminal tendencies, then the contrast between blacks with and without
nevertheless
suppressed. Evidence for this type of statistical
statistical discrimination
discrimination
criminal records would be suppressed.
(2001).
can be found in the work of Bushway (1997) and Holzer et al. (2001).

Conclusion
Conclusion
disagreement among academics, policy makers, and practitioners over
There is serious disagreement
harmful
the extent to which contact with the criminal
criminal justice system-in
system-in itself-leads
itself-leads to harmfbl
consequences
consequences for employment.
employment. The present study takes a strong stand in this debate
debate by
offering
relationship between a criminal record and
offering direct evidence
evidence ofthe
of the causal relationship
employment outcomes.
outcomes. While survey research has produced noisy and indirect estimates

•

of this effect,
effect, the current
current research design offers
offers a direct
direct measure of a criminal
criminal record as
as a
mechanism
mechanism producing employment disparities.
disparities. Using matched pairs and an

criminal record,
record, this estimate
estimate is unaffected by the problems
problems of
experimentally assigned criminal
selection which plague observational data.
data. While certainly
certainly there
there are additional
additional ways in
selection
incarceration may affect
affect employment
employment outcomes,
outcomes, this finding
finding provides
provides conclusive
conclusive
which incarceration
evidence
evidence that mere contact
contact with the criminal
criminaljustice system,
system, in the absence
absence of any

transformative or selective
selective effects,
effects, severely
severely limits
limits subsequent
subsequent employment
employment opportunities.
opportunities.
transformative
And while
while the
the audit
audit study
study investigates
investigates employment
employment barriers
barriers to
to ex-offenders
ex-offenders from
from a micromicroperspective,
perspective, the
the implications
implications are
are far-reaching.
far-reaching. The finding
finding that ex-offenders
ex-offenders are
are one-half
to
to one-third
one-third as
as likely
likely to
to be considered
considered by employers
employers suggests
suggests that aa criminal
criminal record

indeed presents
presents aa major barrier to
to employment.
employment. With over two
two million people
people currently
currently
indeed

•

bars and
and over 12
12 million
million people with prior felony
felony convictions,
convictions, the
the consequences
consequences
behind bars
for labor
labor market
market inequalities
inequalities are
are potentially
potentially profound.
profound.
for

•

61
61
Second,
Second, the persistent effect of race on employment
employment opportunities
opportunities is painfully

results. Blacks are less than half as likely to receive consideration
consideration by
clear in these results.
fall behind even
employers relative to their white counterparts, and black non-offenders fall
whites with prior felony
felony convictions.
convictions. The powerful effects
effects of race thus continue
continue to direct
employment
employment decisions
decisions in ways that contribute
contribute to persisting racial inequality. In light of
these findings,
findings, current public opinion seems
seems largely misinformed:
misinformed: According
According to a recent
survey of residents in Los Angeles, Boston, Detroit, and Atlanta, researchers found that

just over a quarter of whites believe there to be "a
“a lot"
lot” of discrimination
discrimination against
against blacks,
compared to nearly two-thrds
respondents (Kluegel &
& Bobo,
Bobo, 2001). Over the
compared
two-thirds of black respondents
decade, affirmative
affirmative action has come under attack across
across the country based on the
past decade,

•

argument
argument that direct racial discrimination is no longer a major barrier to opportunity.49
oppo~tunity.~~

According to this study,
study, however,
however, employers,
employers, at least in Milwaukee,
Milwaukee, continue
continue to use race
According
as a major factor in their hiring decisions.
decisions. When we combine
combine the effects
effects of race and
asa
criminal record, the problem grows more intense.
intense. Not only are blacks much more likely
criminal
incarcerated than whites; according
according to the findings
findings presented here, they may also be
to be incarcerated
criminal record.
record. Previous estimates
estimates of the
more strongly affected by the impact of a criminal
aggregate consequences
consequences of incarceration may therefore
therefore underestimate
underestimate the impact on
aggregate
racial disparities.
disparities.
implications, this research has troubling
troubling conclusions.
conclusions.
Finally, in terms of policy implications,
locking people up, our "crime
“crime control"
control” policies may in fact
fact exacerbate
exacerbate
In our frenzy of locking
the very conditions
conditions which lead to crime
crime in the first
first place. Research consistently
consistently shows
shows

•

49
49

November 1996,
1996, California voters supported
supported Proposition
Proposition 209 which outlawed affirmative
affirmative action in
In November
employment, education,
education, and contracting.
contracting. In the same year, the 55”th Circuit Court of Appeals
Appeals
public employment,

•

of the strongest predictors of
of desistance
desistance
that finding quality steady employment is one of
from crime (Shover,
(Shover, 1996;
& Laub, 1993;
2000). The fact that a
1996; Sampson &
1993; Uggen, 2000).
criminal record severely limits employment opportunitiesopportunities- particularly among blacksblackssuggests that these individuals are left with few viable alternatives.
alternatives.
suggests
from prison, it becomes
As more and more young men enter the labor force ftom

increasingly important to consider the impact of incarceration on the job prospects of
of
institution, the criminal justice system has
those coming out. No longer a peripheral institution,

become a dominant presence in the lives of young disadvantaged men, playing a key role
stratifying of
of labor market opportunities. This paper represents an
in the sorting and stratifying
of the important mechanisms by which incarceration
incarceration leads
initial attempt to specify one of

•

to poor employment outcomes.
outcomes. Future research is needed to expand this emphasis to
include additional
effects and to estimate the collateral
collateral consequences of
additional incarceration effects
incarceration
incarceration for labor market inequalities.

suspended affIrmative
a f f i t i v e action
action in Texas in the case
case of Hopwood v.
v. University of Texas Law School.
School.
suspended

•

Appendix 3A. Methodological Concerns
Concerns

Below I discuss
discuss some of the limitations
limitations of the audit methodology and ways in which
findings
findings from
from an experimental
experimental design may conflict with real-life contexts.
contexts.

Limits to Generalizability
Generalizability
1.
1 . The Reporting
Reporting of Criminal
Criminal Backgrounds
In the present study, testers in the criminal
criminal record condition
condition were instructed
instructed to provide an

affirmative answer to any question
question about criminal
criminal background posed on the application
form
form or in person. Employers
Employers are thus given full
full information
information about the "criminal
“criminal
background" of this applicant.
background”
applicant. But how often do real ex-offenders offer such complete

•

and honest information?
information? To the extent that ex-offenders
ex-offenders lie about their criminal
criminal
background in employment settings,
settings, the results ofthis
of this study may overestimate
overestimate the effect
of having a criminal
crimina1 record. If employers do not know, then surely a criminal
criminal record can

have no influence on their hiring decisions.
decisions.
Before starting this project,
project, I conducted a number of interviews with parolees and
men with criminal records.
records. When
\Vhen asked how they handled application forms,
forms, the
up-front. There are a
majority ofthese
of these men claimed to report their criminal record up-front.

number of reasons motivating
seemingly irrational behavior:
motivating this seemingly
behavior: First, most men with
chance of being caught by a criminal background check
criminal records believe that the chance
employers do not perform
is much larger than it actually is. While a majority of employers
checks on all applicants,
background checks
applicants, there is the perception that this practice
practice is

•

widespread.
Second, most men coming out of prison have a parole officer monitoring
widespread. Second,
reintegration. One of the most effective
effective mechanisms of surveillance
surveillance for parole
their reintegration.

•

officers
officers is to call employers
employers to make sure their parolees have been showing up for work.
Ifthe
therefore, it will soon be
If the individual
individual has not reported his criminal
criminal history, therefore,
revealed.
50 There
re~ealed.~’
There is thus a strong
strong incentive for parolees to be upfront in their reporting.
reporting.
A second
second source of information on this issue comes from
from interviews with
employers.
employers. In a second stage
stage of this project,
project, the same sample
sample of employers
employers were
interviewed
practices and experiences
6). During these
interviewed about their hiring practices
experiences (see Chapter 6).
conversations,
conversations, the employers were asked to report what percent of applicants over the

past year had reported a prior conviction; and, among those employers who performed
official criminal
criminal background checks, what percent of applicants
applicants were found to have .
criminal
criminal records.
records. According to the employers,
employers, roughly 12 percent of applicants
applicants over the

•

past year reported having a prior record on their application
application form.
form. Of those employers
employers
who perform official background checks,
checks, an average
average of 14 percent of applicants
applicants were
found to have criminal
criminal records. The disparity
disparity between self-reports
self-reports and official records,
records,
therefore,
percent. In fact,
therefore, is a minimal two percent.
fact, one manager of a national restaurant chain

mentioned that sometimes
sometimes applicants report more information
information than they need to:
to: While
the question on his application form
form only asked about felony convictions over the past
year, this employer revealed that applicants
applicants sometimes
sometimes report misdemeanors
misdemeanors and felony
felony
convictions from several years back. Whatever the reason, there seems to be evidence
convictions
ex-offenders report their prior convictions
convictions than "rational
“rational actor"
actor” models
that far more ex-offenders
applications, there is
might predict. While surely some ex-offenders do lie on their applications,
reason to believe this is far from
from the norm.
norm.

•

consequential for employees
employees in states such as Wisconsin
Wisconsin where employers
employers are not
50 This is particularly
particularly consequential
fire someone
someone for having a criminal
criminal record,
record, but they are allowed to fire
tire him for lying about his
hs
allowed to fire
allowed

•

issue of study design concerns
concerns the reporting
reporting of criminal background
A related issue
employer. Recall that 25 percent of employers do not ask
even when not solicited by the employer.
explicit
explicit questions on their application forms
forms about an applican(s
applicantls criminal
criminal history.
history. In
order to make sure
sure the experimental
experimental condition
condition was known to all employers,
employers, testers also
also

reported work experience
experience in the correctional
correctional facility
facility and listed their parole officer as a
reference. While this strategy
strategy was chosen to reflect a composite profile of a number of
reference.
ex-offenders, by no way does this represent
represent a modal application procedure. In most
real ex-offenders,
cases, if employers
employers don't
don’t ask about (or check)
check) criminal
criminal histories,
histories, they'll
they’ll never know. It is
th~ information
possible that in conveying the
information artificially,
artificially, the level of measured

discrimination
possible. Figure 3AI
discrimination is inflated.
inflated. To address
address this concern,
concern, a direct test is possible.
3A1

•
a

presents the call-back rate for employers who did and did not solicit information about
presents

prior convictions.
conviction^.^'51

Differences by whether Criminal
Criminal
Figure 3A1. Differences
Information was Solicited
Solicited
History Information
55
50
w 45
2
40
~ 40
mIII 35
35
u
u 30
30
~ 25
25
QJ
20
20
~
15
QJ
15
c..
n. 10
10
5

-.---------------,

+-------------j
+----------~

+---"""TI:----------j

+---t--+---

.------...,
E3 Criminal
lBCriminal
Record
Record
o Record
•I NNo

-t--+-~h'-

n
o

Asked

(75%)

•

Not
N o t Asked

(25%)

record.
record.
Note:
3A1 and 3A2 are calculated
calculated for white testers only.
only. The
rates for black testers
testers
Note: Figures 3Al
Th~ call-back rates
t h three-way
~
interaction.
accurately calculate this
was too low to accurately
interaction.
51

•

As
As is
is clear from
from this graph,
graph, employers
employers who did not solicit information about criminal
histories
decisions. The
histories were much less likely to use the information
information in their hiring decisions.
disparity
disparity in treatment
treatment of ex-offenders
ex-offenders relative to non-offenders among employers who did
request the information
information (12
(12 vs 35
35 percent)
percent) is more than twice as large as that among
correspondence to the “real
"real
employers
employers who did not ask (25
(25 vs 33 percent). In terms of its correspondence
world"
world” therefore,
therefore, providing
providing unsolicited information
information about criminal backgrounds did little
to
to affect
affect employer
employer responses.
responses.

2.
2. The
The Representativeness
Representativeness of Testers
of selfTesters
Testers in this study were bright,
bright, articulate
articulate college students with effective styles of

•

inmate, by contrast, are likely to be
presentation.
presentation. The interpersonal skills
skills ofthe
of the average inmate,
substantially
employers. The choice of testers in this respect was
substantially less appealing to employers.
deliberate,
deliberate, as
as a means of fully
fully separating
separating the signal
signal of a criminal record from other

correlated attributes
attributes to which employers
employers may also respond.
correlated
respond. It is nevertheless important to
consider the extent to which these testers can be considered accurate representatives
representatives of
of

the ex-offender experience.
experience. On
On one hand,
hand, it may be the case that the testers in this
the
this study
scenario. Because
Because their interactional
represent a best-case scenario.
interactional style does not correspond to
stereotypical criminal,employers
criminal, employers may be more willing to consider them as
that of a stereotypical
viable candidates
candidates despite
despite their criminal background. In this case, the present study
viable
design would underestimate
underestimate the true effect of a criminal record. On the other hand, for
design
individuals with poor interpersonal
interpersonal skills,
skills, a criminal
criminal record may represent just one
individuals

•

additional-but less
less consequential-handicap
consequential-handicap to the already disadvantaged
additional-but
disadvantaged candidate.
candidate. If
If

•

67
this is the case,
case, the effect of a criminal
criminal record may be overestimated by the testers
testers in the

study.
present study.
analyze those applications
applications
One approach to investigating this problem is to analyze
52 In these cases,
submitted
submitted with no personal contact with the employer.
employer.52
cases, the interpersonal

skills
skills of the testers
testers should have no influence
influence on the employer'sconsideration
employer's consideration of the
applicant.
applicant. In the analysis
analysis reported in Figure
Figure 3A2, we see
see that the effect
effect of a criminal
criminal
record is even greater in the absence
relative to the overall
overall findings
findings
absence of personal contact relative
53
reported
reported earlier.
earlier.53

Figure 3A2.
3A2. The
The Effect of Personal
Personal Contact
Contact
Figure

•

60
---,
60 -I r - - - - - - - - - = : ; : : -53
C4
C +--------~-_l
55
a
~ 50
50 -t--------::-::"0
-0 45
45 - t - - - - - - - ! t . 4 ~
w 40
40 + - - - - - - - III 35
Tir
35 +------;-.;;,----Criminal
mCriminal
I
u 30
30 -t---........,'----u
Record
Record
E 25
25 +---I N o Record
Record
.No
~
8 20
20 +--... 15
+------...15
d 10
10
~
55

No Personal
Personal
No
Contact
Contact

Personal
Personal
Contact

(76%)

(24%)
(24%)

Personal contact appears
appears to mediate
mediate the effect of a criminal
criminal record, reducing its negative
Personal
impact. These
These results
results are
are suggestive
suggestive ofthe
of the former
former hypothesis:
hypothesis: the interpersonal
interpersonal skills
skills of
impact.
testers in the present study,
study, to the extent that they
they are noticed by employers,
employers, serve
serve to
testers
record. The estimates
estimates reported here,
here, therefore,
therefore, likely
weaken the effect of a criminal record.

•

lower-bound estimate of the true effect of a criminal
criminal record.
represent a lower-bound

•

68
3. The Case of Milwaukee
Milwaukee
One key limitation
limitation of the audit study design
design is its concentration on a single
single metropolitan
area.
area. The degree
degree to which the findings
findings of each study can be generalized to the broader
population,
population, therefore,
therefore, remains
remains in question.
question. In the present study,
study, Milwaukee
Milwaukee was chosen
for having a profile common
common to many major American cities, with respect to population
size, racial composition,
composition, and unemployment rate.
rate. There are,
are, however, two unique
features
features of Milwaukee limit its representativeness
representativenessof other parts of the country.
country. First,
Milwaukee
Milwaukee is the second most segregated
segregated city in the country, implying great social
ofthe
distance
distance between blacks and whites, with possible implications for the results of
the audit

•

relations are more
morestrained.in
study.
study. If race relations
strained in Milwaukee than in other parts ofthe
of the country,

then the effects of race presented in this study may be larger than what would be found in
areas. Second,
other urban areas.
Second, between 1991
1991 and 1998, Wisconsin had the third largest
growth in incarceration rates in the country (Gainsborough
(Gainsborough &
& Mauer, 2000), and
incarceration for blacks in the country (Bureau of Justice
currently has the highest rate of incarceration
Statistics,
Statistics, 2002b). If the state-wide
state-wide incarceration
incarceration rates are reflective of an especially
especially
which a criminal
criminal record is
punitive approach to crime, this could also affect the degree to whch
employers, particularly among black applicants.
applicants.
condemned by employers,

Of
Of course, the only way to directly address
address these issues is through
through replication in
additional areas. With respect to the main effect of race, previous audit studies have been
of
Washington DC, Chicago, aid
and Denver, confirming
confirming the basic magnitude of
conducted in Washngton

•

aI., 1994;
aI., 1991; Culp &
& Dunson,
the effects reported here (Bendick et al.,
1994; Turner et al.,
52
52

employer.
Over 75 percent of applications were submitted with no personal contact with the employer.

•

1986).
1986). Though the last major audit study of race was conducted
conducted over 8 years ago,
ago, these
results provide
provide some indication
indication that Milwaukee
Milwaukee is not a major outlier in its level of racial
discrimination
discrimination in hiring.
hiring.
In the case of the criminal
criminal record effect,
effect, only future
future studies
studies can confirmor
confirm or
contradict
contradict the results presented here.
here. As the first
first study of its kind, it is impossible to
assess
assess the degree
degree to which these results
results will generalize
generalize to other cities. Looking to
existing
existing survey
survey research,
research, however, we can gain some leverage
leverage on this issue. According
(2001), employers
to a recent survey conducted by Holzer &
& Stoll
Stoll(2001),
employers in Milwaukee
Milwaukee reported
\

substantially
applicants with criminal records relative to
substantially greater openness to considering applicants
counterparts in Chicago,
their counterparts
Chicago, Los Angeles, and Cleveland.
Cleveland. If these self-reports
self-reports

•

employers' relative hiring tendencies, then we would expect the results
accurately reflect employers’
ofthis
estimates of the barriers to employment faced
of
this audit study to provide conservative estimates
areas.
by ex-offenders in other metropolitan areas.

restrictions
4. Sample restrictions
criminal record on employment
The present study was intended to assess
assess the effect of a criminal
in entry-level jobs. In order to obtain a sample of such positions for use in this study,
study,
restrictions on the categories
categories of
however, it was necessary to impose certain sample restrictions
restrictions affect the
entry-level employment to be included. The degree to which these restrictions

generalizability of
of these findings
findings to real employment searches
searches therefore warrants careful
consideration.
consideration.

•

only.
This figure presents the call-back rates for white testers only.

•

Virtually
ofjob
Virtually all employment
employment audits
audits have relied on samples of
job openings identified
through ads
ads in metropolitan newspapers.
newspapers. Though want ads provide an easily accessible
listing
listing ofjob
of job vacancies,
vacancies, research on actual job search behavior demonstrates that only a
minority
(1988)
minority ofjobs
of jobs are
are found
found through this source.
source. Holzer (1
988) estimates that only roughly
advertising,
20
20 to 25
25 percent of search
search time is spent on contacts generated by newspaper advertising,
with friends
applicants representing much
friends and relatives
relatives and direct contact of firms
firms by applicants
more
more common sources
sources of new employment.
employment.
Though
representative
Though it would preferable
preferable to include
include job vacancies derived from representative
of informal contacts that lead
sources,
sources, it is
is difficult
difficult if not impossible
impossible to map the network of
to
to most job opportunities.
opportunities. Instead,
Instead, researchers have relied upon sources which allow for

•

systematic
systematic and consistent sampling
sampling schemes, despite the reduction in representativeness.
Fortunately, there is compelling research to suggest that the restricted sample provides a

conservative estimate
estimate of discrimination.
discrimination. Firms who wish to discriminate, it is
more conservative
argued, are
are more likely to advertise
advertisejob openings
openings through more restrictive channels than
argued,
the metropolitan newspaper, such as through referrals,
the
referrals, employment agencies, or more
& Struyk,
Struyk, 1993:32).
1993:32). Indeed, this argument is indirectly
selective publications (Fix &
selective

supported by research showing
showing that minorities
minorities are more successful
job searches
successful in
injob
supported
generated by general
general newspaper ads
ads than through other means (Holzer, 1987).
generated
1987). Further,
audits conducted
conducted by the Fair Employment Council
Council in Washington, DC also indicate
pilot audits
lower rates
rates of discrimination against
against minorities
minorities in jobs advertised in metropolitan
lower

•

71
71
newspapers than those advertised in suburban newspapers or in employment
newspapers
employment agencies
agencies
(Bendick et aI.,
al., 1991,
1991, 1993).54
1
The present study therefore,
previous audit studies,
therefore, following
following previous
studies, relies on a random
sample
sample ofjob
of job openings
openings from advertised sources
sources (the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and

Jobnet). Prior to sampling,
Jobnet).
sampling, the following
following additional restrictions
restrictions were imposed (for
reasons discussed
discussed below):

•0
•0
•0
•0
•0
•0

•

Not hiring through employment agency;
agency;
No more than high school degree
degree required;
No public sector positions;
positions;
No health care positions;
positions;
No jobs related to the care of children or the elderly;
elderly; and,
and,
No jobs whose announcements
announcements explicit
explicit stated security
security clearance
clearance required.
required.

The restrictions
restrictions with the largest effect on my sample
sample are those related to employment
employment
agencies
agencies and the health care industry. Employment agencies
agencies are becoming increasingly
increasingly
dominant in regulating
regulating the market for entry-level
eritry-level labor.
labor. Between 35 and 40
40 percent of
bulletin) were "temporary
jobs advertised on Jobnet (the internet employment bulletin)
“temporary to
permanent" positions through an employment agency.
permanent”
agency. There exists quite a bit of

literature on the quality oftemporary
of temporary employment
employment and the treatment
treatment of workers hired
literature
through employment agencies
agencies (Henson, 1996).
1996). An audit of employment agencies,
however, warrants an independent study, given the very different hiring procedures
however,
procedures use in
such establishments.
establishments.

54
54

•

Ethnographic evidence
evidence further
further suggests
suggests that white ex-offenders benefit more from personal
personal networks in
(1989) finds
finds that,
that, among juvenile delinquents,
delinquents, whites and
seeking employment than do blacks. Sullivan (1989)
relatives or extended networks following release from
Hispanics were readily placed in employment by relatives
contrast, benefited much less from
from social networks in finding
finding work. These
These
incarceration; blacks, by contrast,
of job search behavior, therefore, are likely to result in greater evidence
evidence of racial
informal methods ofjob
following incarceration
incarceration than what is reported here.
here.
disparities in employment following

•

72
The
The elimination
elimination of health care positions from
from my sample was due to the extensive
legal
legal restrictions
restrictions in
in this
this sector
sector barring
barring the employment of individuals with criminal
records.
55 This sample
ofjobs
records.55
sample constraint
constraint eliminated a huge number of
jobs otherwise available
to
services sector represents
to entry-level
entry-leveljob seekers
seekers without criminal records. The health services
8.3
of
8.3 percent of total employment in Wisconsin (COWS, 1996), and a much larger share of
th
new employment.
employment. Hospitals
Hospitals alone were the 44thlargest employers
employers in the Milwaukee

region
region in 1995
1995 (COWS,
(COWS, 1996).
1996). These are some ofthe
of the highest-wage jobs in the service
sector (COWS,
(COWS, 1996).
1996).
of
Other occupations
occupations were likewise
likewise eliminated
eliminated from the sample, not because of
blanket legal
legal restrictions,
restrictions, but because their job announcements explicitly stated that

•

applicants
applicants must pass a criminal
criminal background check and/or that security clearance was
required.
required. While it is not clear that blanket exclusion of all criminal convictions in these
cases
cases is defensible
defensible under the law, the employers' policies are made fairly explicit. While
one cannot
of criminal
cannot always
always assume
assume that stated policies will be enforced, in the case of
variance.
records, these jobs are unlikely to demonstrate
demonstrate much variance.

estimate of the collateral
collateral consequences
consequences of a criminal record on
A true estimate
opportunities would take into account the large number of
jobs formally
employment opportunities
ofjobs
ex-offenders (rather than just those demonstrating
closed to ex-offenders
demonstrating a preference for or against
applicants with criminal
criminal records).
records). The estimates produced from the audits, therefore,
applicants
of the overall effect of
represent only part ofthe
of a criminal record of
of the likelihood of
of finding
employment.

•

55 Such restrictions
55
restrictions also apply to occupations involving care for children or the elderly and many
many public
public
sector positions.
positions.

•

Experimenter Effects
One potential weakness of the audit study methodology
methodology is that the expectations
expectations or
ways. In the
behaviors of testers can influence
influence the outcome of results in non-random ways.
course of this research, it became apparent that testers
testers may in fact
fact (unconsciously)
(unconsciously)

behave differently
differently depending
depending on the experimental condition.
condition. With respect to the criminal
criminal
record condition,
condition, several
several testers commented that they felt
felt irrationally
irrationally bad about

presenting themselves
themselves as ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. Ifit
If it is the case that these
themselves when presenting
feelings made them more self-conscious and/or more reticent or nervous when speaking
speaking
feelings
employers, then this behavior in itself may lead to spurious
spurious outcomes.
outcomes. These
with employers,
psychological reactions
reactions may be even more pronounced in the case of black testers.
psychological
testers. One

•

tester early on reported feelings
feelings of discouragement and frustration
frustration that he had had very
employers. As a successful,
successful, bright college
college student,
student, the change
change in
few responses
responses from employers.
criminal was extreme,
extreme, and the difference
difference in treatment he received
status to a young black criminal
experience with the project,
project, this
seemed to take a toll. Fortunately, after gaining more experience
others) seemed to feel
feel more comfortable in their interactions
interactions and better able to
tester (and others)
perform in their assigned roles.
experiences oftesters
of testers can certainly influence
influence the outcome of
The psychological experiences
studies. It is unlikely, however,
however, that they are the driving
driving force
force behind the results
audit studies.
from this study.
study. As noted earlier,
earlier, in a vast majority of cases
cases testers had little if
reported from
employers. Given that a majority of call-backs were made on the basis
any contact with employers.
applications submitted with little or no personal contact, the internal disposition
disposition of the
of applications

•

effect. The finding
finding that personal contact actually
tester is unlikely to exert much of an effect.

•

74
served to weaken the effect of a criminal
criminal record (see Figure 3A2
3 A 2 above)
above) provides further
further
evidence
evidence that the friendly,
hendly, appealing
appealing qualities
qualities ofthe
of the testers were apparentto
apparent to employers
employers
even among applicants
applicants in the criminal record condition.

•

•
e

38. Logistic
Logistic Regression
Regression of the Effects
Effects of Criminal
Criminal Record
Record and Race
Race
Appendix 3B.
on Applicants' Likelihood
Likelihood of Receiving
Receiving a Call-Back

Coefficient
Coefficient
Criminal record
record
Criminal
Black
Criminal
Criminal record*black
record*black

Robust
Robust
Standard Error
Standard

,·0.99
-0.99
-1.25
-0.29

0.24
0.28
0.38

***
***

Note:
Note: Standard errors
errors are
are corrected
corrected for dustering
clustering on
on employer 10
ID in
in order to account
account for the tact
fact that these
data
data contain
contain two records
records per employer (Le.,
(i.e., criminal
criminal record
record vs no criminal
criminal record). This model
model also
also controls
controls
for location
location (city vs suburb)
suburb) and
and contact
contact with the employer, variables which
which mediate
mediate the relationship
relationship between
between
race,
race, crime,
crime, and
and employer responses.

•

Appendix 3C: Wisconsin Fair Employment Act
According
According to Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, "It
“It is unlawful to discrimination against
against
employees
employees and job applicants because of their sex,
sex, color, ancestry,
ancestry, disability,
disability, marital
status, race, creed (religion),
(religion), age (40 or over), use oflawful
of lawful products, arrest or conviction

record, honesty testing, national origin,
origin, pregnancy or childbirth,
childbirth, sexual orientation,
orientation,
genetic testing, or military service membership.
membership. This law applies
applies to employers,
employment agencies, labor unions,
unions, and licensing
licensing agencies"
agencies”
(http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/dwd/Posters/ERD-4531.pdf.
(http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/dwd/Posters/E~-453
1.pdf, emphasis
emphasis added).
added).
An employer may only take prior convictions
convictions into account if the circumstances
circumstances of

the crime are "substantially
“substantially related"
related” to the circumstances
circumstances of the particularjob.

•

Unfortunately, the law provides
provides no explicit
explicit definition
definition of "substantially
“substantially related,"
related,” and cases
are decided on an individual basis.
basis. Some
Some insights
insights into the scope and interpretation
interpretation of the
law,
law, however,
however, can be gained by reviewing
reviewing the more than 50 cases
cases that have been tried
under this provision.
provision.

Several rulings, for example,
example, make it clear that the length of time that has elapsed
Several
offense is not relevant to deciding
deciding whethera
whether a conviction
conviction is "substantially
“substantially related”
since an offense
related"
Co., LIRC, 10/19/01;
10/19/01; Nelson v. The Prudential Ins. Co.,
to the job (Borum v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
05/17/96; Thomas v. DHSS, Wise.
Wisc. Personnel
Personnel Comm.,
Comm., 04/30/93).
04/30/93). An individual
individual
LIRC, 05/17/96;
convicted of an offense
offense unrelated to the job in question,
question, therefore, cannot be rejected on

from prison.
the basis of having been recently released from
With respect to the consideration
consideration of drug crimes
crimes specifically,
specifically, case precedent

•

provides somewhat
somewhat contradictory
contradictory guidance.
guidance. The following
following statement were taken from
from
provides

•

77
ofjudgments
of drug convictions to bar
excerpts of
judgments in cases concerning the use of
employment:
employment:
Distribution Center (LIRC,
(LIRC, 02/20/97), the judge ruled that
In Herdahl v. Wal-Mart Distribution
"possession of marijuana was not substantially related to her position as a
“possession
stocker. The position provided little opportunity
opportunity for the Complainant
Complainant to
stocker.
If the Complainant
Complainant is
distribute drugs or to use drugs at the workplace. If
considered unsuitable for the stocker position based upon the potential to
distribute drugs, then it would appear that she could be lawfully excluded
distribute
from essentially every job which placed her in contact with other workers
or with the public.
public. Such a result would be inconsistent with the goals of
the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act.”
Act."

Likewise, in the case, the judge rule, “The
"The mere fact that an employee works somewhere
Likewise,
of potentially dangerous
dangerous equipment or machinery is insufficient
insufficient to warrant
in the vicinity of

•

a finding
finding that a drug-related arrest or conviction record is substantially
substantially related to the
circumstances
establishing an actual safety risk.”
risk."
circumstances of the job, absent other evidence
evidence establishing
On the other hand, in another case which occurred five
five years earlier, a judge ruled

that,
"The
“The Complainant's
Complainant’s conviction of a crime involving
involving the delivery of drugs
drugs
was substantially
substantially related to his employment as a machine operator at a
paper mill where the opportunity
opportunity for criminal
criminal behavior was significant
significant in
light of the large
large amount of free
free time available to the employee, the
intermittent supervision,
presence of only intermittent
supervision, and the enormity of the
addition, the Complainant’s
Complainant's reaction to responsibility
responsibility and
workplace. In addition,
character traits revealed by the conviction
conviction made it reasonable to conclude
conclude
that the workplace would provide a potential temptation for a person with
inclination to engage
a demonstrated inclination
engage in conduct such as the illegal sale of
drugs"
drugs” (Goeri v.
v. Appleton Papers, LIRC, 10/05/92).
10/05/92).

According to the Equal Rights Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
(EEOC) and the Wisconsin

•

Department
Department of Industry,
Industry, Labor, and Human Relations-Human
Relations-Human Rights Division, there are

formal guidelines specifying
specifying which crimes
crimes may be considered "substantially
“substantially related"
related”
no formal

•

Instead, cases
cases are decided
decided on an individual
individual basis,
aspects of the
to which jobs. Instead,
basis, and all aspects
circumstances of the crime
crime and of the job must be taken into account.
account. This leaves
leaves the law
circumstances
substantial variation
variation in interpretation
interpretation by the ruling judge (as evidenced
evidenced by the
open to substantial
disparate rulings above),
above), and makes it difficult
difficult to assess
assess when and where the law might
disparate
apply.

•

Strikes and You’re
You're Out:
Chapter 4. Two Strikes
Intensification of Racial and Criminal Stigma
The Intensification

•

Two Strikes
Strikes and You're
You’re Out:
Out:
The Intensification
Stigma
Intensification of Racial and Criminal Stigma
Jerome, one ofthe
Jerome,
of the black testers,
testers, arrived at a branch ofa
of a national restaurant
chain in a suburb 20 miles from Milwaukee.
Milwaukee. He immediately sensed that he was
the only black
person in the place. An employee hurried over to him,
blackperson
him, "Can
“CanI
help you with something?”
something?" "I'm
“I’m here about the job you advertised,
advertised,”" he replied.
replied.
The employee nodded reluctantly and went offto
form.
offto produce an application form.
forms, including information
Ralph filled out the forms,
information about his assumed criminal
history. He was given a math test and a personality test.
test. He was then instructed
to wait for the manager to speak with him.
him. The
The manager came out after about 10
IO
minutes, looked over Jerome’s
Jerome's application,
application, andfrowned
and frowned when he noticed the
of
information. Without
Without asking any questions about the context of
criminal history information.
the conviction,
conviction, the manager started to lecture:
lecture: "You
“You can't
can’t be screwing up like
this at your age.
this. "’’Jerome began to
age. A kid like you can ruin his whole life like this.
explain that he had made a mistake and had learned his lesson,
lesson, but the manager
off "I'll
“I’ll look over your application and call ifwe
i f we have a position for
cut him off:
,,56
you. 1>56
you.

•

Black testers in the criminal
criminal record condition routinely met with frustration
fi-ustration in their

searches for employment.
employment. The design of this audit study does not permit direct
searches
comparisons of interpersonal
interpersonal contact by race (because
(because black and white testers visited
comparisons
separate employers),
employers), but the overall picture demonstrates the substantial
substantial differences
differences with
separate
which black testers-in
criminal records-experienced the job
testers-in particular those with criminal
market. The results of the previous chapter suggest that the effects of race and criminal
record may interact to intensify the stigma toward black ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. Above and beyond
the individual
individual handicaps of minority status and criminal record, the combination
combination of the
two seems
seems to multiply disadvantage.
disadvantage. While the limited sample size of the present study

prevents
from conclusively
conclusively demonstrating
demonstrating this interaction, the results are nevertheless
prevents us from
suggestive of an important dynamic
dynamic in need of further
further investigation.
investigation. In the present
suggestive

•

81
81
chapter,
chapter, I look at the effects of race and criminal record across
across multiple domains,
illustrating
illustrating the ways in which employers
employers respond differently
differently to applicant types on the

basis of personal contact, location, and occupation.
occupation. Each of these factors
factors demonstrate
demonstrate the
ways in which employeremployer- and applicant-characteristics
applicant-characteristics interact to produce significant
variation in employment outcomes.
outcomes.

Two
Intensification ofStigma
Ex-Offenders
Two Strikes and You're
You’re Out:
Out: The
The Intensijkation
of Stigma for Black Ex-Oflenders
In the previous chapter,
chapter, it was hypothesized that, because of strong
strong stereotypes
stereotypes about race
and crime,
crime, employers
employers may be particularly wary of blacks with proven criminal

tendencies. Where race alone produces major disadvantage
disadvantage in the hiring
hiring process, the

combination
combination of minority status
status and criminal record can serve
serve to intensify
intensify racial
stereotypes
& Gross,
Gross, 1983;
1983; Fiske &
& Neuberg,
stereotypes and heighten negative reactions
reactions (Darley
parley &

1990). According to this perspective, with two strikes you
’re out.
out.
1990).
you're
evidence of a criminal
criminal record among whites may be discounted,
discounted,
At the same time, evidence
willingnessto
to see prior criminal
criminal involvement as an isolated incident rather
with greater willingness
disposition. There
There is ample
ample research from
from cognitive
cognitive psychology
than an internal disposition.
evidence not confirming to stereotypes
stereotypes is discounted
discounted (Rothbart,
demonstrating that evidence
Evans, & Fulero, 1979).
1979). Because
Because whites do not fit the stereotypical profile of a criminal,
criminal,
Evans,
employers may be more willing to overlook a solitary prior conviction.
conviction. In the following
following
employers
discussion, I illustrate the ways in which these differences
differences in reactions
reactions to racial and
discussion,
employment outcomes
outcomes in various
various contexts.
contexts.
criminal stigma may affect employment

•

56 This vignette was reconstructed
reconstructed from the tester's
tester’s field notes and conversations
conversations following
following the audit.
audit. The
56
conversation, but approximate
approximate the interaction
interaction to the closest
quotations are not exact reproductions
quotations
reproductions of the conversation,
degree possible.
possible.

•

of the following
following comparisons, I look at the outcomes for white testers
In each of
first, followed
followed by a discussion of
of the differences
differences in effects for blacks. As mentioned in
first,
the previous chapter,
chapter, whites can provide a baseline measure of
ofthe
the outcomes for all
applicants with a given set of human capital characteristics.
pictureapplicants
characteristics. Adding race to this pictureand the interaction
record-then demonstrates the often sharp
interaction of race and criminal record-then
contrast between these groups.
groups.

Personal contact
One of the most direct
direct ways in which stereotypes
stereotypes are activated is through personal
personal

stereotyped groups.
groups. Interactions
Interactions with members
members of stereotyped
contact with members of stereotyped

•

groups trigger an array of conscious
conscious and unconscious
unconscious associations
associations which affect
affect and
groups
,

interaction is perceived.
perceived. At the same time,
time, extensive
extensive
distort the ways in which the interaction
interaction can provide
provide the opportunity
opportunity to supply
supply personal
personal information that is at odds
odds with
interaction
stereotyped expectations.
expectations. To the extent that this information
information is noticed and retained, the
stereotyped
effects of stereotypes
stereotypesmay be weakened (These
(These issues
issues are
are discussed
discussed in detail
detail in chapter
chapter
effects
7). A closer look at the ways in which personal
personal contact
contact between testers
testers and employers
employers
7).
shaped the outcome
outcome of the
the audits
audits can help
help us to infer
infer the
the meanings
meanings attached
attached to
to race
race and
shaped
criminal record in the
the minds
minds of employers
employers and
and how these
these views
views are
are attenuated
attenuated or
criminal
intensified
intensified in the
the course
course of direct
direct interaction.
interaction.

Given that this
this audit
audit study
study tested only the first
first stage
stage ofthe
of the employment
employment process, a
Given
tests were
were completed
completed without significant
significant personal interaction
interaction with the
the
majority of tests

•

employer. Testers
Testers were
were instructed
instructed to
to ask
ask to
to speak
speak to
to the
the person in
in charge
charge of hiring,
hiring, but
employer.
often this
this person
person was
was unavailable
unavailable or appeared
appeared only
only briefly
briefly to
to instruct
instruct the
the tester
tester to
to fill
fill out
out
often

•

the application
application and wait for a call-back.
call-back. In these cases, only the most superficial
superficial
indicators
indicators are available
available to the employer when making decisions
decisions about which applicants
applicants to

consider.
consider.
In about a quarter
quarter of all audits,
audits, by contrast,
contrast, testers
testers had the opportunity
opportunity to engage
engage
in extensive discussions
discussions with employers.
employers. Whether in the form
form of an official interview or
merely an informal
informal conversation about the job, these interactions
interactions allowed testers to
demonstrate
demonstrate their highly effective
effective interpersonal
interpersonal abilities
abilities and to convey an image of

general competence.
competence. Comparing the outcomes oftesters
of testers who did and did not interact
with the employer allows us to assess
assess to what extent employers
employers notice and utilize
interpersonal
interpersonal cues in making their assessments
assessments ofjob
of job applicants.
applicants. Particularly
Particularly in the case

•

applicants with criminal records,
stereotypical images are likely to dominate
dominate an
of applicants
records, where stereotypical
employer’s evaluation,
evaluation, the presentation
friendly or trustworthy
trustworthy demeanor may be
employer's
presentation of a friendly
especially
especially important.
important.

4.1 presents
presents the percent of call-backs
call-backs received by white testers by criminal
Figure 4.1

status and personal contact.
contact. Personal
Personal contact here includes
includes conversations
conversations with employers
employers
status
57
,58
and/or formal
formal interviews,
interviews, as recorded by testers on their post-application
post-application data sheet.
sheet.57758

Testers often had lengthy
lengthy conversations
conversations with other employees while filling
filling out their applications.
applications. In this
Testers
analysis, only conversations
conversations with the person in charge
charge ofhiTing
of hiring were counted as having
having personal
contact.
analysis,
personal contact.
form did not include an explicit item regarding contact with the
58 Note: the initial tester response form
employer; rather, testers were asked to write about
about such interactions
interactions in the narrative section.
section. As it became
employer;
outcomes, the response form
form was modified to include
include an
clear that this variable was salient for the audit outcomes,
explicit item measuring the extent of interaction
interaction with the person in charge of hiring (from (1) no contact to
formal interview).
interview). The changes in coding
coding could imply higher levels of measurement error in tests using
(4) formal
the first
first version of the form.
form.
57

•

84
Figure
The Effect
Figure 4.1. The
Effect of Personal
Personal Contact
Contact (Whites)
(Whites)

60 -,-----------::::5:=3-..,
53
l
13 50 + - - - - - - - ~

jl40

a.....

ijCriminal
Record
Record

I .NoRecord
No Record I

+-------

§... 20 + - - -

~ 10

o
Personal
No Personal
Contact
Contact
(76%)
(76%)

Personal
Personal
Contact
Contact
(24%)

Theeffects
criminal record
and personal
The effects of criminal
record and
personal contact are significant
significant (F.01).
(p<.O1).
The interaction
interaction between
between criminal
criminal record
record and personal contact
contact is marginally
marginally
The
significant
(p.07).
significanf (p=.07).

figure clearly indicate
indicate that personal contact is associated with a much
The results in this figure

•

higher likelihood
testers. Non-offenders were nearly
likelihood of receiving a call-back for all white testers.
twice as likely to receive call-backs from employers
employers with whom they had interacted, and
ex-offenders were nearly 5 times as likely to be called back after having the opportunity
to make personal contact with the person in charge of hiring. This finding
finding is consistent
with two plausible and non-mutually exclusive
exclusive explanations.
explanations. The first implies
implies a change
change
in the applicant's
applicant’s desirability
desirability following
following a direct personal interaction:
interaction: the findings
findings here are
consistent with the interpretation that the testers’
testers' ability to make a good impression

interactions does in fact translate
during personal interactions
translate into much higher call-back rates. On
the other hand, we must also acknowledge the possibility that there may be something
something
specific about these finns
firms which makes them more likely to respond to all applicants.
specific
applicants.
Employers who are experiencing acute labor shortages,
shortages, for example,
example, may be those who

•

tend to be present to conduct on-the-spot interviews.
interviews. This would result in an association

•

85
85

between personal contact and hiring probabilities
probabilities in the absence of any mediating
mediating effects.
effects.
As we will see below, however,
however, the fact that personal contact has a very different
different effect
for black testers suggests
suggests that the interaction
interaction itself-rather
itself-rather than merely the types of
employers likely to interact-does in fact have a direct effect on hiring outcomes.
outcomes.
Even more importantly, these results demonstrate
demonstrate that the effect of a criminal
criminal
record is substantially
substantially smaller in those cases where white testers had the opportunity
opportunity to
interact with the employer.
employer. While white ex-offenders were nearly 70 percent less likely
to receive a callback in the absence
absence of personal contact,
contact, those who did have the
opportunity to interact with the employer were only 20 percent less likely to be called
presenting
back relative to their non-offender partners. This finding
finding suggests
suggests that presenting

•

personal indicators
indicators that are at odds with the stereotypical
stereotypical profile of a criminal
criminal may in fact
record. Indeed,
offset the negative
negative stigma of a criminal record.
Indeed, research on stereotypes
stereotypes finds
finds that

presenting individuating information
information can reduce the impact of stereotypical judgments
& Neuberg, 1990).
1990). For employers
employers concerned
concerned that ex-offenders will
(Allport, 1954;
1954; Fiske &
(Allport,

attenuate these associations,
associations,
be aggressive or uncouth, personal contact can effectively attenuate
59
offering the applicant a better chance to demonstrate his capabilities.
~apabilities.’~

applied only to white testers.
testers. Given that personal contact
The previous results applied
implications for the mediation
mediation of racial stereotypes
stereotypes as well as those
may have significant implications
concerning ex-offenders,
ex-offenders, it important to consider how this process may work differently
differently
concerning

•

course, personal contact will not always
always serve in an individual's
individual’s favor.
favor. Certainly
Certainly among many ex59 Of course,
demonstration of "soft-skills"
“soft-skills” will further reinforce
employers’ negative stereotypes
stereotypes about this
offenders, a demonstration
reinforce employers'
offenders,
drug offenders, however, the range of delinquency is great.
great. A large proportion
group. In the case of drug
group.
proportion of
incarcerated for drug offenses
offenses are first-time
first-time offenders with no history of violent behavior (Bureau
(Bureau of
those incarcerated
1994). These individuals are far from the image of the "hardened
“hardened criminal"
criminal” which
Statistics, 1994).
Justice Statistics,
about.
employers are likely to be most concerned about.

•

for black applicants.
applicants. Figure 4.2
4.2 presents the percentage of call-backs
call-backs received by black
testers in each condition.
picture.
condition. From these results, we see a strikingly
strikingly different
different picture.
On the one hand, as in the case of whites, personal contact does increase
increase the
likelihood
records. Based on the numbers
likelihood of a callback for blacks without criminal records.
presented here, blacks without criminal records
records are more than five
five times more likely to
receive a call-back ifthey
if they have had personal interaction with the employer.
employer. In this
respect,
respect, interpersonal
interpersonal cues certainly seem to strengthen the applicant's case, perhaps
60
mediating initial negative racial stereotypes.
stereotypes.60

9
Figure 4.2. The Effect
Effect of Personal
Personal Contact
Gmtact (Blacks)

•

60 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

co
~

50 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l

+---------~S___1

W
jij 30 +________

8
u

....s::::
...2:lE

20
20 + - - - - - - - - -

....--

---,

Hcriminal
tZil
Criminal
Record
Record
No Record
Record
.No

~ 10
10 +--...,.-_#------ti-

0+--""'0
Personal
No Personal
Contact
(75%)
(75%)

Personal
Personal
Contact

(25%)
(25%)

effects of criminal
criminal record
record and personal contact are
are significant
significant
The main effects
(p<.OI).
( ~ . 0 1 ) .In a model including
including an interaction
interaction between the two,
two, the main
criminal record becomes
insignificant,while
interaction term
becomes insignificant,
while the interaction
effect of criminal
demonstrates a large
large and marginally
significant negative effect (p<.06).
(p<.06).
demonstrates
marginally significant

•

6o Note that the rate of call-backs
call-backs among black non-criminals who had personal contact with the employer
60
(36%) is even higher than that among white non-criminals who had had no personal contact (28%).
(28%). It may
(36%)
these testers
testers weighed more favorably than the mean
be the case that the appealing interpersonal
interpersonal abilities
abilities of these
interpersonal ability
ability assigned to white
whte testers when no direct evidence was available.
available. It is also
value of interpersonal
possible, however,
however, as
as mentioned above, that the employers available
available to conduct on-the-spot
on-the-spot interviews
interviews are
possible,
staff, in which case the higher rate of call-backs
call-backs would imply differences
differences in
also those most in need of new staff,
characteristics.
demand rather than the effect of any supply-side characteristics.

•

But in contrast to whites where personal contact increased the likelihood of a callback for
all testers and narrowed the gap between those with and without criminal records,
records, among
blacks personal contact actually widens the disparities.
disparities. As we can see in Figure 2, among
those who had no contact with the employer,
employer, black testers
testers with criminal
criminal records
records were 43
percent less likely to be called back relative
relative to those without criminal records. Among
those who did have personal contact,
contact, by contrast,
contrast, there was a 83 percent difference.
difference. This
disparity is strikingly large.
large. A number ofpossible
of possible explanations
explanations should be considered.
considered.
First, it is important
important to remember that these three-way interactions
interactions are based on small
sample
sample sizes.
sizes. Though black testers completed
completed 200 audits
audits in total (or 400 tester-visits),
tester-visits),
only 35
35 tester-visits
tester-visits resulted in a call-back.
call-back. As a result,
result, the actual
actual proportions
proportions in these
these

•

are based on small
small n's: the numbers
numbers in each of these cells
cells are
are 7,
7, 10,3,
10, 3, and 18,
figures are
respectively. Small
Small fluctuations
fluctuations in the number of call-backs
call-backs among
among black ex-offenders,
ex-offenders,
respectively.
therefore, could make large
large differences
differences in the comparison of effect
effect sizes.
sizes.
therefore,
this case,
case, however,
however, the disparity
disparity is large
large enough
enough to warrant serious
serious
In this
fact, despite
despite the small
small cell
cell sizes,
sizes, the interaction
interaction effect
effect between personal
personal
consideration. In fact,
consideration.
contact and criminal
criminal status
status in a model predicting
predicting call-backs
call-backs reaches
reaches statistical
statistical
contact
significance(P<.05).61
(~<.05).~'
is it,
it, then,
then, that leads
leads employers
employers to
to react
react so
so differently
differently to
to
significance
What is
interactionswith black applicants
applicants with and
and without criminal
criminal records?
records? While
While it is
is
interactions
impossibleto
to infer
infer the
the cognitive
cognitive attributions
attributionstriggered
triggered by these
these interactions,
interactions,the
the outcomes
outcomes
impossible
are consistent
consistent with the
the notion
notion that the
the presence
presence of multiple
multiple stigmas
stigmas produces
produces an
an
are
intensification of effects.
effects. Even
Even though
though these
these testers
testers are
are bright,
bright, articulate,
articulate, and
and personable,
personable,
intensification

•

Likewise, the
the interaction
interaction between
between race
race and
and criminal
criminal record
record among
among audits
audits involving
involving personal
personal contact
contact isis
Likewise,
statistically
p<.05.
statistically significant,
significant, p<.05.

6'
61

•

these
attributions which
these traits
traits may not be sufficient
sufficient to overcome the intense negative attributions
accompany
background. While whites
accompany the combination of minority
minority status
status and criminal
criminal background.
with criminal
criminal records seem to benefit a great deal from
fi-om personal interaction with
employers,
employers, this
this type
type of interaction
interaction does
does nothing
nothing to improve the chances for blacks with
criminal
appears immaterial relative to the
criminal histories.
histories. Even a bright, friendly
friendly demeanor appears
profound stigma
you're
stigma associated
associated with race and criminal
criminal involvement.
involvement. With two strikes, you’re

out.
out.

City
City and Suburban Location
Location

from the
the effects
effects which take place within job locations,
locations, there are also important
Apart from

•

differences
differences across
across job locations.
locations. A great deal
deal of literature
literature has described employment

differentials in the
the city versus
versus the suburb,
suburb, with particular attention placed on the
differentials
experiences of marginalized workers
workers (Wilson,
(Wilson, 1996;
1996; Freeman &
& Holzer, 1986).
1986). Central
experiences
city employers
employers are
are typically
typically more open in their hiring practices, while suburban
city
employers are
are often
often viewed as
as those who have escaped or avoided inner city populations,
employers
distancing themselves
themselves from
from a less desirable
desirable applicant
et al.,
physically distancing
applicant pool (Tilly
(Tillyet
aI., 2001).
Changes in the
the spatial
spatial distribution
distribution ofjob growth has been highly consequential for the
Changes
employment prospects
prospects of young black and white men, as job development has primarily
employment
occurred in areas
areas outside
outside the city in areas
areas generally less accessible
accessible to central city
occurred
residents. Indeed,
Indeed, a recent survey of employment
employment in the Milwaukee metropolitan area
residents.
found that over 90
90 percent of recent job growth was in the outlying areas, relative to only
found

•

percent of new jobs in the central
central city of Milwaukee
Milwaukee (Pawasarat &
& Quinn, 2000).
44 percent
These trends
trends are
are in sharp
sharp contrast to the location ofjob seekers
seekers who are far more heavily
These

•

89
concentrated
concentrated in the city.
city. Assessing how the location ofjob
of job openings
openings affects
affects the
employment
employment opportunities
opportunities of blacks and ex-offenders,
ex-offenders, therefore,
therefore, is important to
understanding
understanding how recent trends
trends in job growth
growth contribute
contribute to the emploYment
employment problems
problems of
these workers.
workers.

employers typically
typically appear to be more reluctant to
With respect to race, suburban employers
hire racial minorities
minorities and openly express
express concerns
concerns over the characteristics
characteristics of black men
from
from the central
central city (Kirschenman
(Kirschenman &
& Neckerman,
Neckerman, 1991;
1991; Wilson,
Wilson, 1996).
1996). According
According to
one employer
employer quoted
quoted in Wilson's
Wilson’s study,
study, "They're
“They’re not dependable....
dependable.. .. They may not show
up on time.
time.. .. And the second
second thing is
time. They just disappear for an hour or two at a time....

theft” (1996:
(1996:120).
120). Likewise,
Likewise, Holzer (1996)
(1996) investigated characteristics
characteristics of employers
employers
theft"

•

related to the likelihood
likelihood of hiring a black worker for a recent opening.
opening. Controlling
Controlling for the

composition of the applicant pool, suburban
suburban employers
employers were significantly
significantly less
racial composition
likely
likely to hire an African-American
African-American relative
relative to employers
employers in the city.62
city.62 The attitudes
attitudes of
suburban employers
employers towards
towards black applicants,
applicants, therefore,
therefore, suggests
suggests that blacks face
face two

compounding challenges
challenges in seeking
seeking emplOYment
employment in the rapidly expanding
expanding suburbs:
suburbs: First,
compounding
minority applicants
applicants are
are disadvantaged
disadvantaged due to their spatial
spatial concentration
concentration in urban areas,
areas,
minority
leaving many suburban jobs prospects (often
(often not accessible
accessible by public transportation)
transportation) out
leaving
(Wilson, 1996;
1996; Holzer, 1991).
1991). Second,
Second, among those who are able
able to travel to
of reach (Wilson,
suburban locations,
locations, black applicants
applicants are less
less likely
likely to be considered by employers
employers relative
relative
suburban
to their urban or suburban white counterparts.
counterparts.

•

course, Holzer's
Holzer’s study does
does not permit controls
controls for
for the quality
quality of applicants,
applicants, leaving
leaving open the
62 Of course,
possibility that racial differences
differences in hiring practices
practices reflect actual
actual differences
differences in the relative
relative human capital
possibility
substantially lower in
characteristics of black and white
white applicant
applicant pools.
pools. Given
Given that labor supply is substantially
characteristics
suburban areas
areas than in the city
city (as
(as a ratio
ratio ofjob
of job openings
openings to job seekers),
seekers), however,
however, it is not clear
clear why
suburban
suburban employers
employers would
would be more
more selective
selective that those
those in the
the city.
city.
suburban

•

90
With respect to criminal
criminal record, there is a small amount of evidence
evidence to the
contrary.
contrary. According to a survey of employer preferences, Holzer (1996)
(1996) found suburban
employers
employers to be somewhat less resistant to hiring applicants
applicants with criminal records (and
less likely to conduct criminal background checks) than their counterparts
counterparts in the city
(p.55,59). It may be the case that central city employers are more likely to encounter exoffenders
offenders among their applicant pool, and are therefore
therefore more sensitized
sensitized to concerns over
criminal
backgrounds than their suburban counterparts. Whatever the case, there are few
criminal backgrounds

systematic investigations
investigations of these issues,
issues, and the interactions
interactions between race, criminal
criminal
systematic
location have yet to be explored.
explored.
record, and location
4.3 presents the call-back rates for white testers by criminal
criminal status
status and
Figure 4.3

•

location. The results here indicate that the overall demand for employment is
location.
substantially higher in the suburbs
suburbs and surrounding
surrounding counties
counties relative
relative to the city of
substantially
Milwaukee. Among testers with and without a criminal
criminal record, the likelihood of a callMilwaukee.
back is significantly
significantly greater in suburban areas;
areas; in fact,
fact, the rate of call-backs
call-backs among white
Location,
ex-offenders in the suburbs
suburbs is close to equal that of non-offenders in the city. Location,
finding employment.
employment.
therefore, is highly consequential with respect to the likelihood of finding

•

91
91

Figure
Location (whites)
Figure 4.3. The Effect
Effect of a Criminal Record
Record by Location

50 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

U 40
40
~
m
U
~ 30

+--------

+------------,

a
a
1: 20 +--5 20
~Y

IiEICriminal
Criminal
Record
.No
Record
No Record
I

~
2 10
10 +--::r-

o0
City

Suburb

(37%)
(3 7%)

(63%)
I
The effects of criminal
(p<.O1). The
criminal record
record and city are significant (pc.01).
interaction
significant.
i s not statistically significant.
interaction between
between the two is

A second
of a criminal record appears to
second major finding
finding from
fiom this graph is that the effect of

•

surrounding
be larger among
suburbs or surroufiding
among city employers
employers compared
compared to those in the suburbs

counties. The
The ratio of callbacks
callbacks for non-offenders relative to offenders
offenders among suburban
counties.
is just under 2:1
2:l compared
compared to a ratio of more than 3: 1 among city employment.
jobs is

Though this
this interaction
interaction does not reach statistical significance
significance in the present sample, the
Though
nevertheless worth consideration.
consideration. While a criminal record
magnitude of the effect is nevertheless
remains a major barrier in all contexts,
contexts, suburban employers appear to be somewhat less
remains
off by evidence
evidence of an applicant's
applicant’s criminal
criminal history than are city employers. T
hs
This
put offby

finding is
is consistent with evidence
evidence from
fiom Holzer (1
996) that suburban employers are less
finding
(1996)
likely to screen
screen for
for criminal
criminal background information in their recruitment of
of non-college
likely
workers. It is also
also consistent with general
general arguments about labor supply, according to
workers.
which the
the higher overall demand for workers among suburban employers
which
employers should lead to

•

less differentiation
differentiation on the basis of worker characteristics (such as criminal record).
less

•

92
Among black testers, however, as we will see below, higher demand does not seem to

effect.
have much effect.

4.4illustrates
illustrates the call-back rates among black testers
testers by criminal record
Figure 4.4
and location.
location. Here we see that, moving from
from city to suburb,
suburb, the increase
increase in call-backs for

(compared to a jump of almost 100
100 percent
black non-offenders
non-offenders is less than 50 percent (compared
criminal records, on the other hand, the
among white non-offenders). Among blacks with criminal
move from
from city to suburb
suburb actually lowers
lowers the likelihood of a call-back. In fact,
fact, the
interaction
interaction between race and criminal
criminal record becomes significant
significant among suburban

facing substantially
substantially worse prospects in suburban job
employers, with black ex-offenders facing
searches than the additive
additive effect of race or criminal record would predict. 63
63 Far from
from
searches

•

benefiting from the tighter labor market in the suburbs,
suburbs, black ex-offenders
ex-offenders fare
fare poorly in
64
suburban job searches.
searches.64

-1.14 with a
63 The coefficient for the interaction term in a logistic regression predicting call-backs is -1.14
standard error of 0.59, p=.055.
64
again, however, it is important to acknowledge that the sample sizes are quite small in these
64 Once again,
estimates is difficult to confirm.
confirm. The sample
sample sizes in
comparisons, and therefore the stability of these estimates
comparisons,
13,21, and 38, respectively; those in Figure 4 are 5,
5,9,4,
19, respectively.
Figure 3 are 4, 13,21,
9, 4, and 19,

•

93
Figure
Figure 4.4.
4.4.The Effect
Effect of a Criminal
Criminal Record
Record by Location
Location (blacks)
50 . . , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
~

40 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j

III

]!
2
- 30
30 +----------'------j '1ll1-.•-=-C-rim-i-n-:al---'
Criminal
.Q
~
~ro~
Record

Record
1:: 20
20-+ +----------tfir-----j •rn No Reco~
'-------'
...fl

~ 10
10 +--~

o0
City
City

(41%)

Suburb
Suburb
(59%)

The
of
The effect
effect ofa
of a criminal
criminal record
record is significant
significant (p<.OOI)
(p<.OOI) while the effect oj
city
significant
city in
in this
this model
model is
is not
not significant.
significant. There
There is aa large and
and significant
positive interaction
record, indicating the
interaction between
between city
city and
and criminal
criminal record,
substantial
substantial advantage
advantage to
to black
black ex-offenders
ex-offendersin the city relative
relative to their
suburban
suburban counterparts.
counterparts.

•

The overall
overall result ofthese
of these disparate
disparate effects is a widening of the criminal record effect
The
among suburban
suburban employment.
employment. While among
among whites the effect of a criminal record was
among
less pronounced among
among suburban
suburban employers,
employers, among blacks, this trend is reversed. The
less
ratio of call-backs
call-backs for
for black non-offenders relative to offenders
offenders is less than 2:1 in the city,
ratio
5 : 1 in the suburbs.
suburbs. Call-back rates remain,
remain, nevertheless, quite low
relative to
to more than 5:1
relative

for blacks in the city;
city; but among
among those city employers
employers willing to hire blacks, a criminal
for
record appears
appears to present less of an obstacle
obstacle relative to the suburban context. Suburban
employers, on the other hand, though somewhat more likely to consider black nonemployers,
offenders, are
are particularly wary of black applicants with criminal
criminal histories.
offenders,
histories.
The interaction between race,
race, criminal
criminal record,
record, and location suggests some
The
interesting insights
insights into
into the relative
relative preferences of city and suburban employers. While
interesting

•

suburban employers
employers are
are generally
generally more responsive
responsive to applicants
applicants of all kinds-reflecting
kinds-reflecting
suburban
the tighter
tighter labor market in suburban
suburban areas-this
areas-this rule does
does not apply to blacks with
the

•

94
94

criminal
criminal records.
records. Once again we see that the combination of race and criminal
criminal record has
an effect far more powerful than either attribute
attribute has on its own.
own. In the case of suburban
employers, minority status
status or criminal
criminal record are admissible (though still
still not preferable),
while the combination ofthe
of the two represents
represents almost full
full grounds
grounds for exclusion.
exclusion. As in the
case of personal contact above,
you're
above, the two
two strikes and you
're out phenomenon holds strong
strong
relevance to the context
context of suburban employment.
employment.

Occupational Category:
Category: The Case ofRestaurant
of Restaurant Jobs
A third domain
domain in which tester experiences
experiences differed
differed was across
across occupational
occupational categories.
categories.

Job types varied substantially
substantially according
according to the profile of workers
workers needed,
needed, from
from physical
Job
stature (for jobs involving
involving lifting and carrying)
carrying) to knowledge of Milwaukee roads (for
stature

•

delivery
delivery drivers).
drivers). The norms
norms and expectations
expectations of workers across
across occupational
occupational categories
categories

likewise affect relative
relative openness
openness to minority
minority applicants
applicants and/or applicants
applicants with
may likewise
criminal
criminal records.
records.

One notable difference
difference among
among occupational
occupational types
types was
was the relative frequency
frequency with
One
applicants were asked about
about their criminal
criminal histories.
histories. Among six
six major
which applicants
occupational categories,
categories, restaurant
restaurant jobs stood out in particular as
as the least likely to
occupational
request criminal
criminal history information
information on application
application forms
forms (see
(see Table
Table 4.1).
4.1). In fact,
fact, among
among
request
restaurant jobs included
included in this
this sample,
sample, just over
over half requested
requested criminal
criminal history
restaurant
information, relative to more than 75
75 percent in all
all other occupational
occupational categories.
categories. It is
information,
considering how this
this distinctive
distinctive characteristic
characteristic of restaurant
restaurant hiring
hiring procedures may
worth considering
the hiring
hiring patterns
patterns of blacks
blacks and ex-offenders.
affect the

•

95
Table 4.1. Percent of Applications Requesting Criminal Background Information b" Occupation
Service
Sales
Laborer
Clerical
Restaurant Production
Production
Restaurant
Service
Sales
Clerical
81
83
79
81
84
Yes
76
52
21
19
17
21
16
No
24
16
No
48
43
92
37
64
N
N
32
82

Restaurant jobs have high rates
rates of turnover and offer low fixed
fixed wages (with the
Restaurant
assumption that a majority of the employee's
employee’s reimbursement will come from
from tips);
tips); the
assumption
combination of these conditions
conditions often leads to the casting
casting of wide net of recruitment and
combination
candidacy. Indeed, among white testers, restaurant
restaurant jobs offered one
lower restrictions on candidacy.
rates of call-backs
call-backs for
for both non-offenders
non-offenders and offenders.
offenders. Employers often
of the highest rates
applicants right away,
away, and were perhaps therefore
therefore less concerned
concerned
seemed eager to hire applicants
information provided about their criminal
criminal past.
with the infonnation

•

96
96
Figure
Figure 4.5
4.5 presents
presents the
the call-back
call-back rates
rates for
for white
white testers
testers by criminal
criminal status
status for
for restaurant
restaurant
and
and non-restaurant jobs.
jobs. As
As we
we can
can see,
see, rates
rates of call-backs
call-backswere
were higher
higher among
among restaurant
restaurant
jobs for
for white
white applicants
applicants with
with and
and without
without criminal
criminal records,
records, and,
and, likewise,
likewise, the
the gap
gap
between applicants
applicants with and
and without criminal
criminal records
records is
is somewhat
somewhat smaller
smaller than
than in other

. I types.
65
occupational
types.65
occupatlOna

Figure 4.5.
4.5. The
The Effect
Effect of Restaurant
Restaurant Jobs
Jobs (Whites)
Figure
50
50 . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
.....u

4n
40
-1---------

l!8

ElCriminal
Record
.No Record

]l 304---

•

~ 20

-1--.,..."...-

'lJ

o
Non-Restaurant
(73%)
(73%)

Restaurant
(270/0)
(27%)

ie main effect
effect of criminal
criminal record is significant
significant (p<.OO1)
(p<.OOl)while the effects
effects
The
interaction between the two are not significant.
significant.
of restaurant
restaurant occupation
occupation and the interaction

•

65 Of
Of course, the difference in call-back rates for testers with and without criminal records would have
been substantially smaller had no unsolicited criminal background information been presented. If
If we
assumed that testers in the criminal record condition would have received a call-back in all cases where the
non-criminal tester received a call-back and where employers did not ask about criminal histories, 35
percent
percent of
of testers with a criminal record would have received call-backs in restaurantjobs.
jobs. This accounts
for roughly 70 percent of
of the difference
difference in treatment among whites in restaurant jobs.

•

97
97

4.6.The
The Effect
Effect of Restaurant
Restaurant Jobs
Jobs (Blacks)
Figure 4.6.
50 . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
50
40 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;

Iii

+-------------1

-1----,..,.....--------1

-f--"";---

a.....
...~

loo
O

L-

Non-Restaurant

(79YO)
(79%)

IiIiICriminal
Record
.No Record
L..

Restaurant
Restaurant

(21%)
(21Yo)

The
..le main effect
effect of criminal
criminal record
record is significant
significant(p<.OO1)
(w.001)while
while the effects
ef :ts
of restaurant
restaurant occupation
occupation and the
the interaction
interactionbetween the
the Ltwoo are
are not significant.
significant.

contrast, were quite different (see Figure 4.6). Restaurant
The outcomes for blacks, by contrast,

•

jobs were among the least likely
likely to result in call-backs
call-backs for black testers,
testers, irrespective
irrespective of
criminal condition;
condition; this difference
difference is large
large and statistically
statisticallysignificant,
significant, with the size
size of the
criminal
doubling within restaurant jobs (p<.05).66
( ~ c . 0 5 )It~is~ interesting
interesting that such
race effect more than doubling
low-wage, high-turnover job would demonstrate
demonstrate such strong racial bias.
bias. One possible
possible
a low-wage,
explanation is "customer
“customer discrimination,"
discrimination,” or rather the employer's
employer’s perception thereof:
thereof: If
explanation
employers believe that diners
diners prefer white waiters over black ones,
ones, this creates
creates an
employers
incentive to discriminate
discriminate against
against black applicants
applicants (Becker,
(Becker, 1962).
1962). Previous
Previous research has
incentive
found strong
strong evidence
evidence of a gender preference
preference in restaurant hiring,
hiring, with high-price
found
restaurants
significantly favoring
assumption being that highrestaurants significantly
favoring men over women (the assumption
customers prefer to be waited on by men) (Neumark,
(Neumark, 1996).
1996). A similar
similar type of
paying customers

•

66 In a logistic
callbacks, the coefficient
logistic regression
regression predicting callbacks,
coefficient for the main effect of race is -.87,
-.87, with the
coefficients are
coefficient
coefficient of the interaction
interaction between race and restaurant
restaurant occupation reaching -1.34. These coefficients
from a model including
including main effects for race, criminal
criminal record,
record, and restaurant occupation, with interactions
interactions
between race and restaurant
restaurant and race and criminal record (the latter interaction
interaction is not significant).
significant).

•

98
customer
customer discrimination
discrimination may be at play with respect to race, as shown here. A second
possibility is
is concern
concern over the exchange of money between customers and employees,
given
If employers
given that waiters
waiters handle significant amounts
amounts of cash during each shift. If
perceive
perceive blacks to be more likely
likely to steal
steal (as noted in the comment by an employer in
Wilson's
demonstrate a preference for
(1996) study,
study, quoted
quoted earlier),
earlier), they would then demonstrate
Wilson’s (1996)
cash. Indeed, a separate analysis
whites
whites in hiring for
for positions involving the handling of cash.
ofall
demonstrates a similar, though
of all jobs requiring
requiring the handling of cash (not shown here) demonstrates
less
less pronounced,
pronounced, pattern to Figure 6.
6 . Whatever the underlying reason, this striking
aversion
further
aversion to blacks among
among restaurant employers warrants M
e r investigation.
As
As for
for the criminal
criminal record effect,
effect, we once again see evidence that black ex-

•

offenders are
are by far
far the least favored
favored group.
group. While there is less evidence of
of an
offenders
interaction in this case
case (likely
(likely due to
10 a floor effect),
effect), it is readily apparent that the chances
interaction
ex-offender finding
finding employment in a restaurant occupation are virtually nonof a black ex-offender
67
existent.67
fact that restaurants appear relatively open to white ex-offenders
existent.
Despite the fact

(and certainly demonstrate
demonstrate an openness on their application forms),
(and
forms), evidence of
of a
criminal history among blacks appears to be strong
strong grounds for rejection.
criminal
rejection. The fact that
restaurantjobs are one of the most frequent
frequent types ofjob
of job openings
openings (representing nearly a
restaurant
quarter ofjob
of job openings
openings in this sample), these findings
findings do not bode well for the overall
quarter
labor market outcomes
outcomes of black ex-offenders.
ex-offenders.

•

67 Note once
once again
again that the sample
sample sizes used for these comparisons
67
comparisons are small:
small: In Figure 5, the
the sample sizes
16, 35, 9, and
and 16,
16, respectively;
respectively; those for
for Figure 6 are 9,25,
are 16,35,9,
9, 25, 1, and 3, respectively.
respectively.
are

•

99
Compounding
Stigma: Concluding
Compounding Stigma:
Concluding Remarks
This chapter explored the interaction between race and criminal record in three contexts,
contexts,
demonstrating
demonstrating the ways in which black ex-offenders
ex-offenders face an intensification of stigma,
stigma,
characteristic alone.
alone. Given the
above and beyond the simple
effects of either characteristic
simple additive
additive effects
small
findings can be considered only
small sample
sample sizes available for these comparisons, these findings
preliminary
preliminary hypotheses in need of further investigation.
investigation. The consistency
consistency of effects
effects across
across
domains, however, provides some
some assurance
assurance that this phenomena is not merely
artifactual.
artifactual. Even in cases
cases where demand for employment
employment is high,
high, employers
employers appear
appear
unwilling to overlook
overlook the ''two
“two strikes"
strikes” facing
facing black ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. Ifrepresentative
If representative of
larger trends,
trends, these results
results suggest some troubling conclusions
conclusions for the employment

•

prospects
prospects of blacks with criminal
criminal records.
records. Blacks, already
already burdened by their
disproportionate
disproportionaterepresentation in prison, 'carry
carry the added weight of compounding
compounding stigma.
stigma.
The combination of minority
minority status
status and criminal
criminal record
record create
create barriers
bamers to employment
that appear virtually impossible
impossible to overcome.

•

100

Chapter 5. Employers’
Employers' Perspectives
Perspectives

•

101
101
68
Employers'
Employers’ Perspectives
Perspectives68

The results of the audit study provide a clear picture of employer preferences
preferences as measured

by hiring outcomes.
outcomes. The behavioral response
response measured by the audit study-eall-back
study-call-back or
no call-back~ocuments
call-back4ocuments the extent to which race and a criminal
criminal record shape hiring
outcomes
outcomes under a controlled set of conditions.
conditions. And yet, based on the results of the audit,
audit,
we see the process from
from only one perspective:
perspective: the applicant
applicant seeking
seeking work.
work. Apart from
fiom
the comments made by employers
employers directly to testers, we observe
observe very little about the
underlying
underlying factors
factors which
whch give race and criminal
criminal status such salience
salience in hiring decisions.
decisions.
Likewise, based on the audit study results,
results, we know only about employment outcomes

•

specific
specific to a particular set of applicant
applicant characteristics.
characteristics. In the present study,
study, for example,
example,
a drug felony was selected to represent the criminal
criminal record, with the applicant having
only recently been released from
prison; of course,
fiom prison;
course, a different set of choices
choices may have led
to different
different outcomes.
outcomes. In the following
following chapters,
chapters, I seek to provide a more expansive
account of the hiring process by including
themselves.
including the perspective
perspective of the employers themselves.
Following the completion
completion of the audit study,
study, each employer (or representative
representative
thereof)
priorities and
thereof) was asked to participate in a telephone
telephone survey about their hiring priorities
concerns for entry-level workers.
workers. Inthe
In the survey,
survey, employers
employers were asked a variety of
questions
records, probing both
questions about their attitudes
attitudes towards applicants
applicants with criminal records,
general and specific
specific dimensions
dimensions of their reactions. The results of the survey allow us to

like to express
express deep
deep appreciation
appreciation to Harry Holzer,
Holzer, Michael
Michael Stoll,
Stoll. and Steven
Steven Raphael
Raphael for
I would like
allowing me to use their survey
survey questions
questions in this study.
study. For helpful advice
advice in designing
designing new questions,
questions, I
allowing
Schaffer, Jeremy Freese,
Freese, Robert M.
M. Hauser,
Hauser, Lincoln
Lincoln Quillian,
Quillian, Eric Grodsky,
Grodsky, and Chet
thank Nora Cate Schaffer,
administered this
Pager. My thanks also to the project staff at the Michigan State Survey Center who administered
Pager.
survey.
survey.
68

•

102

follow
follow up on a number of questions
questions left unanswered by the audit study, providing a more
complete
complete understanding of how and why employers make the hiring decisions they do.
For example,
employers' reactions to applicants
example, the survey
survey allows
allows us to ask:
ask: How do employers’
with criminal
of marginalized workers?
criminal records
records compare to their reactions to other groups of
How do
of employers in other
do the attitudes
attitudes of Milwaukee
Milwaukee employers compare to those of
of crimes in terms of
of
metropolitan
metropolitan areas?
areas? How do
do drug crimes compare to other sorts of
employers'
dimensions of
of a criminal record that
employers’ reactions?
reactions? What are the most salient
salient dimensions
of
shape
convictions? Answers to each of
shape employers'
employers’ decisions
decisions about applicants
applicants with prior convictions?
these
of the demandthese questions
questions can help to provide a more comprehensive
comprehensive understanding of
side
force. Employers
side processes
processes which regulate the entry of ex-offenders
ex-offenders into the labor force.

•

serve
serve as
as key gatekeepers
gatekeepers in the job placement process; gaining deeper insight into their
attitudes
distribution of
ofjob
attitudes and opinions
opinions can help us to understand how the distribution
job outcomes (as

measured by the audit study,
study, or other measures
measures of
the job placement of
ofthe
of ex-offenders)
measured
69
comes into
into being.
being.69
comes

Methodology
Methodology

Drawing on the sample
sample of 350 employers
employers selected for
for the audit study, respondents were
Drawing
asked to participate
participate in a telephone survey focused
focused on employers’
asked
employers' concerns and
considerations in hiring
hiring entry-level
entry-level workers.
workers. Following a stipulation made by the
considerations
Subjects Committee,
Committee, no mention was made of
University of Wisconsin Human Subjects
of the

•

69 This
This manuscript
manuscript takes
takes no account
account of the supply-side
supply-side processes which may also affect the distribution of
69
of
outcomes for
for ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. Differences
Differences in job-search behavior,
outcomes
behavior, human capital characteristics,
characteristics, and the many
potential disruptions
disruptions associated
associated with incarceration
incarceration (loss of housing,
may
potential
housing, disruptions
disruptions of
of family ties, etc.)
etc.)may
also have
have a substantial
substantial influence
influence on the employment outcomes
outcomes of
also
of ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. For a treatment of
of these
1999; Travis
Travis et al.,
al., 2001.
2001.
issues, see
see Nelson et al.,
al., 1999;
issues,

•

103
103

previous audit that had taken place.
place. It was decided that disclosing
disclosing the occurrence of the
audit study could place subjects
managers or human resource
subjects at greater risk, given that managers
employees
employees may be sanctioned
sanctioned if discriminatory
discriminatory practices
practices within individual
individual establishments
establishments
were revealed.
revealed. If asked, subjects
subjects were told that they were selected
selected on the basis of an
entry-level
entry-leveljob opening
opening they had advertised
advertised within the past six months (indeed,
(indeed, this was

the selection
selection criteria for the audit study).
study).
Calls were made to each establishment,
establishment, asking to speak with the person in charge
of hiring. In companies
companies where more than one person was responsible
responsible for hiring
decisions,
participating in the telephone
decisions, it is possible that the individual
individual participating
telephone survey was
different
different from the individual
individual who reviewed the testers' applications
applications in the audit study.7o
study.70

•

It is assumed that general hiring policies are shared among company representatives
representatives and,

therefore, there should be a fairly
fairly high level of consistency
consistency in responses
responses among
therefore,
individuals within firms;
firms; any individual
individual differences
differences should appear as random error.
error.
individuals
instrument was developed
developed by Harry Holzer and his
The baseline survey instrument

colleague^.^'71 It includes questions
questions about the company,
company, such as
as size,
size, industry,
industry, employee
employee
colleagues.
turnover, and racial composition; questions
questions about hiring procedures,
as the use of
turnover,
procedures, such as
interviews, personality
personality or aptitude
aptitude tests, and background checks;
checks; questions
questions about the last
interviews,
worker hired for a position not requiring a college
college degree,
degree, including age,
age, race,
race, and sex of

•

70 In cases
cases where more than one person was responsible
responsible for hiring decisions,
decisions, interviewers
interviewers attempted
attempted to
70
identify the individual
individual most directly involved in the screening
screening of entry-level
entry-level workers.
identify
workers. Once this person was
identified, they served
served as the target respondent until a completion
completion or refusal
refusal was secured.
secured. If the initial
identified,
target was unavailable
unavailable or unwilling
attempts were made to contact alternative
alternative personnel
unwilling to participate, attempts
personnel
h i n g decisions)
decisions) within the company.
company.
(involved in hiring
7' The first version
version of this survey
survey was developed for the Multi-City
Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality
Inequality Employer
71
1996). Holzer,
Holzer, Stoll,
StoIl, and Raphael (2002)
(2002) later modified the initial instrument
instrument to focus
focus
Survey (Holzer, 1996).
applicants with criminal
criminal records.
records. The instrument used for the present study
study was further
further
more closely on applicants
priorities of this research project (see below).
below).
modified to reflect the priorities

•

104

the
questions about
the worker,
worker, recruitment method,
method, wage,
wage, and promotion opportunities;
opportunities; and questions
the
the employer's
employer’s attitudes
attitudes about various
various kinds of applicants,
applicants, including
including welfare recipients,
applicants
applicants with long
long spells
spells out of the labor market, unstable work histories, or criminal
records.
records. In addition,
addition, several
several survey
survey items were added to more closely mirror the audit
study.
hypothetical applicant very
study. In particular,
particular, a vignette was included describing
describing a hypothetical
similar
similar to
to the tester profile
profile (see
(see below).
below). The applicant was described as white for those
employers audited
employers
employers who
who had been audited
audited by white testers and black for those employers
by black testers.
employers' reactions to
testers. The
The vignette was then modified to assess employers’
of
applicants
applicants convicted of different types of crimes or who had received different types of
sanctions.
sanctions. These
These items
items give us some leverage with which to assess the degree to which

•

the
the audit
audit results
results may have been different had the profile of the tester been different (e.g.,
if the type of crime or the context of the conviction tested had been different).
different).

question was added to probe employers’
Additionally, an open-ended question
employers' reasons for being
willing or unwilling to hire the applicant described in the original vignette. This question
offers a view of employers'
employers’ concerns
concerns in their own words, highlighting the issues most
offers
salient to employers
employers about applicants
applicants with criminal records.
salient
The survey was administered by the Michigan State Survey Center. The final

survey sample
sample included 177
177 respondents, representing a 5511 percent response rate.
survey
Response rates were calculated according to the basic formula:
formula: I/(I+P+R), where I equals
the number of completed interviews,
interviews, P equals the number of
of partial interviews,
interviews, and R

represents the number of refused eligible numbers (Groves &
& Lyberg, 1988). Between
represents

•

of the audit and the survey,
survey, two companies had declared bankruptcy and an
the time ofthe

•

105

additional
additional two had non-functioning
non-functioning numbers.
numbers, These firms
firms were dropped from
from the survey
sample
sample and are excluded from
from the denominator for calculations
calculations of response rates.
rates.
Typical response rates for academic
academic telephone
telephone surveys
surveys range from
from 50 to 80
percent.
percent. The present survey falls
falls toward the lower end of the range of acceptable
response
response rates
rates as the result of several
several possible
possible factors.
factors. Response
Response rates
rates for surveys
surveys of top
management and organizational
organizational representatives
representatives typically lag behind those of employees
or of the general
general population (Baruch,
(Baruch, 1999).
1999). Likewise,
Likewise, there has been increasing
increasing
resistance
resistance of businesses
businesses to participate
participate in surveys,
surveys, given the proliferation
proliferation of market
firms as well as academics
academics seeking employer participation
participation for the growing
research firms
businesses (Remington,
(Remington, 1992).
number of studies involving businesses
1992). There has been a notable

•

downward
trajectory in the response
response rates from business
business surveys
surveys over the past 25 years
downward trajectory
(Cox et al.,
aI., 1995;
refusals citing that
1995; Baruch, 1999),
1999), with increasing numbers of refusals

participation was against company policy (Fenton-O'Creevy,
(Fenton-O’Creevy, 1996,
1996, cited in Baruch,
1999).
1999). Even among the general
general population, Curtin et ai.
al. (2000) report that the number of
calls required to complete an average
average interview and the proportion of interviews requiring

refusal conversion
conversion doubled between 1979
1979 and 1996.
1996. The inundation oftelemarketers
of telemarketers
research) matched by the technological advances of caller(and, to a lesser extent, survey research)
caller-

ID and privacy managers has made it increasingly
ill
increasingly difficult to recruit survey respondents
for academic research (Remington, 1992).
1992).

In order to assess the possible bias that may result from selective
selective participation,
participation,
made. 72 The first test compared basic characteristics of
two comparison tests were made.72

•

72
72

Note: there is also quite a bit of research investigating the effects of
low response rates on survey
oflow
outcomes.
outcomes. Keeter et al. (2000)
(2000) administered
administered two identical questionnaires
questionnaires to national household samples

•

106
106

employers who responded to the survey to those who were eligible for participation but
location, and call-back rates, the two
refused (see Appendix SA).
5A). Based on industry, location,
occupational distribution
distribution were
groups were very similar, though some differences
differences in occupational
apparent: employers
employers for restaurant jobs were most likely to respond to the survey,
apparent:
survey, while
positions were least likely.
likely. This difference
difference probably has to do
those for laborer or service positions
with the accessibility
accessibility of employers
employers in locally-run restaurants,
restaurants, relative
relative to those in
decentralized
decentralized factories,
factories, warehouses, or companies.
companies. The overrepresentation
overrepresentation of restaurant
restaurant
employers
employers in this sample is somewhat cause
cause for concern,
concern, given that these employers tend
to be more open to applicants
(as discussed
discussed in the previous chapter,
chapter,
applicants with criminal
criminal records (as
and later in this chapter).
chapter). In an effort to account for this overrepresentation, key

•
a

outcomes
outcomes are recalculated using weights
weights to achieve
achieve the sample distribution ofthe
of the audit
study.
study. Even without these adjustments,
adjustments, however, the distribution
distribution of responses
responses on key
attitude
attitude items closely match those of a previous
previous sample
sample of Milwaukee
Milwaukee employers:
employers: In a
second test of sample
sample bias, basic employer characteristics
characteristics from the present sample
sample were
compared
compared to an identical
identical set of questions
questions asked of a more representative
representative sample
sample of

Milwaukee employers
employers conducted
conducted in 1999
1999 (Holzer
(Holzer &
& Stoll,
Stoll, 2001).
2001). Though
Though the earlier
earlier
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee survey included
included a broader geographic
geographic area and oversampled large
large firms,
firms, the
general
general attitudes
attitudes expressed
expressed by employers
employers in both samples
samples were strikingly
strikingly similar
similar (see
(see

•

different levels
levels of effort,
effort, the first
first resulting
resulting in a response
response rate
rate of 36
36 percent,
percent, the
the second,
second, 60.6
60.6 percent.
using different
9 1 demographic,
demographic, behavioral,
behavioral, attitudinal,
attitudinal, and knowledge
knowledge items
items found
found an average
average
Comparisons across
across 91
Comparisons
distribution of responses.
responses. Likewise,
Likewise, Curtin et al.
al. (2000)
(2000) compared responses
responses
difference of 2 percent in the distribution
difference
the Survey
Survey of Consumer
Consumer Attitudes
Attitudes using
using a full
full sample
sample to responses
responses when difficult
difficult to reach or difficult
difficult to
to the
respondents were
were excluded
excluded (thus
(thus simulating
simulating the sample
sample population
population had less
less effort been used to
convert respondents
these respondents).
respondents). These
These authors
authors report virtually
virtually no differences
differences in cross-sectional
cross-sectional estimates
estimates of
reach these
"consumer
demographcs of each
each sample
sample were
were
“consumer sentiment,"
sentiment,” even when systematic
systematic differences
differences in the demographics
observed. It seems,
seems, therefore,
therefore, that fairly
fairly valid estimates
estimates can be achieved
achieved even with suboptimal
suboptimal response
response
observed.
there are
are diminishing
diminishing returns
returns to increasing
increasing response
response rates,
rates, with
rates. According
According to Curtin
Curtin et al.
al. (2000), there
rates.

•

107
107

Appendix 5B).
5B). The consistency
consistency ofthese
of these findings
findings provides
provides some reassurance
reassurance that the
present sample can serve
priorities and concerns
serve as a useful gauge for the priorities
concerns of employers in
the broader Milwaukee
Milwaukee metropolitan area.
area.
The comparison
comparison of samples across Milwaukee
Milwaukee surveys
surveys also addresses
addresses concerns
concerns
over the sampling
sampling frame
frame of this study. Because this sample was initially drawn for the

purposes of the audit study, it cannot be considered a pure random sample
sample of all
Milwaukee
Milwaukee employers;
employers; it is rather a sample
sample ofthose
of those employers
employers who advertised for entrylevel jobs between June and December 2001
2001 in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and on
Jobnet, and who met the selection criteria for the audit study (see
the internet job listing,
listing, Jobnet,

Appendix 3A). Most importantly,
importantly, all jobs in the health care sector,
sector, public sector, and

•

those involving
involving care of children
chddren or the elderly were excluded from this sample
sample due
clue to

restrictions on the hiring of ex-offenders
ex-offenders in these positions.
positions. Evidence for
explicit legal restrictions
the similarity
similarity between the present sample and a previous
previous random sample
sample of Milwaukee
Milwaukee
employers on key variables of interest provides strong reassurance for the general utility

sample (see Appendix
Appendix 5B for a more thorough discussion
discussion of sample selection
selection
of this sample
issues).
issues).

final methodological issue to be raised regarding
regarding the results of this chapter
A final
concerns the use of self-reports
self-reports from
from survey questionnaires.
questionnaires. This issue
issue is the central
concerns
focus of the following
following chapter,
chapter, but it is worth bringing to the attention of readers
readers at the
focus
discussion. The findings
findings reported here come from
from employers'
employers’ verbal
start of this discussion.
practices. Caution must be used in
representations of their hiring preferences and practices.

•

increasing response
rates from
from 20 to 40 percent while smaller
smaller
large gains in external validity achieved by increasing
response rates
from 40 to 60 percent (p.414).
(p.414).
registered by moving from
gains are registered

••

108
108
estimates of actual hiring practices.
practices. As discussed
generalizing these reports to estimates
discussed in the
following
following chapter,
chapter, there is evidence
evidence for a substantial
substantial disconnect between self-reports and
observed behaviors (Duetscher,
(Duetscher, 1966;
1966; LaPiere, 1934).
1934). What is less subject to distortion,

though, are the relative comparisons of self-reports. Though verbal estimates
estimates may not
self-reports are
correspond to actual levels of behaviors, it is far more likely that self-reports
consistent
consistent across
across items (Schuman & Johnson,
Johnson, 1976).
1976). This
This chapter,
chapter, then, relies on withinsurvey estimates
estimates of employer attitudes,
attitudes, providing
providing comparisons
comparisons across
across items for a picture
of employers'
employers’ relative preferences.
preferences. The agenda ofthis
of this analysis
analysis is purely descriptive;
descriptive; the
patterns of responses
responses offered by the employers in themselves
themselves provide valuable
valuable insight
into the hiring process for ex-offenders,
ex-offenders.

•

Results
The results
results from
from the survey
survey offer us a more detailed perspective
perspective on the characteristics
characteristics and

employers included in the audit study.
study. We can better assess
assess what kinds
concerns of the employers
employers were audited
audited and what their hiring practices
practices are
are like
like (See Appendix
Appendix 5C for
of employers
descriptive
descriptive statistics
statistics on the sample).
sample). Most importantly,
importantly, we can learn more about the

barriers to employment for
for ex-offenders
ex-offenders based on the stated policies
policies and preferences of
barriers
employers. In the·
the survey,
survey, employers
employers were given three
three separate
separate opportunities
opportunities to report
employers.
attitudes about applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records,
records, offering
offering three levels
levels of generality:
generality: a
their attitudes
standardized survey question,
question, a vignette, and an open-ended response.
response. In the following
following
standardized
discussion, I examine
examine responses
responses to this series
series of questions
questions investigating
investigating the ways
ways in
discussion,

criminal record shapes
shapes employers'
employers’ evaluations
evaluations of entry-level
entry-level workers.
workers.
which a criminal

•

109
109

Ex-offenders
Attitudes about Hiring Ex-qyenders

assess their basic positions
positions on hiring applicants with criminal
criminal records,
In order to assess
employers were asked the following
following question:
question: "Next,
“Next, I am going to list
list several types of
employers
applicants.
non-college]
applicants. Please tell me if you would accept each type for the [most
[most recent non-college]
position.
position... .... An applicant who has a criminal
criminal record?"
record?” The four response
response categories
categories
included "definitely
“definitely will,"
will,” "probably
“probably will,"
will,” "probably
“probably not,"
not,” and "definitely
“definitely not."
not.” Overall,
Milwaukee
moderate reluctance to hiring applicants
Milwaukee employers
employers expressed moderate
applicants with criminal
criminal
records. Just over half of employers
records.
employers indicated that they would probably or definitely
definitely not
accept an applicant with a criminal
respectively).73,74 Thus
criminal record (35
(35 and 16 percent,
percent, respectively).73y74
without any additional information
information about the applicant,
applicant, a criminal
criminal record forms
forms a fairly

•

strong basis for employment
employment decisions.
decisions.

salience of a criminal
criminal record in the evaluations of employers
employers can be better
The salience
understood relative
relative to considerations
considerations of other marginalized workers.
workers. Figure 5.1
5.1
compares the distribution
distribution of responses
responses concerning an applicant with a criminal record
compares
relative to
consideration of an applicant on welfare,
welfare, an applicant
applicant with a GED (instead ofa
of a
relative
to.consideration
high school diploma),
diploma), an applicant
applicant who has been unemployed for a year or more, and an
75 These results demonstrate
applicant with only short-term or part-time work experience.
e~perience.~’
demonstrate
applicant

“very likely"
likely” or "somewhat
“somewhat likely"
likely” to accept applicants
applicants on
that virtually all employers are "very
GEDs; roughly 70 percent are willing to accept applicants
applicants with long
welfare or with GEDs;
histories of unemployment,
applicants with only shorthistories
unemployment, 60 percent are willing to accept applicants
73

breakdown) indicated
An additional 25 percent of respondents
respondents (not included in the original percentage
percentage breakdown)
response would depend
depend on the type of crime.
crime. I explore
explore variation in
in attitudes
attitudes by type of crime
that their response
below.
74
2 1 percent of employers
employers reported
“definitely will"
will” accept an applicant
applicant with
with a criminal
criminal
74 Roughly 21
reported that they "definitely
record,
reporting that they "probably
“probably will"
will” accept the applicant.
applicant.
record, with 28 percent reporting
73

•

110
110

tenn
term or part-time work experience,
experience, while
while just under 50
50 percent are
are willing
willing to accept
accept
applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records.
records. A
A criminal
criminal record, therefore, stands
stands out as
as the
the most
damaging
damaging characteristic
characteristic among
among this
this array.
array. It is
is interesting
interesting to note that,
that, even
characteristics
characteristics directly
directly n~lated
related to worker quality
quality (e.g.,
(e.g., the
the work history
hstory variables)
variables) are
are less
less
consequential
consequential than are
are the character
character traits and/or behavioral patterns associated with a
criminal
criminal record.
record. Ex-offenders exist at the bottom of the hiring
hiring queue, facing
facing closed doors
doors
to employment from
from roughly half of all employers.
employers.

Figure 5.1.
5.1. Willingness
Willingness to Accept Various
Various Marginalized
MarginalizedWorkers
Workers
Figure
100

•

l!!
Q)

>0
D.

E
Q)

_ _~ ~ _ _ t

----------------~--.------.---c.____L

60
40

@
Q)

20
0
yes

no
no

Welfare

yes
GED

yes

>1 yrI
Unemp >

yes

no
no

yes

Unstable Wrk Hist Criminal Record
Record
Unstable

All comparisons
comparisons with the criminal
criminal record
record category
category are
are statistically
statistically significant
significant (p<.OS),
(p<.05), based on a oneproportions with repeated measures.
measures.
sample test of proportions

Before generalizing
generalizing to the larger implications
implications of
of these findings,
findings, however, it is important
to consider the specific context in which this survey was conducted. Milwaukee has a
unique social and economic history which may in fact lend itself
to more extreme
itselfto
reactions to individuals with criminal records. This concern was raised with respect to

•

ls
75

These items were phrased in wording identical to the criminal record question above.

•

111
111
the
effects were specific
the audit
audit study
study results,
results, considering
considering the possibility
possibility that the dramatic
dramatic effects
to the
the localized area
area ofthe
of the study (see
(see Appendix
Appendix 3A for a lengthier discussion of this
issue).
issue). If Milwaukee
Milwaukee were
were an outlier
outlier with respect to its employers'
employers’ views toward exoffenders,
offenders, we would need to exercise
exercise great caution in generalizing
generalizing the results to any
broader context.
context.
Fortunately,
Fortunately, existing
existing survey
survey data can give
give us some leverage on this question. The
survey
survey question
question assessing
assessing employer attitudes
attitudes about hiring ex-offenders
ex-offenders was drawn from a
previous
(2001) in Milwaukee and several other
previous survey
survey administered
administered by Holzer and Stoll
Stoll(2001)
cities
cities in 1999.
1999. It is
is thus
thus possible to directly
directly compare
compare the responses of Milwaukee
employers
metropolitan areas.
areas. Figure 5.2
employers in this
this sample
sample to those
those of employers
employers in other metropolitan

•

compares
employers in the four cities.
r esponse categories among employers
compares the
the distribution
distribution of response
Note
Note that the distribution
distribution of responses for Holzer's
Holzer’s Milwaukee sample and the present

sample are
are identical,
identical, providing
providing strong
strong reassurance of the comparability
comparability of this sample.
sample
sample.
responses to identical
identical questions
questions asked of employers in Chicago, Cleveland,
Compared to responses
and Los
Los Angeles,
Angeles, these
these findings
findings demonstrate
demonstrate that Milwaukee employers, in fact, report a
and
significantlygreater
greater openness
openness to considering applicants
applicants with criminal records relative to
significantly
employers in these
these other cities.
cities. Whereas
Whereas in the other three cities nearly two-thirds of
employers
of
employers reported that they would "definitely
“definitely not"
not” or "probably
“probably not”
employers
not" accept an applicant
with aa criminal
criminal record,
record, in Milwaukee
Milwaukee only half of employers
employers expressed negative
with
76
opinions.76
from expressing
expressing extreme
extreme negative opinions,
opinions, therefore, employers in
opinions.
Far from

•

l6 A
A similar
similar pattern
pattern can
can be
be found
found in a comparison
comparison of the responses to an identical question included in the
76
employer survey
survey of the Multi-City
Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality,
Inequality, administered
administered between June 1992 and May
employer
1994 (Holzer,
(Holzer, 1996).
1996). The
The trends
trends for
for Atlanta,
Atlanta, Boston,
Boston, Detroit,
Detroit, and Los Angeles relative to the current
1994
sample of Milwaukee
Milwaukee employers
employers are presented
presented in Appendix 5D.
sample

•

112

Milwaukee
Milwaukee demonstrate
demonstrateaa surprising
surprising level
level of openness
openness relative
relative to employers
employers in other
metropolitan
metropolitan areas.
areas. If the
the correspondence
correspondencebetween self-reports
self-reports and behavior (however
low
low this
this may be)
be) is
is consistent
consistent across
across samples,
samples, the employment
employment prospects
prospects for ex-offenders
ex-offenders
elsewhere
elsewhere may be far
far worse
worse than those
those documented
documented here.
here.

Figure
Figure 5.2.
5.2. Likelihood
Likelihood of Hiring
Hiring Applicant with a Criminal
Criminal Record,
Record,
by
by Metropolitan
Metropolitan Area

80 - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i
80
64
64

•

401
20

• definitely
definitely
62

60
------1
60 +
- - - - - - - - - -__
1 449
9 - 51
51
49
49 51
5’

o0probably
probably

T-I t-

o
yes
yes

no
no

Milwaukee 02
02
Milwaukee

yes
yes

no
no

Milwaukee 99
Milwaukee

yes

no
no

Chicago 99
Chicago

yes

Cleveland 99
Cleveland

yes

Los Angeles 99

for 1999
1999 data:
data: Holzer
Holzer &
& Stoll
Stoll(2001).
Differences between
between Milwaukee
Milwaukee and
and other cities, based on
Source for
Source
(2001). Differences
of proportions,
proportions, are
are statistically
statistically significant,
significant, p<.05.
pc.05.
two-sample tests
tests of
two-sample

It is
is rather
rather surprising
surprising that Milwaukee
Milwaukee represents
represents such an outlier in this respect. There
It
have been few
few regional
regional comparisons
comparisons of attitudes
attitudes toward ex-offenders
ex-offenders and therefore there
have
is little
little prior research
research to draw from
fkom in forming
forming an explanation.
explanation. It may be the case that
is
because of Wisconsin's
Wisconsin’s strong
strong economic
economic position since the mid to late 1990’s,
1990's, employers
because
have grown
grown more tolerant
tolerant ofless
of less desirable
desirable workers.
workers. Certainly,
Certainly, relative to each of
have
of the

•

other cities
cities listed
listed here,
here, Milwaukee
Milwaukee has had a substantially lower unemployment rate
other
throughout the period of observation
observation (Bureau
(Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Statistics, 2002).
2002). And yet, we do
throughout

•

113

not see the same
same patterns in response to applicants
applicants with other undesirable
undesirable characteristics.
characteristics.
In fact,
fact, Milwaukee
Milwaukee employers
employers are less likely to consider
consider hiring applicants
applicants with unstable
unstable
work histories
histories or who have been unemployed for a year or more relative to employers
employers in
Chicago, Cleveland, and Los Angeles (Holzer & Stoll,
Stoll, 2001). It is not the case,
case,
therefore,
therefore, that worker shortages
shortages have led Milwaukee
Milwaukee employers
employers to show more tolerance
on all dimensions
dimensions relative
relative to their metropolitan
metropolitan counterparts.
counterparts.
Alternatively,
Alternatively, the greater openness
openness of Milwaukee
Milwaukee employers
employers may have to do with
the legal protection
protection afforded to ex-offenders in Wisconsin, under expanded
expanded Fair
regulations. While very few cases have come to court under the antiEmployment regulations.
antidiscrimination
ex-offenders, these laws may set a precedent for (or,
discrimination clause
clause for ex-offenders,

•

alternatively,
individuals with prior
openness towards individuals
alternatively, reflect a culture
culture of) greater openness
..

conviction^.^^
convIctIons.

course, it is also possible that the legal climate in Wisconsin places greater
Of course,

pressure on survey respondents to provide socially desirable responses. It may be the
employers in Milwaukee, while holding similar opinions about excase, then, that employers
offenders to employers
cities, are less likely to express their aversion to these
offenders
employers in other cities,

applicants in survey questionnaires.
questionnaires. And yet, there is some additional evidence to
suggest that the greater openness expressed by Milwaukee employers to applicants with
respondents, nearly
criminal records goes beyond mere rhetoric. According to the survey respondents,

half
half of the Milwaukee employers (48 percent) had hired one or more applicants
applicants with
criminal records in the past year. By sharp contrast, only 23 percent of
of a recent sample of

•

114

Los
Los Angeles
Angeles employers
employersreported
reported having
having hired one
one or more
more applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal
records
records over the
the past year (Stoll
(Stoll et aI.,
al., 2002).78
2002).78 Presumably, the reporting of actual hiring
experiences
experiences is
is less
less subject
subject to the
the pressures
pressures of social
social desirability
desirability than are attitude
attitude
questions.
questions. If these
these self-reports
self-reports are
are accurate,
accurate, Milwaukee
Milwaukee employers
employers are indeed more open
to
to and
and experienced
experienced with hiring
hiring applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records.
records.
Whatever
Whatever the reason for these
these attitudes,
attitudes, it seems
seems that Milwaukee is not an
anomaly
anomaly in its negative
negative views towards ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. If anything,
anything, Milwaukee represents
an outlier
outlier in its tolerance
tolerance of applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records. The results reported in this
of employers
study,
study, therefore,
therefore, may represent a best-case scenario
scenario in portraying the views of
in
in other
other metropolitan
metropolitan areas.

•

Variation by Type
Type ofCrime
of Crime or Context ofSanction
of Sanction
Variation

The initial
initial survey
survey question
question about a generic applicant with a criminal record leaves a
The
substantial amount of ambiguity concerning the referent group. The phrase “applicant
"applicant
substantial
criminal record"
record” conjures up a particular mental image for each employer, and yet
with a criminal
it is not apparent
apparent to us what this mental image consists of
of or which aspects are of
of greatest
importance. In order to obtain more precise insight into the way employers think about
importance.
and react to various kinds of applicants with criminal records, a vignette was constructed
to capture a particular profile, with relevant work- and crime-related characteristics
characteristics
explicitly specified.
specified. The applicant described in the vignette was designed to closely

match the profile of the testers in the audit study.
study. As mentioned earlier, employers who

•

77 Based on a list of cases
77
cases compiled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of
of Wisconsin,
discrimination
against
individuals
with
there have been 5511 separate cases brought up under charges of
of
198
1
.
criminal
records;
the
earliest
recorded
case
was
in
criminal records;
1981.

•

115
115

had been audited by white testers were read a vignette
vignette in which the hypothetical applicant
applicant
was white; employers
employers who had been audited by black testers were read a vignette in

which the applicant was black. The hypothetical applicant in the vignette was introduced
with the following
following description:
description:
Chad is a 23-year old [black/white}
He finished high school
[blacWwhite] male.
male. Hefinished
and has steady work experience in entry-leveljobs.
entry-leveljobs. He has good
references and interacts
interacts well with
with people.
ago, Chad
references
people. About a year ago,
was convicted ofa
drug
felony
and
served
12
months
in
prison.
prison.
of a
sewed
Chad was released last month and is now lookingfor
job. How
lookingfor a job.
entry-level opening in your
likely would you be to hire Chad for an entry-level
company?

Of those employers presented with the vignette in which Chad was white, roughly 62

•

percent reported being "somewhat
“somewhat likely"
likely” or "very
“very likely"
likely” to hire him. This expressed
expressed
willingness
willingness to hire Chad is quite
quite striking,
striking, relative to the 49 percent of employers who
reported that they "probably
will" or "definitely
“probably will”
“definitely will"
will” hire a generic
generic applicant
applicant with a

criminal record.
record. Clearly employers
employers are sensitive
sensitive to the specifics
specifics of Chad's
Chad’s profile, which
criminal
presents a more appealing candidate than the generic (stereotypical)
(stereotypical) image
image of an ex-

offender, both in terms of personal qualifications
qualifications and type of offense.
offense.
offender,
Surprisingly, however,
however, with respect to the race ofthe
of the described
described applicant, the
Surprisingly,
employers’ responses
responses showed little variation.
variation. Ofthose
Of those presented with the vignette in
employers'
employers reported favorable
favorable
which Chad was black, a virtually identical proportion of employers
employment, with only a two-tenths percentage
percentage decline from
fiom the white
chances of employment,
vignette. In fact,
fact, across the vignette items discussed below, the differences
differences by race ofthe
of the
vignette.

•

’*

This question
question was not asked
asked of the employers
employers in the 1999 four-city
four-city study
study (Holzer &
& Stoll, 2001), but it
This
in a more recent (2001)
(2001) study of Los Angeles employers.
employers.
was included in

•

116
116

hypothetical
hypothetical applicant were insignificant
insignificant and substantively small.
small. Except where
otherwise
otherwise noted,
noted, therefore,
therefore, I present the average
average of responses
responses across
across the two subsamples
subsamples
for the remainder ofthis
79
of this discussion.
disc~ssion.’~
Following
Following the initial
initial vignette, employers
employers were then asked to report the likelihood
of hiring Chad if, instead of having been convicted of a drug crime,
crime, he had been
convicted
convicted of a property crime
crime such as burglary.
burglary. When considering
considering such an applicant,
applicant,
employers
employers expressed a much stronger reluctance to hire (see
(see Figure 5.3). Only 30 percent
of employers
employers reported being somewhat
somewhat or very likely to hire this applicant,
applicant, relative
relative to
offender. When asked about an
twice as many employers
employers willing to consider a drug offender.
applicant convicted of a violent crime, such as assault, employers were even more

•

reluctant. In this case, only 24 percent of employers were somewhat or very likely to hire
reluctant.
Chad,
relative to roughly half of employers who said they were "very
unlikely" to hire
Chad, relative
“very unlikely”

him.”
employers.
him. 8o Not surprisingly, a history of violent crime is most concerning
concerning to employers.
Clearly, reactions to "an
criminal record”
record" mask a tremendous
tremendous amount of
“an applicant with a criminal
aggregate category.81
heterogeneity within this aggregate
category.81

•

79 It is noteworthy
the crime described in
noteworthy that, while employers
employers are highly responsive
responsive to the nature of
ofthe
survey items,
items, as I will demonstrate below, the race of
of the applicant
applicant shows little effect. I return to more
thorough consideration
of this issue in the following
following chapter, considering these findings
findings in contrast to the
consideration of
distinctions apparent in the audit study results.
results.
sharp racial distinctions
80 By contrast,
contrast, the extreme “very
"very unlikely”
unlikely" category was chosen by only 20 percent of
of those considering
considering a
of those considering a property offender.
offender.
drug offender and 37 percent of
81 The results of the audit study, therefore,
therefore, should represent a fairly conservative
conservative estimate of
of the effect of
ofaa
criminal record,
record, given stronger negative reactions to other classes of
of offenders.
offenders. We would expect that if
if the
audit study had included a property crime such as burglary or a violent crime such as assault instead of the
drug crime,
crime, the results might have been even more extreme.
extreme.

’’

•

117
Figure 5.3.
5.3. Percent
Percent "very
"very likely"
likely" or
or "somewhat
"somewhat likely" to Hire
Figure
Applicants with
with a Criminal Record, by Offense Type
Applicants

-.,------=-:-."..-----------------------,
61.8
61.8

t----r--"l-------

+-----j

----------.j

CSomewhat likely
liVery likely

31.0

30+------1

23.6

20
10

0+--drug offender
offender

property
property offender

violent offender

Note: Percentages
Percentages have been averaged
averaged across
across employers
employers in both vignette conditions
conditions (i.e.,
(i.e., black and white).
Note:
Differences between the drug offender
offender category and other crime types are statistically
statistically significant,
significant, (F.01).
(p<.Ol).
Differences

•

A final set of variations
variations introduced
introduced by the vignette
vignette items
items concerned
concerned the context
context of the
sanction.
12 months
months in prison for his felony
felony drug
sanction. In the initial vignette,
vignette, Chad had served
served 12
conviction.
conviction. Employers
Employers were
were later asked
asked to consider
consider their reaction
reaction to Chad had he been
through
through a drug
drug treatment
treatment program instead
instead of going
going to prison.
prison. Employers
Employers were
were
substantially
substantially more likely to consider
consider this applicant,
applicant, with roughly
roughly 73
73 percent
percent of employers
employers
expressing
expressing a willingness
willingness to
to hire
hire such
such a candidate
candidate relative
relative to the
the 62
62 percent
percent willing
willing to
to hire
the
This change
change in
the drug
drug offender
offender coming
coming straight
straight from
from prison
prison (see
(see Figure
Figure 5.4). This
responsiveness
responsivenesscould
could be due
due either
either to
to employers'
employers' assessments
assessments of the
the seriousness
seriousnessof the
the
offense
offense as
as reflected
reflected by differential
differential sanctions
sanctionsor to
to differences
differences in
in the
the likelihood
likelihood of
rehabilitation.
rehabilitation. In
In the
the first
first case,
case, clearly
clearly prison
prison represents
represents aa more
more serious
serious form
form of
punishment
punishment than
than does
does treatment,
treatment, even
even though
though the
the same
same class
class of offenders
offenderscan
can be
be placed
placed in
in

•

either
either setting.
setting. To
To the
the extent
extent that
that employers
employersassume
assume drug
drug offenders
offenders who
who are
are placed
placed in
in
treatment
treatment programs
programs are
are on
on average
average less
less serious
serious offenders
offenders than
than are
are those
those who
who receive
receive

•

118
118

prison sentences,
sentences, they will be more willing to hire an applicant coming out of treatment.
treatment.
Alternatively,
Alternatively, employers
employers may view treatment as an indicator of the likelihood of
rehabilitation.
rehabilitation. An obvious
obvious concern to employers
employers in considering
considering a drug offender is the
possibility that he might continue to be a user.
user. Indeed,
Indeed, several of the employers
employers
explicitly stated this concern
concern as their primary objection
objection to hiring an applicant with a drug
felony
felony conviction
conviction (see below).
below). Presumably, knowledge that the individual has undergone
treatment provides greater reassurance
reassurance that he will be able to stay clean from
from drugs
drugs in the
future.
future. Whether employers
employers view treatment
treatment as an indicator of the seriousness
seriousness of the
offense or of the likelihood of recovery,
recovery, it is clear that employers
employers are far more wary of
individuals coming out of prison than of those who have received rehabilitative

•

therefore matter for the outcomes of exintervention. The context ofthe
intervention.
of the sanction can therefore
offenders, apart from any impact on their own physical and psychological well-being, by
offenders,
signaling
employers differential
signaling to employers
differential levels of risk.

Figure
5.4. Percent
Figure 5.4.
Percent ·very
"very likely"
likely" or "somewhat
"somewhat likely"
likely" to Hire
Hire Applicants with a
Criminal Record,
Record, by Context of Sanction
Criminal

80 .......- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

r.;,.73~.2==---l_---___t'-!!2.:~__.-___J
.

!
70 +

61.8

+---r--1------1

50 +---1

40 +---1

o Somewhat

30 +---1

likely
liVery likely

20 +---1
10

•

O+--felony,
drug felony,
prison sentence
prison

felony,
drug felony,
drug treatment

felony,
drug felony,
intervening work
experience
experience

Note:
Note: Percentages have been averaged
averaged across
across employers in both vignette conditions (Le.,
(i.e., black and white).
white).
The difference
difference between the 'prison
'prison sentence' category and other categories
categories are statistically
statistically significant (w.05).
(p<.05).

•

119

A second variation in the context of Chad's
Chad’s drug conviction was to ask employers
employers to
consider that, instead of coming
coming straight
straight from
from prison,
prison, Chad had been released six months
ago and had been working at a car wash since that time. Once again,
again, employers
employers

responded more favorably
favorably to this applicant, with roughly 70 percent of employers
employers
expressing
willingness to hire. We can infer from
expressing a willingness
from this increase
increase in responsiveness
responsiveness that
employers
prisonare
employers are concerned that individuals
individuals coming
coming straight from
from prison
are more likely to
82
reengage
Evidence of intervening
reengage in crime.
crime.’*
intervening work experience,
experience, by contrast, can serve
serve as

a test for the applicant's
applicant’s ability to show up consistently
consistently and stay out of trouble.
trouble.

substantial variation in
iri employer responses
responses depending
depending on the context of the
The substantial

•

sanction have strong implications
implications for crime
crime policy recommendations.
recommendations. In the first case,
case,

emphasizes a strong
strong punitive approach to dealing with offenders;
offenders;
current crime policy emphasizes
fraction of inmates
inmates who report substance
substance abuse
treatment programs in prison reach only a fraction
(ONDCP, 2001).
2001). The present results suggest that a greater emphasis
emphasis on drug
problems (ONDCP,
incarceration, could have a beneficial
treatment programs, in concert with or in place of incarceration,
employability of these individuals
individuals after release. Several
Several states have, in
impact on the employability
fact, recently reversed mandatory sentencing
sentencing laws for drug offenders,
offenders, moving instead to a
fact,
system of drug courts with a primary emphasis on treatment (New York Times,
Times, 9/2/01).
9/2/01).
system
Aside from the benefits these programs can have for the problems of addiction,
addiction, they may

•

Indeed, employers'
employers’ concerns
concerns are largely supported
supported by existing data.
data. A recent report on recidivism
recidivism
82 Indeed,
1994 were rearrested
rearrested for
for aa felony
felony or serious
demonstrates that 44 percent of inmates released in 1994
demonstrates
release. Recidivism within
w i h n the first
first year accounts
accounts for nearly two-thirds
two-thirds of
midemeanor
midemeanor within one year of release.
first three years (the duration
duration covered by this study)
study) (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Statistics,
all recidivism in the first
2002c).
2002c).

•

120
120
further
further improve the long-term
long-term outcomes of ex~offenders
ex-offenders by increasing
increasing the trust ofthose
of those

considering them for jobs.
employers considering
second set of policy recommendations can be drawn from
from the scenario
scenario of
A second
experience. Here again we see that employers respond to signals
signals that
intervening work experience.
anex-offender
an ex-offender has "gone
“gone straight,"
straight,” with steady work experience
experience following
following release from
from

prison providing one such cue.
cue. These results suggest
suggest that a stronger emphasis on worklikewise benefit ex-offenders in search
search oflonger-term
of longer-term
release programs would likewise
employment. The initial transition
transition into the workforce is often the most difficult time, and
employment.
activity can be the greatest (Petersilia,
(Petersilia, 1999).
1999). Assisting exone in which the lure of illicit activity
offenders in their initial job placement could have lasting
lasting benefits for their economic
offenders

•

stability and desistance
desistance from
from crime (see Uggen, 2001).
The range of responses employers
employers have to applicants
applicants depending on the specifics

of their criminal history or the context ofthecriminal
of the criminal sanction demonstrates a fairly
fairly high
oftheir
level of sensitivity to the particulars
applicant’s ba~kground.’~
particulars of an applicant's
background. 83 Employers
Employers
differentially evaluate
evaluate profiles of ex-offenders on the basis of the severity
severity of their offense
differentially
reflecting an internal calculus
calculus of
and the signs oftheir
of their rehabilitation, presumably reflecting

following section,
section, I gather more detailed information about the
continued risk. In the following
specific dimensions
dimensions of a criminal
criminal record that are most salient
salient in these considerations.
considerations.
specific

•

aspects of the survey design may inadvertently
inadvertently inflate
inflate contrasts among
among vignette items.
items. Because
Because
83 Certain aspects
items in which only one characteristic
characteristic varies,
varies, their attention is
employers are asked to respond to a series
series of items
employers
focused on the particular variable in question
question (e.g., the difference
difference between prison and drug treatment).
treatment).
fully focused
world, by contrast,
contrast, employers'
employers’ attention
attention is rarely drawn
&awn to such specific
specific dimensions
dimensions of a criminal
criminal
In the real world,
degree to which they distinguish
distinguish among
among these
these characteristics
characteristics may be muted relative
record, and thus the degree
relative to

•

121
121

Employers
In the Words
Words ofthe
of the Employers

The vignette questions offer a structured
structured investigation of employers'
employers’ responses to varying
varylng
ex-offender characteristics.
characteristics. These items highlight the broad dimensions
dimensions according to

which ex-offenders
ex-offenders are commonly
commonly classified.
classified. In order to probe beyond these aggregate
aggregate
categories,
categories, to trace some
some of the subtle contours
contours of employers'
employers’ attitudes,
attitudes, respondents were
asked to discuss these issues in their own words. Following the initial vignette item,
item,
describing
describing the hypothetical
hypothetical applicant
applicant convicted of a drug felony
felony and recently released
from
kom prison, employers
employers were asked to explain the primary reason they would or would
not consider hiring this applicant.
applicant. These
These responses provide insight into those issues
issues and
concerns
concerns most salient to the employers
employers themselves.
t h e m ~ e l v 84
es.~~

•

of responses
several themes
themes emerged as priority
Among the wide range of
responses offered, several
concerns.
concerns. These can be first
first divided among those with unfavorable, ambivalent,
ambivalent, or

favorable views on hiring applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records (see Table 5.1). Among
favorable
employers expressing
expressing negative opinions,
opinions, the most salient
salient categories
categories included an emphasis
employers
(1) the applicant's
applicant’s behavior; (2)
(2) his character;
character; or (3) the company's
company’s (or state's)
state’s)
on (I)
ex-offenders. Among those with ambivalent feelings,
feelings, employers
policies on hiring ex-offenders.
characteristics,
indicated that their decision to hire or not would depend on some range of characteristics,

(1) the applicant's
applicant’s references;
references; (2) his work experience;
experience; (3) his presentation in the
such as (I)
interview; or (4) and the nature and timing ofthe
of the conviction.
c o n ~ i c t i o85n .Among
~~
those expressing
interview;
a willingness
willingness to hire the applicant, respondents
respondents emphasized (I)
(1) viewing the applicant as

•

contrasts shown here.
here. Further audit studies
studies including variations
variations in type of crime and context of
the contrasts
question.
sanction would help to resolve this question.
84
researchers with an inter-rater
inter-rater reliability of .96.
categories were coded by two independent researchers
84 Response categories
open-ended question was asked before the remaining vignette questions were asked
asked and
85 Recall that this open-ended
found here is not the result of initial priming.
priming.
thus the emphasis found

•

122
122

otherwise
otherwise well-qualified;
well-qualified; or (2)
(2) giving
giving the
the applicant
applicant "a
“a second
second chance."
chance.” Together,
Together, these
these
perspectives
perspectives reflect the
the multitude
multitude of characteristics
characteristics and concerns
concerns associated
associated with
applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records.
records. Below I provide a more detailed
detailed exposition
exposition of

employers’ comments about this group.
group.
employers'
Among
Among those reluctant to hire an applicant
applicant with a prior felony
felony drug conviction,
conviction,
concerns
concerns over behavior were among
among the most frequent
frequent employer responses. Seven
employers
employers mentioned concerns
concerns over drug use, with an additional
additional seven employers
employers
emphasizing
emphasizing that hiring would be conditional on passing a drug test. Certainly drug use
in the workplace is
is a major concern among employers,
employers, given the consequences
consequences for

productivity
injury. In a similar
similar vein, another group of employers
productivity and possible injury.

•

emphasized that their decision would depend upon the extent to which the applicant had
gone straight,
straight, with five
five employers
employers mentioning that they would consider Chad ifhe
if he had

participated in some type of rehabilitation
rehabilitation program. According to an employer for a
of
mechanical parts plant, he would only hire Chad "ifhe
“if he has gone through some type of

rehab and is able to stay off
off drugs.”
drugs." These employers
employers sought tangible evidence that drug
use would not
not continue to be a problem in the lives of these workers.
workers. In addition
addition to
concerns about the applicant’s
applicant's own drug use behavior, several employers (n =
= 10)
10) were
more concerned about forms of
of behavior that would harm others nearby.
nearby. Responses
included an emphasis on the “vulnerability
"vulnerability of
of people we serve”
serve" or the “threat
"threat to the other
workers.”
workers." Introducing an ex-offender into the workplace leaves open the potential for
threatening altercations.
altercations. For these employers,
employers; the main concern was what the conviction

•

might signal about the likelihood of
of future debilitating or dangerous forms of
of behavior.

•

123
123

A second
second set of responses
responses focused
focused on the character traits signaled by a felony
felony
conviction.
conviction. Employers
Employers spoke
spoke of concerns
concerns about "honesty"
“honesty” and "trust"
“trust” between employer
and applicant,
applicant, with the implication that a prior felony conviction
conviction signals
signals a deeply
comprised
“I can't
can’t trust that kind
comprised integrity. One employer for a national retail chain said,
said, "I
of applicant...
applicant.. . because we deal with products made by our company,
company, our friends."
friends.” In this
ths
case,
case, the dishonesty
dishonesty signaled by a prior felony
felony conviction
conviction was of primary concern,
despite
despite the fact that no specific breach of trust was indicated by the possession or
distribution
distribution of drugs.
drugs. Others emphasized questions
questions about the reliability
reliability of the applicant,
applicant,

everyday on time. According
and whether he could be counted on to show up for work everyday
According to
an employer in a regional restaurant chain,
chain, "I
“I wouldn't
wouldn’t hire [Chad]
[Chad] because of

•

irresponsibleness. I want someone
someone dedicated and who shows up for work on time, able to
irresponsibleness.
function."
function.” For these employers,
employers, the felony
felony conviction
conviction seemed to reflect a more
generalized character trait;
trait; one which stood in sharp
sharp contrast to the expectations
expectations of the
workplace.

A third set of negative
responses focused
focused on the regulations
governing the hiring
negative responses
regulations governing
records. Eleven employers
employers stated that hiring someone
someone with a
of applicants with criminal records.
criminal record was against company policy, period. Though in some cases it was not
readily apparent why these businesses
businesses should be legally authorized to impose a

exclusion on ex-offenders,
ex-offenders, this was the stated reason behind their decision.
decision.
categorical exclusion
Others (n == 8) emphasized that the specific requirements
requirements of the job would make it
Others
illegal to hire someone
someone with a drug felony
felony conviction.
conviction. Though
inappropriate and perhaps illegal

•

specificjob type was not defined (employers
(employers were asked to consider the
in the vignette a specific
“entry-level position’’
company), many employers
employers likely had in
applicant for an "entry-level
position" in their company),

•

124

of
mind the last non-college job they had filled, about which they had been asked a series of
survey. Again, in some cases, the direct link between the
questions earlier in the survey.
circumstances of
of the crime and the requirements
requirements of
of the job would be insufficient to
circumstances
of “handling
"handling cash,”
cash," for example, may make
withstand legal scrutiny (the requirement of
of hiring an applicant with a criminal record, despite the fact that the
employers wary of
'possession with intent to distribute’
distribute' has little direct relevance to theft).
theft).
charge of ‘possession
oftheir
Nevertheless, these employers invoked legal or regulatory arguments in support of
Nevertheless,
their
definitive protocol. A final set of employers (n == 12)
position, thereby establishing a definitive

cited the conviction as reason in itself, providing no further explanation.
of responses
responses comes fiom
from employers who stated ambivalent
The second category of

•

feelings
conviction. While these employers
feelings about hiring an applicant with a felony
felony drug conviction.
employers

did not reject the candidate outright, they expressed hesitancy and emphasized the need
for additional information.
information. These employers
employers indicated that their decision to accept the
candidate
experience, presentation
candidate would hinge on other factors, such as references, work experience,
in the interview,
interview, and the nature and timing ofthe
of the conviction.
conviction. A number of employers
employers
(n =13)
= 13) indicated
indicated that references and/or
andor work experience
experience were central considerations,

providing verification ofthe
of the applicant's
applicant’s reliability
reliability and work ethic.
ethic. Other employers
employers
21)
interaction, placing heavy
(n == 2
1) privileged the information gathered through personal interaction,

importance on their "first
“first impression"
impression” of the candidate, or "how
“how he comes
comes across in the
interview.” These employers
employers seemed to feel
feel confident that their ability
ability to read the body
interview."

•

125

language
language of an applicant
applicant to assess his trustworthiness
trustworthiness or ability
ability provided an effective
effective
86
screen.
screen.86

A final
final set of considerations
considerations among employers with ambivalent feelings
feelings about
hiring a drug felon concerned the nature and timing of the conviction. Seven employers
indicated that they would need more information
information about the circumstances
circumstances ofthe
of the crime
crime in
order to determine
determine if it would disqualify
disqualify the applicant.
applicant. According to one such employer,
employer,
"It
“It depends on the circumstances and the situation.
situation. If they got busted for selling drugs
drugs at

their last work I wouldn't
wouldn’t hire them."
them.” Another employer said his concern
concern would be, "if
“if

anyone, or theft.”
employers express
express a sentiment most
he has caused a hazard to anyone,
theft." These employers
specific circumstances of the conviction
conviction as
closely upheld by the law, considering the specific

•

they relate to workplace responsibilities. In addition
addition to the context of the cnme,
&me, a
number of employers
employers were most concerned about the time since the conviction.
conviction. Seven
employers explicitly stated that the primary factor in their decision to hire Chad was how
employers
conviction had taken place. It is unlikely that these employers
employers are aware
aware of
long ago the conviction
states that
the fact that case law based on the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act explicitly states
time since conviction
conviction cannot be used as a criterion
criterion for employment decisions
decisions related to
applicants with criminal
criminal records (see Appendix 3C).
3C). In any case, employers
employers seemed
applicants
concerned that recent releases would be more likely to wind up back in prison, even if

gainfully employed.
employed. These responses
consistent with the earlier finding
finding that
responses are consistent
employers were more likely to express a willingness
employers
willingness to hire an applicant when he had six
months of intervening work experience,
experience, relative to an applicant having just been released

•

86 As we will see in Chapter 7, however,
however, this
this form
form ofjudgment
of judgment can be highly susceptible
susceptible to serious
serious
cognitive
cognitive distortions.
distortions.

•

126
126

from
from prison. Time out provides a testing ground to assess
assess whether the applicant has gone

straight.
straight.
final group of employers in the sample
sample were those who reported a willingness
The final
to hire the hypothetical applicant
applicant with a felony drug conviction.
conviction. In support of their

position, a number of employers
employers emphasized his work-related qualifications
qualifications independent
of the criminal record (n=IO).
(n=lO). One such employer described him as an "otherwise
“otherwise
suitable
suitable candidate,"
candidate,” suggesting that the conviction
conviction was insufficient to disqualify
disqualifL him.
Another employer indicated he would hire such applicants "as
“as long as they can do the

job.”
employers seemed able to bracket consideration
consideration ofthe
of the conviction
conviction in their
job." These employers
irrelevant or inconsequential
inconsequential factor.
factor.
review of the applicant, treating it as a largely irrelevant

•

employers were more concerned with determining
determining "ifhe's
“if he’s the best
Rather these employers
candidate"
job," apart from their criminal
candidate” or "if
“if they are good in their job,”
criminal histories.
histories. Unlike a

criminal record a valid
majority of respondents, these employers did not seem to view a criminal
criterion for disqualification or even a useful
attributes; rather,
useful signal for more relevant attributes;
these employers
employers expressed
expressed confidence
confidence that the applicant's
applicant’s work-related qualifications
qualifications

provided sufficient information for their review.
review.
Finally, among those who were somewhat or very willing to hire the hypothetical

applicant, a sizeable
sizeable number of employers
employers emphasized the desire
desire to give Chad "a
“a second
applicant,
chance.” Four separate
separate employers
employers used these words explicitly, making remarks such as,
chance."
“If he is out, he has served his time and he deserves
deserves a second
second chance."
chance.” Other employers
"Ifhe
= 5)
5 ) used similar reasoning.
small company
(n =
reasoning. For example, one employer for a small

•

said, "I'd
“I’d have to talk to him, check his references, and evaluate
evaluate him, but not
warehouse said,
hold something
something like that against him. In this day and age it's
it’s easy to get a felony,
felony, and

•

127
workers." Another
there are a lot of good people sitting around who are excellent workers.”
employer from
from an equipment and parts business emphasized a similar theme: "I
“I don't
don’t

know that it would bother me too much [the
[the conviction],
conviction], but I would hire him to give him
an opportunity to get back on his feet,
feet, especially since
since he is actively looking for
employment.” These employers appeared sympathetic
sympathetic to the plight of an individual who
employment."
had made a serious
serious mistake but was actively
actively seeking to make amends.
amends. In contrast to
many of the employers
employers mentioned above,
above, for whom a conviction
conviction signaled
signaled deeply
deeply
entrenched
entrenched dispositional
dispositional or behavioral
behavioral problems, these employers
employers seemed to believe
believe that
a conviction was not a serious
serious indictment
indictment of overall worker quality;
quality; rather, these
employers
employers appeared to view the conviction
conviction as an unfortunate handicap,
handicap, for which the

•

applicant
applicant would benefit from
from special
special consideration.

considerations come into
Based on these responses, it is clear that a wide range of considerations
shaping employers'
employers’ views on ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. Far
Far from
from relying on consistent
consistent
play in shaping
criteria, these comments
comments suggest that employers
employers privilege very different
different modes of
criteria,
assessing risk or determining
determining qualifications
qualifications among
among applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records.
records. Of
assessing
course, we do
do not know to what extent
extent these
these differential
differential weightings
weightings influence
influence actual
actual
course,
decisions. Additional
Additional audit studies
studies would be needed to assess
assess the extentto
extent to which
hiring decisions.
variation in the applicant's
applicant’s profile or presentation affect
affect the distribution
distribution of hiring
hiring
variation
associated
outcomes. What these
these results do
do suggest,
suggest, however, is that a criminal
criminal record is associated
outcomes.
large constellation
constellation of work-related
work-related attitudes
attitudes and behaviors.
behaviors. While
While not all
with a large
employers view a criminal
criminal record as
as immediate
immediate grounds
grounds for
for disqualification,
disqualification, many
employers

•

expressed serious
serious concerns
concerns over the character,
character, behaviors,
behaviors, and work-related competence
competence
expressed
individuals with criminal
criminal backgrounds.
backgrounds. Though
Though many suggested
suggested that references,
references, work
of individuals

•

128

experience,
presentation would be key detenninants
experience, and personal presentation
determinants in the decision to
accept an applicant with a criminal
criminal record, it is not clear that the typically cursory review
of entry-level applicants
applicants affords
affords sufficient time or attention to this contextual
contextual infonnation
information
(see Chapters
Chapters 3 and 4).

Variation
Variation among Employers

Up until this point, I have considered
considered variation in employers' responses to different kinds
of applicants
applicants and to different aspects
aspects of applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records.
records. One remaining

question is, To what extent do the characteristics
characteristics of employers
employers influence
influence their attitudes
attitudes
question
about hiring ex-offenders?
information about the
ex-offenders? In order to address this question, I use infonnation

fiom the survey to predict attitudes
attitudes about hiring an applicant with a
employers gathered from

•

recent felony
felony drug conviction
conviction (the hypothetical applicant presented in the vignette).87
~ignette).'~
This analysis can shed some light on the attributes of employers that produce more or less

environments for ex-offenders
ex-offenders seeking
seeking work. Unfortunately, the sample size of
receptive environments
145) is too small
small for sophisticated
sophisticated analyses.
analyses."88 Instead,
Instead, I have entered sets
the survey (n == 145)
of variables separately in thematic blocks. The results ofthese
of these models can provide a
usehl
of the effects
effects of employer characteristics,
characteristics, and a guide for future
future
useful preliminary view ofthe
research using a larger sample.
sample.
series of logistic
logistic regressions
regressions predicting
Table 5.2 presents the results from a series
willingness to hire an applicant
applicant with a recent felony
felony drug conviction.
conviction. The first
first
expressed willingness

•

Patterns of results using the generic
generic question
question about "an applicant
applicant with a criminal
criminal record"
are largely
largely
87 Patterns
record"are
similar, though levels of significance
significance differ somewhat.
somewhat. Unfortunately,
Unfortunately, using the results from
fiom the audit
similar,
responded to a tester in the
dependent variable is not possible:
possible: the number of employers
employers who responded
study as the dependent
telephone survey
survey is too small to allow
criminal record condition in the audit study and who completed the telephone
multivariate analyses.
analyses.
for multivariate
deletion.
88 Missing data have been handled through listwise deletion.

•

129

set of variables
4, investigating
investigating variation by
variables follow-up
follow-up on the findings
findings from Chapter 4,
89
location
location and occupation.
o c ~ u p a t i o n .Though
~~
the distinction between city and suburban employers

was substantial
substantial with respect to the audit outcomes, this variable had no effect on
9o
employers'
employers’ reported attitudes.
attitudes.” Several specifications
specifications of the occupation variable were

estimated.
estimated. While other occupational categories
categories showed no significant difference from
one
one another,
another, the
the contrast between employers hiring for restaurant jobs relative to other
occupations
results, restaurant employers are
occupations is
is significant.
significant. As in the case
case of the audit results,
significantly
records, presumably due to the
significantlymore
more open to hiring applicants with criminal
criminal records,
low
low fixed
fixed pay and high rates
rates oftumover
of turnover in these jobs.
The
composition. These
The second
second set of variables
variables assess
assess the influence of employee composition.

•

results
results show
show that the racial composition (percent
(percent black or percent Hispanic) have little

affect on the
the attitudes
attitudes of employers
employers about hiring ex-offenders.
ex-offenders.”91 A similar set of
affect
of analyses
assessing
assessing the
the effect
effect of the racial composition ofthe
of the applicant pool or the racial

composition of customers
customers (not shown here) likewise shows no effects. The size of
composition
of the
establishment (number
(number of employees)
employees) is also
also not related to employer attitudes about exestablishment
offenders.
offenders.

The third
third set
set of variables,
variables, assessing
assessing prior experiences
experiences with ex-offenders, finds
The
finds that
employers who
who have
have hired an
an applicant
applicant with a criminal
criminal record over the past year are more
employers
likely to
to report
report favorable
favorable attitudes
attitudes towards
towards hiring the applicant in question (with a felony
likely
Additional tests
tests for
for industry found
found no
no significant
significant effects.
effects.
Additional
h s variable
variable does
does not have a significant
significant effect on employer attitudes.
attitudes.
Even entered
entered alone,
alone, this
Even
9’ Though
Though racial
racial composition
compositionhas
has little
little relationship
relationshp to attitudes,
attitudes, it does demonstrate a strong association
91
highly predictive
predictive of whether an employer
with outcomes.
outcomes. The
The percent
percent black in an establishment is highly
employer has
with
hued one
one or
or more
more employees
employees with criminal
criminal records
records over the past year, as reported on the survey.
survey. The effect
hired
of this
this variable
variable remains
remains significant
significant even
even after
after controlling
controlling for the percent of applicants
applicants who are black,
of
89
89

•

130
130

drug conviction).
conviction). Prior experiences
experiences are therefore consistent with employer attitudes,
attitudes,
unknown. Interestingly,
though the causal direction
direction of this relationship remains unknown.
Interestingly, net of

prior ex-offender
ex-offender hires, the quality of these hires shows little effect.
effect. Among the 48
percent of employers who had hired one or more ex-offenders over the past year, 81
81

percent report having had a very or somewhat positive experience with this employee.
employee.
Nevertheless, the quality of previous experiences
Nevertheless,
experiences has no effect on employer attitudes
attitudes net
of having had the experience
experience at alL
all. Likewise, the effect of having claimed a Work

Opportunity Tax Credit for hiring an ex-offender (representing 23 percent of employers
Opportunity
who had hired one or more ex-offenders in the past year) has no effect on attitudes
attitudes

towards hiring this group.
group.
towards

•

The fourth set of variables
variables consider the demographics
demographics of supervision. According

analyses, a minority owner is associated with a much greater openness
openness to
to this set of analyses,
hiring ex-offenders, suggesting
suggesting that the race ofthe
of the owner sets of strong tone for the
hiring policies ofthe
of the company.
company. Net ofthe
of the race ofthe
of the owner,
owner, the race and gender of the
hiring manager has little effect on expressed attitudes.
attitudes.
variables consider the hiring screens
screens used by employers.
employers.
The fifth set of variables
According to this analysis, employers
employers who perform official
oficial criminal
criminal background checks
significantly less willing to hire applicants
applicants with drug felonies.
felonies. Indeed,
Indeed, it is not
are significantly
surprising that employers
employers who are most reluctant to hire ex-offenders take precautionary
surprising
precautionary
measures by screening
screening applicants
applicants in advance.
advance. Net of this screen,
screen, the use of drug tests or
measures
aptitude/personalitytests has no relationship
aptitude/personality
relationship to employer attitudes.

•

applicant pool-and
correspondingly higher
suggesting that this is not merely the composition of the applicant
pool-and correspondingly
applicants with criminal records-that
records-that drive the results.
results.
proportions
proportions of applicants

•

131

ofjob
requirements. Employers for jobs involving
involving
Finally, I consider the effects of
job requirements.
merchandise are not
the handling of cash, customer service,
service, or the handling of expensive merchandise

more or less likely
likely to consider hiring a drug offender. In a separate
separate model estimating
estimating the
ofthese
variables on the expressed likelihood
likelihood of hiring a property offender,
effects of
effects
these variables
offender, by
effect. This
contrast, the requirement of handling cash does show a significant negative effect.
suggests
suggests that employers
employers are at least somewhat sensitive
sensitive about the direct relationship
relationship
between offense type and job requirements,
requirements, apart from
from the general wariness of applicants
applicants
with criminal backgrounds.
backgrounds.
While the results of these analyses provide only tentative findings
findings (given the
92
small sample sizes),
The fact that
sizes), they are suggestive
suggestive of some interesting
interesting patterns.
patterns.92

•

minority
minority owners stand out as
as so strongly
strongly willing to take a chance on drug offenders
offenders
93
suggests
suggests that these employers
employers are far more sympathetic
sympathetic to the problems of drug use.
use.93

Consistent with this finding,
finding, public opinion
opinion surveys
surveys show that blacks are far more likely
to support
support the decriminalization of drugs
drugs and to promote alternatives
alternatives to incarceration for
drug
drug offenders
offenders than are
are whites
whites (Gallup
(Gallup Poll, cited in Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2000a).
2000a).
Given these views,
views, it is not surprising
surprising that black owners
owners are less
less likely to hold a drug
drug
conviction against
against an individual
individual seeking
seeking work.
work. Among employers
employers more generally,
generally, these

findings suggest a fairly
fairly high level
level of consistency
consistency between reported attitudes
attitudes and hiring
hiring
findings
practices: those who have hired an ex-offender
ex-offender over the past year express
express a significantly
significantly
practices:

•

92 Significant
Significant variables
variables retain their effects
effects in a model
model which
which combines
combines each
each of them.
them, with the exception
exceptionof
92
tlus full
full model.
(restaurant versus
versus other)
other) which is
is no longer
longer significant
significant in this
occupation (restaurant
93
is also
also the case
case that the minority employers
employers in this
this sample
sample were distributed somewhat differently
differently
93 It is
across occupations
occupationsrelative
relative to the overall
overall sample.
sample. Minority
Minority employers
employers were
were more
more likely to be hiring for
for
across
less likely to be hiring for
for sales
sales positions.
positions. Controlling
Controlling for
for occupation,
occupation, however,
however, has little
little
restaurant jobs and less
the estimated
estimated effect of minority ownership
ownership on willingness to hire a drug
drug felon.
felon. In these
these models,
models,
effect on the
the coefficient
coefficient remains
remains large
large and
and statistically
statistically significant.
significant.
the

•

132
132

willingness to hire such applicants
future. Those who screen applicants
greater willingness
applicants in the future.
applicants for
criminal
applicants from the
criminal records, by contrast, are committed to weeding out these applicants

hiring pool and, likewise,
likewise, express
express less favorable
favorable attitudes
attitudes towards hiring drug felons.
felons.
analyses in no way establish causal relationships
relationships between the characteristics
characteristics
While these analyses
of employers
attitudes, they provide some interesting
interesting insight into the differences
employers and their attitudes,
differences
across establishments
establishments that are associated
associated with more and less openness
openness to hiring exoffenders. Additional
Additional research is needed to further
further pursue these initial
initial findings,
findings, and to
allow for a more complex
complex specification
specification ofthese
of these models.
models.
Conclusion
Conclusion

•

This chapter
chapter aimed to investigate
investigate the hiring of ex-offenders
ex-offenders from
from the perspective
perspective of
employers.
employers. These
These results confirm that employers
employers are very reluctant to hire ex-offenders,
ex-offenders,
even relative to applicants
applicants with limited educational
educational attainment
attainment or unstable
unstable work histories.
histories.
And yet Milwaukee employers
employers are not uniquely punitive
punitive in this respect; relative to
employers
employers in other metropolitan areas,
areas, Milwaukee
Milwaukee employers
employers demonstrate
demonstrate a substantially
substantially
greater
greater openness
openness to hiring
hiring ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. If these
these expressed attitudes
attitudes are
are indicative
indicative of
hiring behaviors,
behaviors, then the plight of ex-offenders
ex-offenders in other cities
cities may be substantially
substantially
worse.
worse.

The survey
survey results
results further
further indicate
indicate substantial
substantial heterogeneity within the aggregate
aggregate
The
category of "criminal
“criminal record."
record.” Employers
Employers are
are far
far more reluctant to hire individuals
individuals who
category
crimes relative
relative to drug offenses.
offenses. Given the
have been convicted of property or violent crimes

•

dramatic effects
effects of a criminal
criminal record demonstrated
demonstrated in the audit study (testing
(testing a drug
dramatic

•

133
felony),
of
felony), we can expect
expect that the effects
effects could have only been stronger had another type of
crime
crime been chosen.
chosen.
Looking
applicants depending on the
Looking at the range of responses
responses employers
employers have to applicants
specifics oftheir
ofthe
criminal sanction is helpfbl
helpful in
of their criminal history orthe
or the context of
the criminal
thinking
facilitate prisoner re-entry into the workforce.
thinking about
about the ways in which we might facilitate
While
While for
for violent offenders
offenders alternatives
alternatives to incarceration are unlikely to become a
plausible
plausible strategy,
strategy, for drug offenders
offenders such programs have shown potential to be highly
effective
sanctions can help not only to assist
(RAND, 1994).
1994). Ifwell-designed
If well-designed criminal sanctions
effective (RAND,
offenders
offenders in overcoming addictions
addictions but also
also to make them more employable following
their release,
ex-offender's economic
release, their long-term
long-term effectiveness
effectiveness (with respect to an ex-offender’s

•

self-sufficiency
self-sufficiency and desistance
desistance from
fiom crime)
crime) could be substantially enhanced. Likewise,
for
for all
all offenders,
offenders, assistance
assistance in the transition to first-work
first-work after release may have lasting
effects
effects for
for subsequent
subsequent employment opportunities.
opportunities. Helping offenders make it through

their first
first year out ofprison
of prison is of critical importance;
importance; and yet current parole systems are
their
equipped to offer meaningful assistance
assistance or supervision
poorly equipped
supervision during this time (Dickey,
1988; Petersilia,
Petersilia, 1999).
1999). A shift in resources
resources from
fiom incapacitation to assistance
1988;
assistance with re-

entry has the potential to be a very worthwhile
worthwhile investment.
investment.
Investigating the attitudes
attitudes ofthis
of this group provides a useful perspective on how exInvestigating
offenders are perceived
perceived by potential
potential employers.
employers. And yet, of
the small body of
offenders
ofthe
of research
exists on the
the barriers
barriers to employment for ex-offenders,
ex-offenders, a majority has relied on survey
that exists
data for
for a measure
measure of demand-side processes
processes (Holzer,
(Holzer, 1996;
1996; Holzer et al.,
data
aI., 2002; Husley,

•

1990; Jensen
Jensen &
& Giegold,
Giegold, 1976.
1976. There is virtually no information about how the self1990;

reported attitudes
attitudes measured on employer surveys
surveys correspond to actual hiring decisions.
reported

•

134
Fortunately, matching the present survey data with the outcomes of
ofthe
Fortunately,
the audit study allows
ofthese
measures. The following
following chapter presents the
theresults
for a comparison of
these measures.
results from
comparisons.
these comparisons.

•

135
135

Table 5.1. Stated Reason for Hiring Decision

Reason

Percent

Frequency
Frequency

19.5
4.7
4.7
3.4
6.7

29
7
7
5
10
10

Concerns
Concerns over Behavior
Concerns
Concerns over drug
drug use
Drug test would be required
Signs of rehabilitation
Signs
Others
Others would be influenced
influenced or harmed

7.4
4.0
3.4

11
11
6
5

Concerns
Concerns over Character
Character
Trust,
Trust, honesty
Reliability
Reliability

12.8
7.4
5.4

19
11
11
8

Against Regulations
Against
Against company policy
Conviction
Convictionjob relevant

8.1

Conviction
Conviction itself
itself

34.9
8.7
14.1
14.1
4.7
2.7
4.7

52
13
13
21
21
7
4
7

Depends on Other Factors
Depends
Depends on references
references and/or
andor work experience
experience
Depends
Depends on appearance,
appearance,presentation, attitude,
attitude, personality
Depends
Depends on nature of conviction
conviction
Depends
Depends on position
Depends
Depends on timing
timing of conviction
conviction

12.7
6.7
6.0

19
10
10

Not Concerned about Criminal Record

Otherwise
Otherwise suitable
suitable candidate
candidate
Second
Second chance
chance

4.7

Other

100%

N=149
N=
149

Total

•

136

Regression Predicting
Predicting Willingness to Hire Applicant with Drug Felony
Table 5.2. Logistic Regression
Variable Blocks
Blocks (entered
(entered separately)
separately)

Err.
Std. Err.

Location and Occupation
Occupation
City
Restaurant
Restaurant

0.28
0.28
0.74
0.74

0.33
0.33
0.38
0.38 *

Composition
Composition of workplace
workplace
black
Percent black
Percent Hispanic
Number of
of employees

0.24
0.24
0.99
0.99
0.00
0.00

0.81
0.81
1.19
1.19
0.00
0.00

0.95
0.95
0.67
0.67
-0.37
-0.37

0.55
0.55 *
0.61
0.61
0.76
0.76

1.41
1.41
1.67
1.67
0.03
0.03

.79
.79 *
1.07
1.07
0.36
0.36

Hiring
Hiring screens
Official
Official criminal
criminal background
background check
Drug test
Drug
Aptitude/personality test
Aptitude/personality

-0.79
-0.79
-0.41
-0.41
0.04
0.04

0.38
0.38 **

0.38
0.38
0.40
0.40

Job requirements
requirements
Handling
Handling cash
cash
Customer service
Handling
Handling expensive
expensive merchandise
merchandise

0.06
0.06
-0.35
-0.35
0.13
0.13

0.41
0.41
0.47
0.47
0.37
0.37

Experience with
with hiring ex-offenders
Hired
Hired ex-offender in
in past year
Positive
Positive experience
experience with ex-offender employees
employees
Received
Received tax credit for hiring
hiring ex-offenders

•

Coef.
Coef.

Demographics
Demographics of supervision
supervision
Minority
Minority owned
owned company
Black manager
Female
Female manager

• pc.10,
p<.10,··
p<.05, •••
** pc.05,
*** p<.01
pc.01

•

137

Appendix
Appendix 5A.
5A. Checks
Checks for Bias
Bias in
in Sample
Sample Distribution
Distribution
Table SA1. Distribution of Industries by Response Category

Construction
Construction
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Transportation,
Transportation, communication
Wholesale
Wholesale trade
trade
Retail
Retail trade
trade
Finance,
Finance, insurance
insurance &
& real
real estate
estate
Services
Services
Total
Total

Percent of
of
Respondents
Respondents
1.13
1.13
12.43
12.43
5.08
5.08
8.47
8.47
49.72
49.72
1.69
1.69
21.47
21.47
n = 177
177

Percent
of
Percent of
Non-respondents
Non-respondents
0.72
0.72
15.83
15.83
4.32
4.32
7.91
7.91
46.76
46.76
5.04
5.04
19.42
19.42
n=
= 139
139

Total
0.95
0.95
13.92
13.92
4.75
4.75
8.23
8.23
48.42
48.42
3.16
3.16
20.57
20.57
316
n = 316

Note:
describe
Note: Whenever
Whenever possible,
possible, representatives
representatives for employers
employers who refused
refused participation
participationwere asked
asked to describe
the
service of their company
company for the
the purpose
purpose of coding
coding industry among
among non-respondents.
the main
main product
productor service

TableSA2.
Table 5A2. Distribution
Distribution of Occupations
Occupations by Response·
Response Category

•

restaurant
restaurant
laborer/warehouse/dri
laborer/warehouse/dri
production/operators
production/operators
sales
sales
service
service
clericaVmanagerial
clerical/managerial
Total
Total

Percent of
Respondents
Respondents
29.94
29.94
19.77
19.77
1 1.86
11.86
20.90
20.90
9.60
9.60
7.91
7.91
n = 177
n=177

Percent
Percent of
Non-respondents
Non-respondents
17.26
17.26
32.74
32.74
1 1.90
11.90
16.07
16.07
1 1.90
11.90
10.12
10.12
n = 173
n=173

Total
23.77
23.77
26.09
26.09
11.88
11.88
18.55
18.55
10.72
10.72
8.99
8.99
n = 350
350

Table 5A3. Distribution
Distribution across
across Locations by Response
Response Category
TableSA3.

City
City
Suburb
Suburb
Total
Total

Percent of
Percent
Non-respondents
65.70
65.70
34.30
34.30
173
n = 173

Percent of
Respondents
Respondents
56.50
56.50
43.50
43.50
n = 177
177

Total

61.03
61.03
38.97
38.97
n = 350
350

Table SA4.
5A4. Distribution
Distribution of Call-Backs
Call-Backs by Response
Response Category
Table

Call-back
Call-back
No
No call-back
call-back
Total
Total

Percent of
Non-respondents
24.28
24.28
75.72
75.72
173
n = 173

Percent of
of
Respondents
Respondents
24.29
24.29
75.71
75.71
n = 177
177

Total
75.71
75.71
24.29
24.29
n=
= 350
350

•

138
Appendix
Appendix 5B

One
One concern
concern about
about the
the sample
sample used for the present survey is that
that it does not represent a
truly random sample
sample of employers
employers in Milwaukee.
Milwaukee. First, sample restrictions relevant to
the
of the labor
the audit
audit study
study were
were imposed in such
such a way as to exclude particular sectors of
force.
force. Most importantly, employers
employers for all occupations in the health care industry,
involving
involving care
care of children or the elderly, and in the public sector were excluded due to
specific
specific legal
legal restrictions
restrictions on the hiring of ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. Also, only employers who
advertised in the main metropolitan
metropolitan newspaper and/or an internet job listing were
of sample restrictions).
included
discussion of
included (see
(see Appendix 3A for a more extensive discussion

•

Second,
Second, the
the response
response rate
rate for
for the survey
survey was lower than optimal, leading to concerns over
potential
potential sampling
sampling bias.

assess the extent to which this sample can represent Milwaukee
. In order to assess
employers more generally,
generally, I compared particular items from the present survey to
employers
identical items included in a survey of Milwaukee employers in 1999 (Holzer &
& Stoll,
identical
2001). The earlier Milwaukee
Milwaukee survey included a stratified random sample of
of all
2001).

Milwaukee employers
employers drawn primarily from telephone directories;
Milwaukee
directories; before inclusion,
employers were screened
screened to select for those who had hired someone into a job not
employers
requiring a college
college degree in the past year. The sample thus provides more
requiring
comprehensive coverage
coverage of the population of Milwaukee employers
employers (who have hired
comprehensive
recently) than does the present sample.
recently)
sample. Two other differences,
differences, however, should also be
noted between the earlier and the present Milwaukee surveys:
surveys: The earlier survey included

•

employers in Ozaukee county,
county, Washington county, Waukesha county, and Milwaukee
employers

•

139

county.
county. By contrast,
contrast, the present study
study included employers only in Waukesha and
Milwaukee.
employers in suburban areas far
Milwaukee. The earlier survey thus included many more employers
from
ofthe
Milwaukee metropolitan area. Second,
from the central
central city and broader coverage
coverage of
the Milwaukee
the earlier sample
establishments to
sample was stratified
stratified by firm size,
size, oversampling large establishments
roughly
roughly correspond
correspond to the number of workers hired. To the extent that large firms have
different
different characteristics
characteristics from
from smaller ones, the two surveys
surveys will differ by design.
The
The earlier survey
survey was intended to gauge employer's
employer’s willingness to hire welfare
recipients;
company's
recipients; fortunately,
fortunately, it additionally
additionally included general
general questions
questions about the company’s
hiring
survey.
hiring policies
policies and
and preferences that can be used to compare
compare to the present survey.

surveys are presented in the table below. As
Descriptive statistics
statistics for
for the two surveys
Descriptive

•

would
would be expected,
expected, the
the Holzer &
& Stoll
Stoll sample includes on average larger establishments
with
with higher
higher numbers
numbers of vacancies
vacancies relative
relative to the present sample:
sample. Also related to firm

size, aa higher
higher proportion of workers
workers within the Holzer &
& Stoll survey are unionized
size,

firms in both
relative to
to the
the present study.
study. Interestingly,
Interestingly, an identical proportion of firms
relative
samples are
are minority-owned.
minority-owned.
samples
Despite these
these vast differences
differences in size and associated characteristics,
characteristics, the attitudes
Despite
attitudes
expressed by both samples
samples of employers
employers regarding their willingness
willingness to hire marginalized
expressed
workers was
was strikingly
strikingly similar.
similar. Most relevant,
relevant, in both samples
samples 49 percent of employers
workers
indicated aa willingness
willingness to
to accept
accept an
an applicant
applicant with a criminal
criminal record,
record, relative
relative to 51
51
indicated
who would not.
not. Distributions
Distributions of responses concerning
concerning other applicant types also
percent who
corresponded closely
closely across
across surveys.
surveys.
corresponded

•

Though the
the present
present sample
sample differs
differs in key respects from
from Holzer and Stoll's
Stoll’s (2001)
(2001)
Though
stratifiedrandom
random sample
sample of employers
employers in the Milwaukee
Milwaukee metropolitan area,
area, the
stratified

•

140

of interest provides some reassurance concerning the
consistency across key items of
generalizability of
of these findings.
findings. Given the constraints
constraints necessitated by the audit study,
study,
generalizability
nevertheless provides a fairly effective representation of
ofthe
of
this sample nevertheless
the attitudes of
Milwaukee employers more generally.
generally.
Milwaukee

Table 5B1. Comparisons across Two Milwaukee Surveys
Variable

Pager 2002

Holzer & Stoll 2001

Number of employees
Number of vacancies
% Minority owned
% Unionized

66.95
4.48
8.40
9.30

180.47
7.79
8.41
15.19

Industry
% Manufacturing
% Retail trade
% Services
% Other industry

12.43
49.72
21.47
16.38

20.00
21.oo
39.00
20.00

Hire welfare recipient
Definitely/probablywould
Definitely/probably not

97.4
2.60

96.62
3.37

Hire applicant with GED
Definitely/probably would
Definitely/probably not

98.8
1.20

97.23
2.77

Hire applicant with criminal record
Definitely/probablywould
Definitely/probably not

49.20
50.80

Hire applicant unemployed >1 year
Definitely/probablywould
Definitely/probably not

70.90
2.90

80.15
19.86

Hire applicant with unstable work history
Definitely/probablywould
Definitely/probably not

60.50
39.50

67.49
32.51

•

141
141
Appendix 5C. Descriptive Statistics of Milwaukee Employers
Employer Characteristics
Characteristics
Number of Employees
Employees
Use
Use temporary employees
Unionized
Unionized employees (1
(1=yes)
=yes)
Minority
Minority owned
Distance
Distance from public transportation
transportation (tenths
(tenths of miles)
miles)
Minutes to work using
using public transportation
Turnover rate
rate (# employees who left in
in past yr/# current employees)
Vacancy rate
rate (# vacancies/# employees)
Employee
Employee composition
composition
%White
%
White
%
% Black
%
% Hispanic
Applicant composition
composition
%White
%
White
%
% Black
%
% Hispanic
Customer composition
composition
%
White
%White
% Black
Black
%
YOHispanic
Hispanic

Std.Dev.
Dev.
Mean Std.
90.35
90.35

66.66
66.66
21.50
21.50
9.30
9.30
8.40
8.40
9.62
9.62
27.35
27.35
0.46
0.46
0.53
0.53

23.93
23.93
19.87
19.87
0.64
0.64
0.50
0.50

67.66
67.66
17.70
17.70
12.07
12.07

29.12
29.12
23.40
23.40
16.73
16.73

56.25
56.25
26.43
26.43
13.99
13.99

28.13
28.13
28.62
28.62
13.92
13.92

70.88
70.88
18.69
18.69
7.82
7.82

23.98
23.98
18.24
18.24
7.71
7.71

2.15
2.15

4.36
4.36

25.93
25.93
8.20
8.20
0.28
0.28

38.32
38.32
12.65
12.65 .’
0.45
0.45

Recruiting and Screening Practices
Recruitment
Recruitment time (weeks)
(weeks)
Recruitment
Recruitment method
method
# applicants for last position
position
# applicants interviewed
interviewed for last position
position
Require
Require tests (1
(1=yes)
Verify references
references
always
sometimes
never
Drug
Drug test
always
Sometimes
Sometimes
Never
%
o/o applicants testing
testing positive
positive for drugs
% asking
asking criminal
criminal background
background question
question on
on application
self-reporting criminal
criminal record
record
% applicants self-reporting
performing criminal
criminal background
background check
% performing
Always
Sometimes
Sometimes
Never
% applicants found
found to
to have criminal
criminal background
background
N

60.80
60.80
31.30
31.30
8.00
8.00
32.90
32.90
7.50
7.50
59.50
59.50
7.27
7.27
79.40
79.40
11.60
11.60

20.98
20.98

36.30
36.30
26.30
26.30
37.40
37.40
14.37
14.37

23.38
23.38

177
177

16.22
16.22

•

142
142

Appendix 5D
Appendix5D
Similar to the trends
trends for
for four
four cities
cities reported
reported above
above (Holzer
(Holzer &
& Stoll,
Stoll, 2001), the results
results
Similar
from the Multi-City
Multi-City Study
Study of Urban Inequality
Inequality (MCSUI)
(MCSUI) show
show Milwaukee
Milwaukee employers
employers to
from
favorable attitudes
attitudes towards
towards applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records
records relative
relative to
report more favorable
employers in other metropolitan
metropolitan areas.
areas. Because
Because these
these data
data are
are less
less recent, however,
however,
employers
1992 and 1994), they provide a less
less adequate
adequate comparison to the
(collected between 1992

sample.
present sample.

---e:

Willingness to Accept Applicant with
with a Criminal
Criminal Record,
Record,
Willingness
Metropolitan/vea
Area
by Metropolitan

•

o probably

• definitely

51
41

o
yes
L-_.

MC
aukee
Mlwaukee

yes

Atlanta
Atlanta
"

yes

Boston
Boston

yes

Detroit
Detroit

Los Angeles
Angeles
__..__I

Source:
Source: Holzer, 1996

yes

•

143

Chapter
Chapter 6. Walking the Talk?
Talk?
What Employers Say Versus What They Do

•

144
144

Walking
Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do
In 1930,
1930, Richard LaPiere,
LaPiere, a Stanford
Stanford professor, traveled twice across the country by car
with a young Chinese student and his wife. The purpose of the trip, unbeknownst to his
8

proprietors to the
travel companions, was to assess
assess the reactions of hotel and restaurant proprietors
presence of Chinese customers. During the course of251
of 25 1 visits to hotels, auto
auto camps,
restaurants,
restaurants, and cafes,
cafes, only once were they refused service.
service. Six months later, LaPiere

mailed a survey to each ofthe
of the proprietors, in which one ofthe
of the questions
questions asked,
asked, "Will
“Will you
accept members of the Chinese race as guests in your establishment?"
establishment?” Of the 128
completed surveys, more than 90 percent of respondents
respondents indicated unequivocal refusa1.
r e f l ~ s94
al.~~

•

The discrepancy
discrepancy between these prioprietors'
prioprietors’ responses to the surveys
surveys and their actual
proprietors expressed
behavior is indeed striking:
striking: While nearly none of the proprietors
expressed a willingness

customers, virtually all them did so when confronted
to accept the patronage of Chinese customers,
situation. If we were to make generalizations
generalizations based on either the survey results
with the situation.
different views on the level of racial
or the field study alone, we would develop radically different
history. 95
hostility towards
towards the Chinese at that time in hist01-y.’~

LaPiere’s study provides a much-needed reality check for researchers who rely on
LaPiere's
measures of prejudice or discrimination.
discrimination. Unfortunately,
Unfortunately, there have been
survey data for measures

additional 128
128 establishments
establishments in similar areas
areas that had not been visited by
The survey was also sent to an additional
assure that their visit had not contaminated responses.
the research team to assure
responses. A similar pattern of responses
responses
was found
found among this supplementary
supplementary sample.
sample.
95 While the LaPiere
LaPiere study finds stronger
stronger signs of racial discrimination
discrimination in self-reports
self-reports than actual
actual
9S
behaviors,
comparisons of racial attitudes
attitudes and behaviors
behaviors have found
found the reverse.
reverse. See Crosby
Crosby et
behaviors, most recent comparisons
(1980) for a review of the literature
literature (indirectly)
(indirectly) comparing
comparing the results
results of survey research with behavioral
al. (1980)
al.
authors conclude
conclude that racism is far more
discrimination. In this review, the authors
studies of racial prejudice and discrimination.
prevalent than what would be expected based on survey
survey research of racial attitudes.
attitudes.
94

•

145

very
very few
few efforts
efforts to
to provide
provide the
the kind of comparison offered in LaPierre's
LaPierre’s study.96 Survey
results
results are
are often
often accepted
accepted as
as an
an adequate
adequate reflection of reality, with little effort to validate
these
these assumptions.
assumptions. The
The present chapter seeks
seeks to make headway in this discussion,
discussion,
following
following up
up on
on the
the insights
insights provided by LaPiere more than 70 years ago.
ago. Fortunately,
the
the present study
study design
design allows
allows for a direct
direct comparison of employers'
employers’ declared
preferences
preferences and
and policies
policies for
for hiring applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records with their actual
performance
performance in
in real
real emplOYment
employment settings.
settings. The two measures
measures of employer behavior
resulting
resulting from
from the
the audit
audit study
study include
include the frequency
frequency of reference checks
checks and the
frequency
frequency of call-backs.
call-backs. Each of these outcomes,
outcomes, in combination
combination with the survey data,
offers
offers aa direct
direct assessment
assessment of the correspondence
correspondencebetween survey reports and actual hiring

•

practices.
this chapter,
chapter, I compare
compare the survey
survey and audit results, considering varying
practices. In this

assumptions about
about the
the measure of behavior that most closely reflects the self-report. I
assumptions
discuss several
several theoretical models which attempt to reconcile the discrepancy
then discuss
two measures
measures of hiring preferences.
preferences.
between these two
discussion ofthe
of the results, a comment on measurement should
Before turning to a discussion
made. While
While the self-reports obtained from social
social surveys
surveys are typically referred
to as
be made.
referredto

•

96 In the
the past 70
70 years since
since LaPiere's
LaPiere’s classic
classic study,
study, dozens of investigations of
96
of the attitude-behavior (A-B)
relationship have been carried
camed out (though these numbers pale in comparison to the thousands of
relationship
of surveys
have been
been conducted
conducted during
during this time with no behavioral verification). What is most striking about this
that have
literature is
is the
the wide
wide range
range of correlations
correlations reported
reported across different studies: Both Deutscher (1
966) and
literature
(1966)
(1969), for
for example,
example, review a large number of studies that find virtually no relationship between
Wicker (1969),
attitudes and
and behaviors.
behaviors. Schuman and Johnson (1976) also discuss a number of
attitudes
of notable studies in which a
zero or negative
negative correlation
correlation between attitudes
attitudes and behaviors was found; in their review, however, they
zero
majority of research on the A-B relationship finds a moderate relationship.
conclude that a majority
conclude
relationship. On each
extreme, correlations
correlations tend to be close
close to zero among
among A-B assessments of racial attitudes
attitudes and of
of transient
extreme,
economic transactions
transactions and above .85 among studies of voting behavior; most others
others' fall somewhere in
economic
between (Schuman &
& Johnson,
Johnson, 1976).
1976). The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from this literature is
exists in the
that no simple
simple formula
formula can describe
describe the A-B relationship;
relationship; rather, tremendous variation
variationexists
attitudes and their associated behaviors and assumptions about their correspondence
measurement of attitudes
should be reviewed with caution.
caution.
should

•

146
97

attitudes, this concept remains somewhat ambiguous.97
ambiguous. It is important to remember,
attitudes,
attitudes is necessarily mediated by the survey
however, that the measurement of attitudes
"expressed attitude”
attitude"
instrument. It is thus impossible to assess the extent to which an “expressed
instrument.
question does or does not correspond to the
measured by a forced-choice survey question
respondent's true underlying attitudes.
attitudes. There is, for example, substantial evidence
evidence that
respondent’s

the context and wording of survey questions
questions can have substantial effects
effects on their
outcomes (Mangione et aI.,
al., 1992;
1992; Fowler,
Fowler, 1995).
1995). In the context ofthe
of the survey
survey questions
questions
analyzed here, I discuss
discuss several ways in which the nature of the survey question may in .
itself result in discrepancies
behavior. It is
discrepancies between measured "attitudes"
“attitudes” and actual behavior.
important to keep in mind that the empirical discussion
discussion of attitudes
attitudes cannot be separated
separated

•

from
fiom the influences
influences ofthe
of the survey
survey method by which they are measured.
Reference Checks
Checb

In the audit study,
study, reference
reference checks
checks were included as
as an outcome
outcome variable with the

expectation that, particularly
particularly for
for applicants
applicants with questionable
questionable background characteristics,
characteristics,
expectation
references would playa
play a key role in the hiring
hiring decisions
decisions of employers.
employers. Indeed,
Indeed, throughout
references
the survey,
survey, employers
employers emphasized
emphasized the importance
importance of checking references
references in the screening
screening
entry-level applicants.
applicants. In an early section
section of the survey
survey assessing
assessing general
general hiring
hiring
of entry-level
61 percent of employers
employers said
said that they "always"
“always” check references,
references, with an
practices, 61
practices,

additional 31
3 1 percent reporting
reporting that
that they "sometimes"
“sometimes” do.
do. A vast majority
majority of employers,
employers,
additional
therefore, claim
claim to
to check
check references
references when hiring
hiring for
for non-college
non-college jobs.
jobs. Beyond their
therefore,

•

97 The
The defInition
definition of attitudes
attitudesincludes
includes an
an expansive
expansive array
array of expressions:
expressions: Attitudes
Attitudes are
are typically
typically defIned
defined as
as
97
an affective
affective component,
component, an
an evaluative
evaluative component,
component, and
and a behavioral
behavioral component
component (Schuman,
(Schuman,
consisting of an
consisting
1995). The
The present
present research
research focuses
focuses primarily
primarily on
on the
the behavioral
behavioral intentions
intentions expressed
expressed by employers
employers as
as an
an
1995).

•

147
general
especially important
general use
use in screening
screening applicants,
applicants, references appeared to play an especially
role
role in
in the
the evaluation
evaluation of applicants
applicants with criminal records, according
according to open-ended survey
responses.
responses. At least
least 10
10 employers
employers explicitly mentioned references as a factor in deciding
whether
whether or not to hire an applicant with a felony
felony drug conviction.
conviction. According to an
employer
employer for
for a regional
regional grocery
grocery chain,
chain, hiring the applicant would "depend
“depend on his
personal
personal references,
references, which
which are
are extremely important."
important.” Another employer cited references
as
as the
the sole
sole criteria
criteria by which
which he would decide
decide whether or not to hire the applicant. Based
on
on these
these responses,
responses, it seems
seems that references
references playa
play a key role in vouching for an applicant
with
with questionable
questionable background characteristics.
characteristics.

yet, the actual
actual outcome
outcome of the audit study revealed strikingly
strikingly different results.
And yet,

•

Voice
Of
Voice mail
mail boxes
boxes were set up for
for testers'
testers’ references to record calls from employers. Of
the
the 350
350 audits
audits completed,
completed, however,
however, only four
four separate
separate employers
employers (or one percent) called

to check
check references.
references. Moreover, testers
testers in the criminal
criminal record condition were no more
to
likely to
to have
have their references
references checked than were those in the non-criminal record
likely
condition. This
This finding
finding stands
stands in stark contrast to the reported practices of
condition.
of this same
group of employers.
employers.
group
One possibility,
possibility, of course,
course, is that employers
employers do not check references until later in
One
the hiring
hiring process.
process. The
The audit study
study followed
followed testers
testers only through the first stage of
of the
the
employment process,
process, which
which may have preceded the point at which most employers check
employment
references. Indeed
Indeed according
according to survey
survey responses, roughly 60 percent of employers
employers who
references.
check references
references do
do not do
do so
so until after the interview.
interview. Nevertheless,
check
Nevertheless, 14 percent of
of

•

indicator of their
their attitudes
attitudes about
about ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. Behavioral intentions
intentions are considered to be those measures of
indicator
attitudesthat
that should
should most
most closely
closely correspond
correspond to observed
observed behavior (Fishbein
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
attitudes

•

148
148

employers
employers claim
claim to check references
references before
before conducting
conducting interviews
interviews (with an additional
additional 23
23
percent saying "it
“it varies")
varies”) relative
relative to the one
one percent of employers
employers who
who actually
actually checked
during
during the course
course ofthe
of the audit
audit study.
study.
Perhaps
Perhaps even employers
employers who check references
references before conducting interviews
interviews may
limit their calls to a selected pool of applicants.
applicants. If employers
employers only call
call references
references for
those candidates
candidates that they have already decided to interview,
interview, a much smaller
smaller number of
reference checks
checks would be expected.
expected. Using call-backs
call-backs as an indicator
indicator of intention
intention to
interview,
interview, we can calculate the number of reference
reference checks
checks as a percentage
percentage of call-

4.7 percent, comes closer to approaching
approaching the 14 percent of
bbacks.
a c k ~98. ~This
* figure,
figure, 4.7
employers
references before conducting interviews, though it remains
employers who claim to check references
remains

•

far lower than the self-reports.
self-reports. Employers
Employers thus tend to overstate
overstate the prevalence of this

hiring practice by a substantial
substantial margin.
margin. Though references are emphasized by employers
as a critical aspect of the review process, particularly for those with criminal
criminal records, it

seems that, in practice, references are rarely used in this early-and
early-.-and perhaps most
critical-stage
the hiring process.
critical-stage of
ofthe
process.
ofthe
The case of reference checks provides a clear example of
the errors in reporting of

basic employment
emplOYment practices. While it is unlikely that employers actively attempt to
conceal their actual practices, problems of
of recall and variability of
of events can easily lead
to ddistortion.
i ~ t o r t i o99n .What
~ ~ we can learn about hiring practices more generally from survey

’*

•
0

98 In this calculation,
calculation, each employer is counted only once, even if
if they made call-backs to both testers.
testers.
The total number of
of employers who made one or more call-backs is 85.
99
99 The problem of
of measurement error is not restricted to survey questions.
questions. The audit study includes only a
one-time measure of
of employer behavior and is thus likewise susceptible to error. Measurement error in one
or both indicators would attenuate the association, independent of
of any real divergence of
of outcomes
(Schuman &Johnson,
& Johnson, 1976).

•

149
149

research should be qualified by the potentially substantial
substantial disparities
disparities between self-reports
self-reports
and behavioral outcomes,
outcomes, as measured here.
here.

Hiring Intentions
References,
References, of course,
course, represent only a means to an end.
end. The larger concern in this
process is the actual
actual hiring outcomes
outcomes of ex-offenders,
ex-offenders, whatever procedures
procedures are used to get
to this point. Once again,
again, the combination
combination of data from
from the survey and the audit allows
allows
us to compare the extent to which employers
employers accurately
accurately estimate and/or report their
likelihood
likelihood of hiring particular applicants.
applicants.

The vignette (discussed in the previous chapter) was expressly
expressly designed to

•

correspond closely to the profile of testers in the audit study.
study. Chad, the hypothetical
applicant,
education, experience, and personal
applicant, is presented with similar levels of education,
qualifications to those on the resumes presented by testers. The type of crime is identical,
identical,
qualifications
(122 months) is shorter than that reported in the
though the prison sentence
sentence in the vignette (1
employers' self-reports
audit study
study (18
(1 8 months). Thus the vignette aims
aims to measure employers’
measures how
concerning how they would respond to such an applicant,
applicant, while the audit measures

they actually did respond to an applicant
applicant with almost identical characteristics.
characteristics.
Figure 6.1
6.1 presents the key results from both data sources.
sources. The first two columns
columns
below represent the percent of employers
employers who reported being “very
"very likely”
likely" or “somewhat
"somewhat
likely”
likely" to hire the hypothetical applicant, depending
depending on whether he was presented as
white or black. I include the “somewhat
"somewhat likely”
likely" group here to correspond to my

•

behavioral measure, which is a call-back rather than an actual hire (see below).
below). The
second two columns represent results from the audit study, illustrating
of callillustrating the percent of

•

150
150
backs
backs received by each
each group.
group. In the
the audit
audit study,
study, call-backs
call-backs can also
also be considered
considered a
measure
measure of ''willingness
“willingness to hire,"
hire,” given that this represents the first
first cut of the hiring
hiring
process.
process. Though
Though a call-back is
is by no
no means
means a guarantee
guarantee of employment,
employment, given
given that
employers
employers typically
typically call
call back several
several applicants
applicants before selecting
selecting their preferred hire,
hire, it
1OO

does
does indicate a favorable
favorable initial
initial review of the applicant.
applicant.’O0

course, difficult
difficult to equate
equate qualitative
qualitative estimates
estimates with quantitative
quantitative
It is, of course,
probabilities. The use of vague quantifiers
quantifiers such as
as "very"
“very” or "somewhat"
“somewhat” are,
are, to some
some
probabilities.
degree, matters
matters of interpretation,
interpretation,making it difficult to provide direct
direct comparisons
comparisons to
precise quantitative
quantitative outcomes.
outcomes. There
There is a literature
literature on the meaning of vague
vague quantifiers
quantifiers
which attempts
attempts to offer greater
greater precision
precision to our understanding of these terms
terms (Pace
(Pace &
&

•

Friedlander,
Friedlander, 1982;
1982; Schaeffer,
Schaeffer, 1991;
1991 ;Simpson,
Simpson, 1944).
1944). Lichtenstein
Lichtenstein and Newman (1967),
(1967),
for
for example,
example, developed a questionnaire
questionnaire with 41
41 words
words and phrases
phrases representing
commonly
sample of 188
commonly used expressions
expressions associated with numerical probabilities.
probabilities. A sample

individuals were asked to assign probabilities
probabilities between .01
.01 and .99
.99 to each of these
individuals
101 Based on this analysis,
phrases.
phrases.”’
analysis, the phrase "very
“very likely"
likely” was assigned a mean

.87 (median=.90)
(median=.90) with a standard deviation of .06;
.06; the phrase "somewhat
“somewhat
probability of .87

likely” was assigned a mean probability of .59
.59 (median=.60) with a standard deviation of
likely"
.18. While these calculations
calculations may vary across
across groups,
groups, contexts,
contexts, or over time (Schaeffer,
(Schaeffer,
.18.
1991; Pace &
& Friedlander, 1982),
1982), they can be used as rough estimates
estimates with which to
1991;

•

‘00 According
According to the survey results,
results, employers
employers reported
reported interviewing
interviewing an average
average of eight applicants
applicants for the
100
55 percent of the applicants
applicants
last non-college job they had filled.
filled. Further,
Further, employers
employers on average
average interviewed 55
Though, as in the case of self-reported
estimates may be inflated,
that applied.
applied. Though,
self-reported reference
reference checks,
checks, these estimates
inflated, they
provide some evidence
evidence that the interview stage
stage is far from synonymous
synonymous with a hire.
hire. Rather, a call-back
may in fact represent a fairly
approval.
fairly low bar of approval.
WI
.
.
lo’ Respondents
sample of male employees
employees from the System
System Development
Respondents for this study were a sample
Development
Corporation.
Corporation.

•

151
151

calibrate our measures of behavior.
behavior. Even if we were to assume
assume that two out of three
interviews would result in aajob
generous estimate according
employers' own
job offer, a generous
according to employers’
footnote 100),
likely"
reports (see footnote
loo), this ratio (66 percent) remains closer to the "somewhat
“somewhat likely”
likely" category (89 percent),
percent), as estimated by
category (59 percent) than to the "very
“very likely’’
Newman. Given that employers were asked to rate their likelihood of
Lichtenstein & Newman.
himlher
hiring the applicant rather than inviting h
i d e r for an interview, those who responded
comparable estimates
estimates to the
with either "somewhat"
“somewhat” or "very"
“very” likely should provide comparable

proportion of initial call-backs.
call-backs.
the two outcomes, however, are anything but comparable. As we
ofthe
The results of
can see in Figure 6.1, employers report a far greater likelihood of hiring drug offenders
offenders in

•

the survey than was found in the audit.
audit. Employers’
Employers' reported likelihood of hiring a white
applicant with a drug felony (and a given set of human capital characteristics)
characteristics) is nearly
four times greater than their actual behavior when confronted with such an applicant

would indicate.
indicate. For employers considering a black applicant, the disparity between what
they say and what they do even larger, with employer self-reports
self-reports presenting a likelihood
more than12 times greater than that found in the audit.
audit. It would be premature to
conclude that employers intentionally lie about their hiring practices; there are many
possible ways in which a survey question may elicit a different kind of response fiom
from that
detail below).
elicited by a live interaction (an issue I consider in detail
below). But the disparities
disparities
apparent in these results are nevertheless
nevertheless extremely consequential for our understanding
of the social world: Relying on survey data, employers’
employers' responses
responses present a view of

•

openness
openness to applicants with drug felonies
felonies which is far greater than the reality measured in
actual hiring situations.
situations. To accept the survey results as an accurate
the
ofthe
accurate indicator of

•

152
152

opportunities
opportunities available
available to
to ex-offenders
ex-offenderswould grossly
grossly understate
understate the barriers to
employment
employmentthey face.
face.

Figure
Figure 6.1.
6.1. Expressed
Expressed Willingness
Willingness to Hire
Hire a Drug
Drug Offender
according
according to
to Employer
Employer Survey and
and Audit
70
70

-----;;:-.---;;;,-------------------------------,

61.9

60
60

61.7

----------------------1

50
50

II Somewhat likely

40
40

- - - - - - - - 1 liVery likely

30
30
20
20

---------0--

10
10

•

white
white drug
drug offender
offender black
black drug
drug offender white drug offender black drug offender
(survey)
(survey)
(audit)
(audit)
(survey)
(survey)
(audit)
= 157
157
= 157
157
= 150
150
n=
n=
n=
=200
n=

Note:Survey
Surveyresults
results include
include employers
employerswho
who said
said they
they were
were "very
“very likely"
likely” or "somewhat
“somewhat likely”
Note:
likely" to hire
hire
columns). Audit results
results represent
represent the percent of
the hypothetical
hypotheticalapplicant
applicant (with
(with "very"
“very”at
at bottom
bottom of columns).
the
call-backs for
for each
each group.
group. Differences
Differences between
between within-race
within-race comparisons
comparisons of survey and audit results
call-backs
results are
proportions (p<.05)
(p<.OS)
significantbased
based on
on aa two-sample
two-sampletest
test of proportions
significant

One possible
possible objection
objection to
to this comparison
comparison is that it may artificially
artificially exaggerate
One
exaggerate the
differencebetween
between survey
survey and audit
audit results.
results. When considering
considering a hypothetical applicant,
difference
applicant,
employers do
do not have
have to take into account alternative
alternative possibilities among the applicant
employers
applicant
pool. Thus
Thus the hypothetical
hypothetical applicant
applicant may exceed the minimum threshold for acceptable
pool.
acceptable
applicants, even
even if,
if, in actuality,
actuality, there
there tends to be other applicants
applicants,
applicants who are better qualified.
qualified.
contrast, the tester in the audit study is competing
By contrast,
competing with a pool of
of real applicants
applicants of
of
varying quality.
quality. To
To the extent
extent that real applicants
applicants provide better qualifications
varying
qualifications than does

•

the tester's
tester’s profile,the
profile, the tester will receive
receive few
few call-backs
call-backs for reasons
the
reasons unrelated to race or
criminal record.
record.
criminal

•

153
153

An alternative
alternative way of presenting
presenting the infonnation
information which addresses
addresses this
this concern
concern is

to calculate
calculate the number of call-backs
call-backs received by testers with criminal records as a
percentage
percentage of white testers
testers without criminal
criminal records who received call-backs.
call-backs. White
testers
testers without criminal
criminal records in this case
case represent
represent a kind of baseline, presenting
presenting a
given set of qualifications
qualifications common among all testers,
testers, but without the handicaps
handicaps of
minority status
status or criminal
criminal record.
record. Employers
Employers who made call-backs
call-backs to white testers
testers
without criminal
criminal records signal
signal that this level of education
education and experience
experience is desirable
desirable
enough
enough to make the first
first cut.
cut. Relative
Relative to this baseline, we can assess
assess the proportion
proportion of
whites
whites and blacks
blacks with criminal
criminal records
records who received call-backs,
call-backs, thereby
thereby eliminating
eliminating any
102
to extraneous
extraneous factors.
factors."*
Overall, 34
34 percent of
effect of employer
employer non-responses
non-responses due
due to
effect
Overall,

•

employers
employers were willing
willing to consider white applicants
applicants with no criminal
criminal record and with
with the
given set of human capital
capital characteristics
characteristicspresented by all
all testers.
testers. Only
Only half of these
these
employers,
employers, by contrast,
contrast, were willing
willing to consider applicants
applicants with identical
identical characteristics
characteristics
plus a criminal
criminal record;
record; and just under 15
15 percent (of different,
different, but randomly selected
selected

employers) were willing
willing to consider applicants
applicantswith identical
identical credentials
credentials plus a criminal
criminal
employers)
record and minority
minority status
status (see
(see Figure 6.2).
6.2).

I02

Similarly,we
we can
can view
view the
the estimated
estimated likelihood
likelihood of hire
hire from
from the
the survey
survey results
results (61.9
(61.9 percent
percent or 61.7
61.7
Similarly,
percent) as
as relative
relative to
to aa baseline
baseline of 100
100percent
percent for
for aa hypothetical
hypothetical applicant
applicant similar
similar to
to the
the one
one described
described in
in
percent)
To the
the extent
extent that
that some
some employers
employers would
would report
report being
being unlikely
unlikely
the vignette
vignette but without
without aa criminal
criminal record.
record. To
the
to hire
hire such
such an
an applicant
applicant (if,
(if, for
for example,
example, they
they tend
tend to
to only
only hire
hire applicants
applicants with
with some
some college
college experience),
experience),
to
the ratio
ratio of the
the self-reported
self-reported likelihoods
likelihoods ofbiring
of hiring an
an ex-offender
ex-offender relative
relative to
to aa non-offender
non-offender would
would be even
even
the
higher (and
(and thus
thus the
the contrast
contrast between
between the
the self-reports
self-reportsand
and behavioral
behavioral outcomes
outcomeseven
even greater).
greater).
higher
102

•

154
~~

Figure
Figure 6.2.
6.2. Expressed
Expressed Willingness to Hire a Drug Offender
according
according to Employer Survey and Audit
70

70
60
60

__---.;6....1--r.g.---~-~-----til .Y
61.7
61.7

.-_________-----~~---------

50
50
40
40

30
30
20
20
10
10

o
0
white drug
drug offender black
black drug
drug offender
offender white drug offender black drug offender
(survey)
(survey)
(audit)
(audit)
(SUweY)
(audit)
(SUweY)

Note:
"very likely”
likely" or “somewhat
"somewhat likely”
likely" to hire
Note: Survey
Surveyresults
results include
include employers
employerswho
who said
said they were “very
the
columns). Audit results represent the number of
of
the hypothetical
hypothetical applicant
applicant (with
(with "very"
“very” at bottom of columns).
call-backs
non-offenders who received call-backs.
call-backs for
for each
each group
group as
as aa percentage
percentage of white non-offenders
Differences
survey and audit results are marginally significant for white
Differences in
in within-race
within-race comparisons
comparisonsof survey
applicants
two-sample test of
of proportions.
applicants (p<.06)
(p<.06) and
and significant
significant for black applicants
applicants (p<.05) based on a two-sample

•

The differences
differences between self-reports
self-reports and behaviors in this comparison, though smaller,
The
consistent. In the case of white applicants,
applicants, though the distance between the
remain consistent.
survey and audit results has narrowed substantially,
substantially, this difference remains marginally
survey
(pC.06). The case for black applicants
applicants is even more clear-cut. Even the
significant (p<.06).

adjusted rate
rate of call-backs for black testers (14.7
the survey
(14.7 percent) remains far short of
ofthe
adjusted
estimates of hiring likelihoods
likelihoods (61.7
(61.7 percent).’03
estimates
percent). 103 The survey results thus vastly overstate
the opportunities
opportunities for employment available
available to black ex-offenders.
Whatever measure is used, two main findings
findings remain consistent: First, the view

employers’ openness
openness to hiring applicants
applicants with a felony drug conviction is greater than
of employers'
that demonstrated by their behavior. While survey responses present a rather benign

•

bamers to ex-offenders,
ex-offenders, the audit results tell a very different
view of the employment barriers

•

155

story.
story. This
This result underscores
underscores the importance
importance of using great caution
caution in relying
relying on
employers'
employers’ self-reports
self-reports as
as a proxy for
for behavior.
behavior. Second,
Second, the degree
degree to which race is
is a
factor
factor in hiring decisions
decisions is far
far less
less pronounced in the survey
survey results
results than in the audit

study. Even though separate
separate employers
employers were asked the vignette
vignette in which the applicant
study.
was white or black, the estimates
estimates of hiring likelihoods
likelihoods for both applicants
applicants were virtually
virtually
identical.
identical. By contrast,
contrast, actual behavioral measures
measures show that white ex-offenders
ex-offenders are more
than three times more likely to receive consideration
consideration from
fiom employers
employers relative to their
black ex-offender counterparts.
counterparts. The differences
differences in the magnitude of the race effect
between self-reports
behaviors represent a highly robust test of the
self-reports and observed behaviors
disparity.
disparity. While disparities
disparities in the estimates
estimates of overall
overall hiring likelihoods
likelihoods could be

•
a

differences inherent to the method of measurement
measurement (discussed below), the
explained by differences
race effect provides a within-method measure
measure of the disparity
disparity between survey
survey reports
reports and
behavioral outcomes (through
(through a difference
difference in differences approach).
approach). Again, these results
suggest that the usefulness
experimental designs-may
designs-may
usefulness of employer surveys-even with experimental
not be an effective way to gauge the degree to which sensitive
sensitive characteristics
characteristics like race
methodological and
affect actual employment opportunities. Below, I discuss the methodological

theoretical processes which might account for these differences.
differences. First, however, I present
one additional
additional test of
of this relationship.
of assessing the correspondence
correspondence between
.Perhaps
Perhaps the most direct means of

employers’
of
employers' self-reports
self-reports and behaviors is to look exclusively
exclusively at the subsample of
employers for whom I have data from both the audit study and the survey. While the

•

I03
103

This
Ihis percent is calculated by dividing the percent of
of callbacks received by blacks with criminal records
(5 percent) by the baseline percent of
of callbacks for whtes
whites without criminal records (34 percent).

•

156
telephone
previous comparisons have included all employers who completed either the telephone
(representing only
survey and/or responded to one or both testers in the audit study (representing
groups), this final
final analysis allows us to compare the survey
partially overlapping groups),
104 The results of
of
identical group of employers.
responses to the audit outcomes for an identical
employer^.'^^
105

cross-tabulation are presented in Table 6.1.
6.1. IO5 Consistent with the results reported
this cross-tabulation
above,
above, we find that the survey
survey responses
responses have very little connection
connection to the actual

behaviors exhibited
exhibited by these employers.
employers.
Table 6.1. A Comparison
Self~Reports
Comparison of Employers'
Employers’ Self-Reports
and
in Sam
Ie
Overlappine,
Sample
and Behavioral Outcomes
Outcomesfor Overla

Likely to Hire
Drug Offender

•

No
Yes

Audit Results
Results.
No Call-Back
Call-Back

4
4

56
(93.3
(93.3 %)

(6.7 %)

81
81
(92.7 %)

7
(7.3 %)

Among those who reported a favorable
favorable likelihood of hiring an applicant with a prior
felony
felony drug conviction on the survey,
survey, 7.3
7.3 percent made calls
calls to the tester with the
criminal
criminal record in the audit study,
study, relative to 6.7
6.7 percent of those expressing an

104
104

•

Using non-overlapping samples
samples is problematic
problematic only to the extent that the distribution of respondents
from those respondents in
from one data source
source differs
differs systematically (in ways related to their responses) from
from
source. Comparisons
Comparisons across
across occupation,
occupation, industry,
industry, location,
location, and call-back
call-back rates indicate
indicate few
few
the other data source.
from the restaurant
differences across
across samples.
samples. There
There were,
were, however,
however, a higher
hgher proportion
proportion of employers from
differences
industries in the survey
survey relative to the
industry and a smaller proportion of employers
employers from manufacturing industries
industry
from the audit.
audit. A reweighting
reweighting of the survey sample
sample to match the distribution
distribution of the
original distribution
distribution from
original
sample produced only a slight change
change in the mean likelihood
likellhood (from
(from .62
.62 to .60).
.60). It is unlikely,
unlikely,
audit sample
therefore, that differential response
response rates
rates of employers
employers across industries
industries has
has any effect on the survey
therefore,
outcomes or the differences
differences between survey responses
responses and observed
observed behavior.
behavior.
outcomes
105
105 A full
full breakdown of survey
survey responses (including
(including all
all four
four categories)
categories) by audit results
results is
is presented in
Appendix 6A.
6A.

•

157
157
106

unfavorable
unfavorable likelihood
likelihood who also
also made
made calls
calls to
to the tester with the criminal
criminal record.
record.lo6
Though
Though this
this difference
difference is in the expected direction,
direction, it is far
far too small
small to reach statistical
statistical
significance.
significance. Further,
Further, the absolute
absolute levels
levels of responses
responses are
are tell
tell very different
different stories:
stories: Of
the nearly 81
8 1 employers
employers who reported a favorable
favorable likelihood
likelihood of hiring an ex-offender,
ex-offender,
only 7 actually
actually demonstrated
demonstrated a behavioral
behavioral indication
indication to that effect.
effect. Probability
Probability estimates
estimates
from
fi-om surveys,
surveys, therefore,
therefore, seem
seem to provide
provide poor indications
indications of actual
actual employment
employment
opportunities
opportunities for
for ex-offenders.
ex-offenders.
Of course,
course, there are
are several
several limitations
limitations ofthis
of this analysis
analysis that must temper its
conclusions:
conclusions: First, the sample
sample sizes
sizes are
are quite
quite small.
small. Only eleven of the 35
35 employers
employers
who made call-backs
call-backs to testers
testers in the criminal
criminal record condition
condition completed
completed the survey.
survey.

•

Thus our ability to generalize
generalize from
fiom these results is quite limited.
limited. Second,
Second, remember that

survey may be a different
different from
from the individual
individual who reviewed the
the respondent in the survey
applications. To the extent that hiring practices vary within firms
firms depending on
testers' applications.
individual manager or human resource
resource officer,
officer, the correspondence
correspondencebetween survey
the individual
results and audit results
results will be attenuated.
attenuated. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless, all three methods of
results
comparison tell a similar story:
story: it is difficult
difficult to get an accurate picture of actual hiring
outcomes based on responses
responses to employer
employer surveys;
surveys; employers
employers generally express
express a far
outcomes
applicants with criminal
criminal records (particularly
(particularly in the case
case of
greater likelihood of hiring applicants
actuality.
blacks) than we see in actuality.

•

106 Given the small sample sizes in this final
final comparison,
comparison, a further breakdown
breakdown by race of the tester would
be impossible.
condition,
impossible. Analyses, therefore,
therefore, include all call-backs
call-backs to testers in the criminal record condition,
regardless of race.
race.
regardless

•

158
Attitudes
Differ?
Attitudes and Behaviors:
Behaviors: Why
Why Do They
They Dzffer?
Why might employers' survey
survey responses
responses present such discrepant
discrepant results from their actual
behavior?
behavior? There
There are
are several
several theoretical
theoretical explanations
explanations that could be used to account for
this
this incongruity.
incongruity. In this
this section,
section, I provide a discussion
discussion ofthese
of these explanatory accounts,
considering
considering the range of underlying processes
processes which may give rise to differing outcomes
depending
107
depending on the method of measurement.
mea~urernent.''~
First,
of social desirability,
desirability,
First, social
social surveys
surveys have long been plagued by the problem of
or the
appropriate answers to
the phenomenon that respondents seek to give socially appropriate
questions,
1983). Particularly when
involves distorting
distorting the truth (Bradburn, 1983).
questions, even if this involves
asked questions
questions about sensitive
sensitive issues
issues such as race and criminal records, the pressures for

•

providing socially
permissible) responses is great.
great. Though
socially desirable
desirable (and legally permissible)
sophisticated
sophisticated designs
designs have been developed
developed to try to minimize such concerns or disguise

sensitive issues
issues (Sneiderman & Piazza,
Piazza, 1993;
1993; Schuman & Bobo, 1988), it remains
sensitive
difficult to obtain accurate
accurate measures of bias or discrimination fi-om
difficult
from respondents

•

'07 One
One might also
also question
question whether the six month lag between the data collection for the audit study and
107
for the
the survey
survey may be responsible
responsible for some
some of the disparity. Changes
that for
Changes both within and around firms
during this
this time could
could have resulted in real changes
changes in employers' attitudes
during
attitudes which would have been
measured as
as error.
error. Certainly,
Certainly, changes in management or human resource personnel that may have occurred
measured
during this
this period
period would increase the likelihood that the individual responding to the survey was different
during
from the one who reviewed the testers' applications
no changes in
from
applications (Also, as noted above, even if
ifno
firms where more than one person is responsible for hiring decisions, there
management took place, in firms
there may
may
respondents to the survey and the audit). While I would expect a majority of
ofthe
the
have been different respondents
of individual
variation in openness to ex-offenders to take place at the fm-level
firm-level rather than at the level of
personnel (and therefore
therefore to be more stable across employee transitions), the possible shifts in management
firms during
during the period between the audit and the survey may account for some of
of firms
of the discrepancy in
results. Changes in the economic climate, on the other hand, should have worked to make survey responses
results.
the audit,
less optimistic.
optimistic. The unemployment rate in Milwaukee
ofthe
less
Milwaukee averaged 4.8 percent during the time of
during the two months in which the survey was administered,
while during
administered, it had risen to nearly 6 percent (Bureau
2002). Given that employers'
Statistics, 2002).
of Labor Statistics,
employers' openness
openness to less desirable workers increases in the
& Rodgers,l999),
Rodgers, 1999), we would rather expect more favorable
context of tight labor markets (Freeman &
responses from employers during the period of
of the au&t
audit study relative to the period of
of survey data
responses
firms
during
this
time would have been
collection.
Overall,
it
is
unlikely
that
any
changes
withm
or
around
been
collection. Overall,
changes within

•

159
themselves.
themselves. According to this perspective,
perspective, respondents
respondents conceal their true feelings
feelings about
blacks or ex-offenders in answering
answering surveys;
surveys; the discrepancy
discrepancy between self-reports
self-reports and
behaviors,
behaviors, therefore, can be viewed as the difference
difference between false
false and true measures
measures of
a respondent's
respondent’s attitudes.
attitudes. While certainly social
social desirability
desirability pressures
pressures result in some
some
distortion
distortion of survey
survey results, it is not the case that employers
employers in the present study were
unwilling to express opposition to any applicants
applicants with criminal records.
records. Over 50 percent
of employers
employers expressed an unwillingness to hire a generic
generic applicant with a criminal
criminal
record, and more than 70 percent were unwilling to hire an applicant who had been
convicted of a property or violent crime. It seems unlikely, therefore, that social (or
legal)
legal) pressures to accept ex-offenders
ex-offenders have white-washed employer responses; high

•

levels of acceptance
felon presented in the vignette.
acceptance were reported only for the drug felon

desirability bias is a much greater concern in questions
Social desirability
questions about race. The

norms of racial equality
equality are so strong
strong that survey respondents
feel
respondents are unlikely to feel
comfortable
opinions about members of other racial groups
comfortable expressing negative opinions
(Crandall, 1994).
1994). In order to preempt this concern in the present study,
study, employers were
applicants on the basis of
ofrace.
not asked to directly compare applicants
race. Instead, one group of
of

respondents
respondents was asked vignette questions describing a black applicant and a separate
separate
group was presented with a vignette describing a white applicant. The
comparison
Thecomparison
between the mean responses of each group, in the absence of any direct contrast, should
therefore reflect differential
of applicants by race. And yet, the small and
differential evaluations of
non-statistically
non-statistically significant differences
differences found in these comparisons failed to reflect the

•

sufficient
sufficient to account for the dramatic disparities
disparities between employers’
employers' self-reports
self-reports and observed behavior,
behavior,
applicants.
particularly with respect to black applicants.

•

160

level of racial discrimination experienced
experienced in actual hiring
hring outcomes.
outcomes. While it is difficult
difficult
to discern exactly what internal process produced these results,
results, it is certainly possible that
employers actively
actively suppress
suppress any indication of race preferences in their responses
responses to
surveys.
surveys. Even in the absence of direct comparisons
comparisons by race, employers
employers are aware
aware that the

race of the hypothetical applicant has been specified and may therefore make conscious
or unconscious
unconscious efforts
compensate for any negative
negative reactions
reactions they may have
efforts to verbally compensate
respondents do in fact suppress negative
negative reactions
reactions to race-specific
to a black applicant.
applicant. If respondents

targets, even when no direct comparison
comparison is provided, this calls into question the
effectiveness
effectiveness of experimental survey designs as a strategy for measuring underlying

racial prejudice.
prejudice. Any self-reported attitude towards a black target may in fact be

••

distorted by the respondent’s
compensatory estimation
estimation procedure.
respondent's own compensatory
explanation relates
relates to differences
differences in the criteria used when
A second possible explanation
actual job candidate.
candidate. It is plausible that, in considering
assessing a hypothetical versus an actual
acceptability of a hypothetical applicant,
applicant, employers
employers invoke
invoke universalistic
the acceptability
universalistic criteria in
formulating their responses. In these general
general terms, apart from
from the minority of employers
employers
formulating
who categorically
categorically reject all applicants
applicants with criminal records, a prior conviction
conviction is not
typically grounds for immediate disqualification.
disqualification. Rather,
Rather, ifthe
if the applicant's
applicant’s overall
overall

characteristics exceed a minimum threshold of employability,
employability, the respondent
characteristics
respondent is likely to
contrast, in actual employment
employment situations,
situations, employers
employers
indicate a willingness
willingness to hire.
hire. By contrast,
must use highly particularistic
decisions. In this case, the
particularistic criteria in making hiring decisions.
applicant’s characteristics
characteristics are judged, not only according to some minimum threshold,
applicant's

•

relative to the pool of available
available applicants,
applicants, and relative
specific
relative to the specific
but also relative
requirements of a job. In this case,
case, many more contingencies
contingencies are at play, and the
requirements

•

161
161
presence
presence of a criminal
criminal record may become a salient
salient criterion by which
which to weed out lesslessqualified
qualified applicants.
applicants. Even ifthe
if the employer
employer genuinely
genuinely believes
believes that slbe
s h e would hire
hire the
the
applicant
applicant described
described in the
the abstract vignette,
vignette, when confronted
confronted with the
the situation
situation in real
real
life,
life, the contingencies
contingencies of the hiring process
process may render hypothetical scenarios
scenarios irrelevant.
irrelevant.
In the article
article discussed
discussed above,
above, LaPiere
LaPiere (1934)
(1 934) makes a similar
similar argument.
argument.
According to LaPiere,
symbolic
LaPiere, survey responses
responses constitute
constitute "verbalized
“verbalized reaction[s]
reaction[s] to a symbolic

situation,” or reactions
reactions to a highly abstracted representation of reality
reality (p.
(p. 231).
23 1).
situation,"
According
According to this
this viewpoint,
viewpoint, survey responses
responses do tell us something
something meaningful
meaningful about the
attitudes
attitudes of respondents, but we have no way of anticipating the degree to which these

expressed attitudes
attitudes will be reflected in any particular set of behaviors. Certainly it is
expressed

•

difficult to anticipate
anticipate how any individual,
individual, including
including oneself, may react to a situation
difficult
previously encountered only in hypothetical
hypothetical terms.
terms.
self-reports and behaviors
A final perspective on the discrepancy between self-reports

proposes that the priming of characteristics
characteristics during a phone interview may not elicit
eliCit the
same intensity of response as does the in-person presentation of the same characteristics.
characteristics.
Hearing a description of a hypothetical black ex-offender is quite different than seeing a
young black man approach one’s
one's business in search of
of employment.
employment. The live interaction
may trigger feelings
feelings of
of fear, anxiety,
anxiety, threat, or rejection in ways that a written vignette
does not. Indeed, Poskocil(l977)
Poskocil (1977) argues that the discrepancy between expressed and
observed racial prejudice can be explained, not by concealed racial hostility, but by
heightened anxiety during interracial
interracial interactions.
interactions. According to this view, whites

•

commonly experience extreme social discomfort in the presence of
of blacks, leading to
behaviors that may be coded as discriminatory,
discriminatory, despite (accurately reported)

•

162
162

nonprejudiced
nonprejudiced attitudes. Certainly,
Certainly, some research studying
studying speech
speech errors
errors and
conversation
conversation durations
durations have shown marked differences
differences in interracial
interracial interactions
interactions relative
relative
to conversations
conversations among same-race
same-race participants
participants (Word et aI.,
al., 1974).
1974). These findings
findings are
consistent
consistent with the view that whites experience
experience discomfort in interactions
interactions with blacks,
even if these feelings
feelings may be unrelated to their general
general attitudes
attitudes about blacks.
blacks.
Taking
same findings
findings could be interpreted as
Taking a less sympathetic
sympathetic perspective,
perspective, these same

form of racial stereotyping
stereotyping not apparent
apparent in survey responses.
responses. If whites are
a revealed form
anxious
anxious around blacks because of activated stereotypes
stereotypes about,
about, say, black aggression,
aggression,
intelligence, or dishonesty,
intelligence,
dishonesty, the observed behavioral responses
responses do tell us something about

the respondent’s
these attitudes are not consciously endorsed
endorsed by
respondent's racial attitudes,
attitudes, even if
ifthese

•

the respondent him or herself. In the next chapter,
chapter, I discuss the ways in which the
markings of stigma (e.g., race or criminal record) can shape the interactions
interactions with and
evaluations ofjob
of job applicants
evaluations
applicants without any conscious awareness. The expectations
substantial distortions can
associated with certain group memberships
memberships are so strong that substantial
occur in the gathering and interpreting of information in ways that confirm prior
expectations. While hypothetical applicants in a survey questionnaire
questionnaire may not elicit such

strong reactions, when presented with an actual black ex-offender applying for aajob,
job, the
interaction can result in a more intense activation of
of stereotypes
stereotypes with stronger
implications
implications for hiring outcomes.
outcomes.
It is not possible, using the present data, to demonstrate
demonstrate conclusively which
underlying process may have generated the observed discrepancies.
discrepancies. In fact, it is highly

•

plausible that more than one process may have been at work simultaneously.
simultaneously. What these
result do demonstrate, however, is clear indication that survey research taps into a very

••

163
163

different
different set of processes than those measured through behavioral studies.
studies. While these
processes
processes are likely related to a common underlying disposition,
disposition, the correspondence
correspondence
researchers recognize
recognize these
between the two can be quite
quite weak. It is important that researchers
limitations
limitations before drawing inferences
inferences about behavior from
from the self-reports
self-reports of survey
survey
respondents.
respondents.

Are Survey Data Useless?
Useless?
from these results regarding the usefulness
data?
What can we conclude from
usefulness of survey data?
Should we disregard
disregard all findings
findings based on employers'·
employers' self-reports?
self-reports? Certainly
Certainly it would be

premature
advise such a radical stance.
stance. In fact,
fact, despite
despite the large
large discrepancies
discrepanciesbetween
premature to advise
self-reports and actual
actual behaviors measured in the present study,
study, survey results remain
self-reports

•

useful in many respects.
respects.
useful about how employers
employers think about
First, survey data can tell us something useful
issues. Not all attitudinal
attitudinal measures must be calibrated
calibrated to actual
actual behavior
important hiring issues.
validate their utility.
attitudes employers
employers express
express about what makes a
in order to validate
utility. The attitudes
productive
employee or why certain applicants
applicants would be (un)desirable,
(un)desirable, as just two
productive employee
examples, are significant
significant in their own right;
right; these beliefs
beliefs tell us something important
important
examples,
sense of the staffing
staffing process and how they prioritize
about the way that employers make sense
prioritize
characteristics. Particularly
Particularly when issues
issues of social desirability
desirability are less at stake,
stake,
worker characteristics.
surveys can gather a wide range of important information based on employer selfselfsurveys

reports.
reports.108

•

lo* In fact,
fact, even sensitive issues such as race,
race, for
for which the problems
problems of social desirability
desirability bias are more
108
relevant, employer self-reports
self-reports can provide useful information
information to complement behavioral
measures. It is
relevant,
behavioral measures.
unlikely, for
for example,
example, that all or even most employers who discriminate
discriminate against
against blacks do so because of
unlikely,
employees. In fact,
fact, it is likely that many employers
employers
deep-seated beliefs about the inferiority
inferiority of black employees.
deep-seated

•

164
164
Second,
Second, it not always
always the case that behaviors
behaviors represent the gold standard
standard for truth.
truth.
In some cases,
cases, individuals
individuals may feel
feel their behavior constrained in ways their verbal

expressions
expressions are not. Critics
Critics of the LaPiere study, for example,
example, question the conclusion
conclusion
that the proprietors'
proprietors’ self-reports
self-reports were misleading
misleading of their "true
“true attitudes"
attitudes” (Dockery
(Dockery &
Bedeian,
Bedeian, 1989).
1989). Rather,
Rather, it is possible
possible that the discomfort and disruption that would have
been caused by a refusal to admit expectant
expectant visitors
visitors was sufficient
sufficient to convince
convince the
proprietors to suppress
case,
suppress their negative
negative attitudes
attitudes and admit the Chinese
Chinese guests. In this case,
the threshold for expressing
expressing negative
negative attitudes
attitudes through behavior would be higher (and
thereby more prohibitive)
prohibitive) than the verbal expression
expression of these same
same sentiments
sentiments (see
Campbell,
Campbell, 1963).
1963). Given the warm welcoming by proprietors
proprietors as
as reported by LaPiere, it is

•

unlikely that these
these individuals
individuals were suppressing
suppressing deep animosity
animosity at the time of their visit.
visit.

Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge
acknowledge that both attitudes
attitudes and behaviors can be
Nevertheless,
substantial distortion
distortion in measurement.
measurement.
subject to substantial
Third, survey results can often provide useful information about relative
relative
Third,
propensities, even if they overstate
overstate absolute
absolute levels.
levels. Schuman
Schuman and Johnson
Johnson
behavioral propensities,
(1976), for example,
example, distinguish
distinguish between literal and correlational
correlational consistency
consistency in the
(1976),
reported attitudes
attitudes and observed behavior (see
(see also
also Merton, 1940;
1940;
comparison of reported
Campbell, 1963).
1963). Literal consistency
consistency implies that there should be a direct
Campbell,
correspondence between attitudes
attitudes and behaviors;
behaviors; a person does
does what s/he
s h e says
says s/he
s h e will
correspondence
do. Correlational consistency,
consistency, by contrast,
contrast, suggests
suggests that there
there is a consistent ordering
ordering
do.

•

genuinely believe
believe their own responses
responses to surveys,
surveys, professing
professing the value
value of equal
equal opportunity,
opportunity, while
genuinely
grounds other than race (for example,
example,
simultaneouslyjustifying their behavior in hiring situations
situations on grounds
simultaneously
residence in high-crime neighborhoods,
neighborhoods, negative influences
influences of peer groups,
groups, etc.
etc. (see
(see Kirschenman
Kirschenman &
residence
Necherman, 1991)).
1991)). In this case,
case, the divide
divide between
between employers'
employers’ self-reports
self-reports and their actual
actual behavior
Necherman,

•

165

among
among individuals
individuals in
in their
their attitudes
attitudes and behaviors;
behaviors; individuals
individuals who express
express tolerance
toward
toward ex-offenders
ex-offenderswill demonstrate
demonstrate more tolerant behaviors
behaviors toward ex-offenders
relative
relative to
to those
those who
who express
express intolerant views,
views, even
even ifthe
if the level of tolerance observed is
lower
lower than
than that expressed.
expressed. According to this view, survey results can tell us something
about
about the
the relative
relative ranking
ranlung of individuals
individuals over time, across
across cities,
cities, or according
according to
ofthe
particular characteristics,
characteristics, even ifthese
if these results
results do not give us a clear indication of
the level
of discrimination
discriminationwe might witness
witness in actual interactions.
interactions.
The
The sample
sample sizes
sizes in the present study prevent us from
from establishing
establishing a systematic
relationship
Ifwe
relationship between the survey
survey and audit responses of individual employers.
employers. If
we had a
larger
larger number of observations,
observations, we might expect
expect that some correlation
correlation between

•

employers'
employers’ attitudes
attitudes and behaviors
behaviors would emerge, even if the absolute levels remain

widely divergent.
divergent. Future
Future research in this area would be extremely usehl;
widely
useful; if a
correlational consistency
consistency does
does in fact exist among self-reports
self-reports and behaviors, survey
correlational
results would be able
able to tell us a great deal about the contexts in which employers’
employers'
attitudes (and corresponding
corresponding behaviors) are likely to be most extreme.
attitudes
extreme. Given that survey
research represents
represents a much less taxing and costly method of gathering data (relative to
research
behavioral studies),
studies), the value of survey results
results should not be dismissed.
dismissed.
behavioral
Conclusion
Conclusion

LaPiere (1934)
(1 934) revealed a striking inconsistency in the way hotel and restaurant
LaPiere
proprietors reacted to Chinese
Chincse customers
customers in person versus how they responded on
.proprietors
surveys. The
The present study
study notes a similar
similar discrepancy
discrepancy between employers’
surveys.
employers' self-reported

•

represents a meaningful
meaningful discrepancy
discrepancy between two legitimate realities;
represents
realities; the resolution of
of these differences
differences

•

166

likelihood
behaviors when
likelihood of hiring a particular applicant relative
relative to their actual hiring behaviors
faced
provocative findings
faced with a nearly identical candidate.
candidate. These provocative
findings call into question the
adequacy of survey research for simulating
simulating the outcomes of actual interactions.
interactions. Given
that a majority of research on hiring preferences
preferences and practices
practices comes from survey
survey data
(e.g., Holzer,
Holzer, 1996;
1996; Husley,
Husley, 1990;
1990; Dowing,
Dowing, 1984;
1984; Jensen,
Jensen, 1976),
1976), these results indeed
have serious
serious implications.
implications.

survey research can tell us nothing
nothing about important
It is not the case that survey
fact, in many cases,
cases, surveys
surveys can provide useful information
information about
issues. In fact,
employment issues.
opinions and beliefs
beliefs that need not be calibrated
calibrated to actual behavior; in other cases,
cases, surveys
surveys
opinions
may provide a very close reflection of actual employer behaviors. What this research

•

emphasizes, however, is the importance of testing one's
one’s assumptions,
assumptions, and providing
emphasizes,
external validation of key results.
results. In the case of employers'
employers’ behavior with respect to
external
ex-offenders, survey
survey results
results are far off base. The correspondence between selfselfhiring ex-offenders,
reports
outcomes has yet to be
reports and behaviors
behaviors with respect to other important hiring outcomes
established.
established.

•

represents
focus of sociological investigation in its own right.
right.
represents an important focus

•

167
167

Appendix
Appendix 6A.
6A. A Comparison
Comparison of Employers'
Employers’ Self-Reports
and
in Sam
Ie
and Behavioral
Behavioral Outcomes
Outcomes for
for Overla
Overlapping
Sample
Likely to Hire
Drug Offender

Audit Results
No Call-Back
Call-Back

Very likely

20
(90.9 %)

2
(9.1
(9.1 %)
%)

Somewhat
Somewhat likely

69
69
(93.2
(93.2 %)

5
(6.8
(6.8 %)

Somewhat
Somewhat unlikely

25
(88.3 %)

3
(10.7
(10.7 %)

Very unlikely

31
31
(96.9 %)

1
(3.1 %)
(3.1

•

168

Chapter 7. Racial and Criminal Stigma
Stigma
Chapter

•

169

Racial and Criminal Stigma
sti'gma,
brand, stain,
stain, blemish,
blemish, defect - a symbol
sti’grna, n.
n. (pI
( p l -5
-s or -tal.
-tal. 1.
1. brand,
of disgrace or infamy

The
investigate the extent to which race
The central
central objective
objective ofthis
of this manuscript has been to investigate
and criminal
criminal status
status shape
shape the evaluations
evaluations of employers. Based on the empirical results
from
from both the audit study and the employer survey,
survey, it has become clear that both
characteristics
of entry-level jobcharacteristicshave
have powerful
powerful effects on the employment outcomes of
seekers;
seekers; in the absence
absence of any correlated
correlated characteristics, minority and criminal status
relegate
relegate applicants
applicants to the bottom levels of the hiring queue.
queue. How is it that these
characteristics
characteristics exert such
such influence
influence in employment interactions?
interactions? The previous chapters
have
employers' selfhave sought
sought to provide empirical
empirical answers
answers to this question,
question, analyzing employers’

•

reported
applicants with marginalizing
reported attitudes
attitudes and observed behavioral responses to applicants
characteristics.
following chapter,
chapter, I seek to complement these findings with a
characteristics. In the following

theoretical perspective
perspective on the processes
processes of attribution that mediate employers’
employers'
theoretical
evaluations of minority
minority and ex-offender
ex-offender applicants.
applicants. Within this discussion, I provide a
evaluations
conceptual framework
framework with which to understand the ways these social
social labels affect
conceptual
micro-level interactions;
interactions; and,
and, subsequently,
subsequently,the ways in which micro-level interactions
micro-level
interactions
can produce
produce and
and reproduce
reproduce inequality.
inequality. The concept of social
social stigma is particularly useful
can
in this
this discussion,
discussion, providing
providing an orienting
orienting framework
framework with which to view the cognitive
in
and social
social dimensions
dimensions by which race and criminal
criminal record become salientin
salient in social
and
interactions. Drawing
Drawing from
from the
the empirical
empirical findings
findings of this manuscript as well as previous
interactions.
social-psychologicalresearch,
research, I provide illustrations
illustrations ofthe
of the ways in which employers
social-psychological

•

articulate and/or
and/or demonstrate
demonstrate their reactions
reactions to applicants based on the applicant's
applicant’s race or
articulate

•

170
170

criminal
criminal status,
status, and the possible
possible implications
implications of these
these reactions for the processing of
stigma more generally.
generally.

Social Stigma
In social
social interactions,
interactions, individuals
individuals seek to make use of limited information in forming
forming
evaluations
evaluations of strangers.
strangers. Certain characteristics
characteristicsprovide cues that help to fill
fill in missing
missing
information.
information. Race
Race and criminal
criminal status
status each represent salient characteristics
characteristics which trigger
associations
associations of socially
socially meaningful attributes.
attributes. Each possesses a predominantly
predominantly negative
negative
valance with implicit
implicit assumptions
assumptions about the character
character or competence
competence of its bearer.
bearer. It is
these characteristics
Characteristics which form
form the basis of stigma.
stigma. In his seminal
seminal work on the topic,

•

Goffman
Goffman (1963:3) describes
describes stigma as "an
“an attribute
attribute that is deeply
deeply discrediting;"
discrediting;” it a

characteristic widely viewed as
as "an
“an insurmountable
insurmountable handicap
handicap that prevents
prevents competent
competent or
characteristic
trustworthy behavior"
behavior” (Michener et aI.,
al., 1986:281) The markings of stigma,
stigma,
morally trustworthy
socially designated,
designated, can have generalized effects
effects across
across a
whether they be physically or socially
I09
range of social
social domains.
domain^."^
According to Goffman,
Goffman, stigma often
often develops
develops as
as a
According
wide range

“master status,"
status,” overshadowing
overshadowing other relevant individual
individual characteristics
characteristics to define
define an
"master
individual’s primary social
social identity.
identity. In this way, the concept
concept of stigma
stigma goes
goes beyond the
individual's
labeling or stereotypes
stereotypes to invoke
invoke a more durable
durable form
form of status
status
interrelated terms of labeling

’

denigration.
denigration.I 10
lo

I09
109

•

attributes in themselves
themselves are
are arbitrary,
arbitrary, they tend to cluster around
around particular
particular socially
Though the attributes
designated characteristics.
characteristics. According
According to Goffman
Goffman (1963),
(1963), there
there are
are three types
types of stigma:
stigma: those of tribal
tribal
designated
association, including
including race and religion;
religion; those
those of physical
physical defect,
defect, including
including deformity
deformity and physical
association,
character, including
including mental illness
illness and criminal
criminal history.
history.
disabilities; and blemishes
blemishes of character,
disabilities;
I10
tends to use the concepts
concepts of stigma,
stigma, stereotypes,
stereotypes, and labeling
labeling
The existing
existing literature
literature in this area tends
110 The
1998; Link &
& Phelan,
Phelan, 2001).
2001). Indeed,
indeed, Goffrnan
Goffman himself characterizes
characterizes
interchangeably (see
(see Crocker
Crocker et a!.,
al., 1998;
interchangeably
(1963:4). While the mechanisms
mechanisms by
stigma as
as the relationship
relationship between "an
“an attribute
attribute and a stereotype"
stereotype” (1963:4).
stigma
argue that stigma,
stigma, in its
its definition
definition as
as "a
“a
which these
these processes
processes exert
exert their effects
effects are
are largely
largely overlapping,
overlapping, Ii argue
which

•

171
171

In the domain of employment,
employment, as the focus
focus of this study, both race and a criminal

record represent important
important sources
sources of stigma which shape and constrain
constrain opportunities.
opportunities.
Employers
Employers notice and interpret these labels,
labels, attributing
attributing negative
negative characteristics
characteristics to
individual
associations between being black
individual members
members of the group(s)
group(s) based on perceived associations
or having a criminal
criminal record and one's
one’s level of productivity.
productivity. Irrespective
Irrespective of an individual
individual
applicant's
applicant’s aptitude
aptitude or disposition,
disposition, membership
membership in a stigmatized
stigmatized group has direct
direct bearing
on the outcomes
outcomes of external
external evaluations.
evaluations. In this chapter,
chapter, I focus
focus on the micro- and
macro-level processes by which stigma
stigma becomes consequential.
consequential.
In considering
considering the impact of stigma,
stigma, it is first
first important to distinguish between

three distinct components:
components: the affective
affective component (prejudice);
(prejudice); the cognitive component
component

•

(stereotypes); and the behavioral
behavioral component (discrimination).
(discrimination). Each ofthese
of these dimensions
dimensions
(stereotypes);
reinforcing; at the same
same time,
time, it is important to recognize
recomize their
can be mutually reinforcing;
Responses to scales
scales measuring prejudice, for example,
example, are often
independent effects. Responses
direct behavioral measures of discrimination
discrimination (Banaji &
& Greenwald,
Greenwald, 1994;
1994;
discordant with direct
1989; Dovidio
Dovidio et aI.,
al., 1986).
1986). And while certainly stigmatized
stigmatized individuals.
individuals.c'!11
can
Devine, 1989;
from severe
severe prejudice,
prejudice, the effects
effects of stigma are not limited to those conscious and
suffer from
acts of ill-will.
ill-will. In fact,
fact, some
some ofthe
of the most powerful consequences
consequences of stigma lie
intentional acts
effects, whereby cognitive processes
processes can be distorted in the presence of
in its unconscious effects,
socially meaningful cues
cues (Fiske,
(Fiske, 1998).
1998). In the following
following section
section I discuss
discuss the affective
affective
socially
cognitive dimensions
dimensions of stigma as they relate
relate to behavioral expressions of
and cognitive

•

master status,"
status,” invokes the concept ofa
of a dominant
dominant identity affecting interactions
interactions across
across a wide range
range of
master
domains. The processes of stereotyping
stereotyping and labeling,
labeling, while also activated
activated in the presence
presence of stigma,
stigma,
social domains.
may or may not form
form the basis of aa generalized
generalized social identity.
identity.
more localized interactions
interactions which mayor
refer to more

•

172
172

discrimination.
discrimination. I then link these processes to their broader consequences
consequences for
stratification.
stratification.

Prejudice, Statistical Discrimination,
Discrimination, and Automatic
Automatic Cognitive
Prejudice,
Cognitive Response
The empirical
empirical results of the audit study provide a direct measure of discrimination,
discrimination, the
behavioral response
behavioral
response to stigma.
stigma. Based on these results,
results, we can assess
assess the extent to which

job applicants
applicants receive
receive differential treatment on the basis of minority status
status and criminal
criminal
record.
record. Ultimately,
Ultimately, it is the behavioral response which is most consequential
consequential for the

production of status
status inequalities.
inequalities. In the language
language of economics,
economics, these outcomes
outcomes represent
employers'
employers’ "revealed
“revealed preferences,"
preferences,” even without direct information about an employer's
employer’s

personal attitudes
attitudes and beliefs about a particular group.
group. In this chapter I seek to explicitly
explicitly

•

internal processes which produce observed discrimination.
discrimination. While
specify the range of internal
directly, it is useful to articulate the possible ways in which
these are rarely measured directly,
individuals interpret and react to stigma.
stigma. Three distinct
distinct (but not mutually exclusive)
exclusive)
individuals
responses are most relevant to this discussion:
discussion: the affective
affective reaction, including
including emotional
responses
visceral sentiments;
sentiments; the conscious
conscious cognitive
cognitive reaction, referred to as
as statistical
statistical
and visceral
discrimination; and the pre-conscious cognitive
cognitive reaction, referring to the automatic
discrimimition;
gathering, coding,
coding, interpreting,
interpreting, and retrieving information.
information.
processes of gathering,

“Just [him] having the conviction
conviction bothers me.
me. "-employer
” -employer for a local brewery
"Just

first class of reactions,
reactions, also referred to as simple
simple prejudice,
prejudice, refer to the affective
affective or
The first
subjective associations
associations and judgments of stigmatized
stigmatized groups.
groups. Feelings
Feelings of dislike,
dislike, fear,
fear,
subjective

•

revulsion often accompany interactions
interactions with stigmatized individuals
individuals and can
contempt, or revulsion

•

173

directly
directly influence
influence behavioral
behavioral responses.
responses. Described in the economics
economics literature
literature as "taste
“taste
discrimination,"
discrimination,” this
this form
form of preference
preference ordering
ordering emerges
emerges from
from the personal likes and
dislikes
1971). Indeed,
Indeed, in the present study,
study, a number
dislikes of individual
individual employers
employers (Becker,
(Becker, 1971).
of employers
employers (n
(n == 12),
12), when asked to explain
explain why they would be unwilling to hire an
applicant
applicant with aa felony
felony drug
drug conviction,
conviction, cited "the
“the conviction itself'
itself’ as their primary
objection
objection (see
(see Chapter 5).
5). In
In many cases,
cases, applicants
applicants with criminal
criminal records may be
viewed
viewed as
as unworthy or undesirable for
for "respectable"
“respectable” places of employment.
employment. Beyond
fundamental
concerns
concerns over competence
competence or reliability,
reliability, employers
employers may experience
experience a more fundamental
ofthe
aversion
as anathema to the social norms of
the
aversion to
to the
the class
class oflaw-breakers,
of law-breakers, viewed as
workplace.

•

“I’dbe concerned that the applicant
applicant [with a criminal record}
record] would not be responsible
"I'd
coming to
to work every
e v e y day on time.
time. "” -- employer for a local inn
for coming

The second
second class
class of reactions to stigma are more directly tied to assessments
the
assessments of
ofthe
The
objective relationship
relationship between group
group characteristics
characteristics and individual
individual attributes.
objective
attributes. These
cognitive assessments
assessments can be described
described as
as statistical
statistical discrimination, whereby real or
cognitive
group averages
averages for
for a particular characteristic
characteristic are used to predict an individual’s
perceived group
individual's
particular characteristic. When important information is difficult to observe
rank on that particular
(e.g., productivity),
productivity), easy-to-observe
easy-to-observe identifiers
identifiers (e.g.,
(e.g., race, criminal
criminal record) are often used
(e.g.,
as proxies, relying on assumptions about the aggregate
aggregate connection between the two. If
as
If an
employer believes, for example,
example, that individuals
individuals with prior felony convictions have on
average poor work habits,
habits, are
are less reliable,
reliable, or have lower ability relative to nonaverage
nOIT-

•

offenders, then they are likely to make judgments about individual applicants with
offenders,

•

174
174

. 0off tthis
h·IS assessment.
111 Wh·l
1y..IS
criminal records
1 e rare
ere a one-to-one
records on the basIs
basis
assessment.”’
While
rarely
is th
there
correspondence
correspondence between group
group averages
averages and individual cases,
cases, these judgments can
certainly form the basis of rational decision-making.
decision-making. The costs of a poor hire are
potentially much greater than the costs of overlooking a quality applicant,
applicant, suggesting
suggesting that
even imperfect associations
associations between group averages
averages and individual
individual assessments
assessments can
provide useful guides.
guides. Particularly
Particularly in the case of ex-offenders-where
ex-offenders-where group
membership
membership is predicated on actual
actual behavior (i.e., criminal
criminal activity)--it
activity>--it is not
unreasonable
unreasonable for employers
employers to experience
experience concern when confronted
confronted with applicants
applicants with
proven criminal
criminal tendencies.
tendencies.
What then, is problematic, about the use of group
group averages
averages to predict individual

•

performance?
performance? Aside from legal restrictions
restrictions prohibiting discrimination
discrimination on the basis of
race and criminal
criminal history, there are several
several negative
negative externalities
externalities ofthis
of this strategy
strategy that must
be taken seriously.
seriously. First,
First, though at times beneficial to the employer,
employer, this approach has
serious
serious negative
negative consequences
consequences for the applicant.
applicant. While employers
employers may favor
favor
conservative
conservative strategies
strategies of applicant screening,
screening, competent applicants
applicants burdened by the

group membership are largely powerless
powerless to negate
negate the assumptions
assumptions about their
stigma of group
group identity.
identity. For those
those individuals
individuals who are
are genuinely
genuinely striving toward self-sufficiency,
self-sufficiency,
group
attributions based on group membership can undermine efforts
efforts to "go
“go straight"
straight” (Harris,
(Harris,
attributions
1975; Anderson,
Anderson, 2001).
2001). Blocked opportunities
opportunities to secure
secure legitimate
legitimate emplOYment
employment can have
1975;

Ill

It is important
important to note that the inventory of attributes
attributes used for the purposes of statistical
statistical discrimination
discrimination
include normatively
normatively acceptable
acceptable attributes
attributes (such as
as educational
educational attainment)
attainment) in addition
addition to the suspect
suspect
include
these evaluations
evaluations is the same,
same,
characteristics higWighted
highlighted here.
here. The cognitive
cognitive process
process involved
involved in each of these
characteristics
argue that the consequences
consequences are unequal.
unequal. For a higWy
hghly competent applicant
applicant overlooked
overlooked
though one may argue
because slbe
s h e lacks
lacks appropriate
appropriate educational
educational credentials,
credentials, it remains
remains at least partially within that individual's
individual’s
control to "change
“change group membership"
membership” by pursuing
pursuing additional
additional schooling.
schooling. By sharp
sharp contrast,
contrast, no matter how
control
having a criminal
criminal record.
record.
competent or motivated,
motivated, one cannot
cannot work one's
one’s way out of being black or having
competent
III

•

175
175

long-term consequences for an individual’s
individual's outlook as well as outcomes
discussion
outcomes (see discussion
of self-fulfilling
prophesies below).
below).
self-fhlfilling prophesies
responsiveness to
A second potential cost of statistical
statistical discrimination is its limited responsiveness
individual
changing associations. The utility of imputing group averages onto individual
assessments lies in relatively accurate assessments
assessments of stable
assessments
stable group characteristics. When
the composition
composition of the group
group is changing,
changing, however, or when the distribution
distribution of important
characteristics
characteristics is not stable, the value of prior assessments
assessments diminishes.
diminishes. Researchers
Researchers
disagree
disagree over the degree
degree to which inaccurate
inaccurate group
group assessments
assessments can persist over time.
Perfect-market models
models assume that inefficiencies
inefficiencies will be automatically
automatically eliminated over

actors discover
discover their practices
practices to be suboptimal and correct for necessary
necessary
time, as relevant actors

•

modifications
modifications (Oettinger, 1996).
1996). Factors such as occupational
occupational segregation,
segregation, imperfect

information flows,
flows, and negative
negative feedback
feedback effects,
effects, however,
however, impede
impede awareness
awareness of changes
changes
information
existing outcomes
outcomes (Tomaskovic-Devey
(Tomaskovic-Devey &
& Skaggs,
Skaggs, 1999).
1999).
and work to preserve existing
This issue
issue is of particular relevance
relevance in the case of individuals
individuals with criminal
This
records. In periods
periods of low incarceration,
incarceration, where the inmate
inmate population is limited to the
records.
serious and/or chronic
chronic offenders,
offenders, a criminal
criminal record could well serve
serve as
as a sound
sound basis
most serious
for making
making character
characterjudgments.
judgments. In a period, however,
however, where the criminal
criminal justice system
system
for
deployed for
for an ever-widening
ever-widening range
range of offenses
offenses and where
where increasing numbers
numbers
has been deployed
inmates are
are serving
serving time
time for
for first-offenses
first-offenses and non-violent crimes,
crimes, there
there is tremendous
tremendous
of inmates
ex-offender population (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 1994).
1994). If
heterogeneity within the ex-offender
assume that the frequency
frequency and severity
severity of criminal
criminal activity
activity are
are the components
components of the
we assume

•

“criminal character"
character” most closely tied to labor market productivity,
productivity, then surely
surely changes
changes
"criminal
composition of inmates
inmates over the past three
three decades
decades has affected
affected the association
association
in the composition

•

176
176

between
I 12 As
between incarceration
incarceration history and
and worker quality.
quality.’I2
As the
the variance
variance in worker quality
quality
among
among the inmate
inmate population increases,
increases, the predictive
predictive value of the signal
signal declines.
declines.
Whether
Whether or not employers
employers appropriately
appropriately correct for
for these compositional
compositional changes
changes in their
evaluations
evaluations ofjob candidates
candidates over time
time remains
remains an open question.
question.
Statistical
Statistical discrimination,
discrimination,therefore,
therefore, while often
often employed as
as a "rational"
“rational” strategy
strategy
for estimating
estimating unobservables, has serious
serious limitations
limitations for
for applicants
applicants and,
and, in some
some cases,
cases,
employers
employers as
as well.
well. Assumptions
Assumptions about group
group membership
membership may provide useful
hypotheses
hypotheses with which to approach
approach the evaluation
evaluation of applicants,
applicants, but only direct
direct inquiry
inquiry
can provide
provide information
information relevant to their true qualifications.
qualifications. Unfortunately,
Unfortunately, as II discuss
discuss
below, even honest attempts
attempts to evaluate
evaluate individuals
individuals can be colored by the unconscious

•

effects of stereotypes.
stereotypes.

"Depends
“Depends on the employee's
employee’s appearance.
appearance. ” -employer for a national
national coffee chain
“Depends on his presentation. ” -employer for a regional men's
men’s clothing store
store
"Depends
"How
“How he conducts himself.
himselJ:” -employer for a national mattress
mattress store
store
“[I’ddecide by] reading their body language.
language. ” -employer a national
national restaurant
restaurant chain
"[I'd
11

employers in the survey,
survey, as reflected by the sample
sample of comments listed
A great number of employers
above, emphasized that, in considering
considering an applicant
applicant with a criminal
criminal record, they would
above,
want to "get
“get a feel"
feel” for the applicant before offering
offering him the job. Employers sought
interpersonal cues, including
including appearance,
appearance, presentation,
presentation, and body language,
language, to shape
shape their
interpersonal
evaluations ofthe
of the applicant's
applicant’s character and quality.
emphasis on these
quality. Unfortunately, the emphasis

I12

It is of course the case that incarceration
incarceration signals not only prior criminal activity but also the experience
of a potentially brutal institutional
institutional climate,
climate, which may be of further concern to employers.
employers. Nevertheless,
individuals
opportunity to gain skills and
individuals have heterogeneous experiences
experiences in prison, with some using the opportunity
“go straight,"
straight,” while others become more firmly entrenched in criminal networks.
"go
networks. As the heterogeneity of
those going into prison increases,
increases, we would likewise expect the heterogeneity of those coming out to
increase proportionately.
proportionately.
112

•

177

informal modes of information-gathering
numerous opportunities for cognitive
information-gathering provide numerous
cognitive
distortion,
distortion, no matter how consciously
consciously open-minded the inquiry.
inquiry. Indeed,
Indeed, the third and
final
final class of stigma response
response represents
represents the pre-conscious
pre-conscious cognitive dimension.
dimension. Even
individuals
individuals who harbor no negative
negative feelings
feelings or judgments against a stigmatized group can
be unwittingly influenced by broader social stereotypes.
stereotypes. The social psychological

stereotypes provides a wealth of evidence
evidence demonstrating
demonstrating the ways in which
literature on stereotypes
category-based expectations
expectations affect evaluations. Though clearly stereotypes
stereotypes vary in their
accuracy
accuracy for predicting
predicting individual attributes, they can provide a useful heuristic for

formation, particularly in the context oftime
of time or processing constraints.
constraints. But
impression formation,
stereotypes do more than provide guiding
guiding hypotheses;
hypotheses; they remain actively at work
stereotypes

•

coding, processing, and
during the testing of these hypotheses, in ways that affect the coding,
gathering of information. Though these cognitive
cognitive processes may operate according to
gathering
rational and/or
andor efficient
efficient procedures, they can lead to a substantial
substantial distortion of
perceptions and,
and, further,
further, to modes of interaction
interaction which enact negative expectations.
expectations. In
perceptions
the remainder ofthis
of this section,
section, I address
address three primary forms
forms of cognitive distortion
associated with social stereotypes:
selective processing of information;
information;
stereotypes: these include (1) selective
(2)
(2) biased interpretation
interpretation of information; and (3) reduced quantity and quality of
information
information searches.
searches. Each of these processes shed light on the ways in which a single
single

shape and transform (even dominate)
dominate) evaluations,
evaluations, even in the absence
absence
characteristic can shape
conscious discrimination.
discrimination.
of conscious
first case,
case, it is clear that stereotypes
stereotypes create strong expectations
expectations about group
In the first

•

selective attention to and interpretation of information.
members that may lead to the selective
subjects are more likely to remember
When presented with a range of evidence, subjects

•

178
178

infonnation
information consistent with the stereotyped
stereotyped category and more likely to disregard
disregard
inconsistent
inconsistent infonnation
information (Fazio; 1986;
1986; Bodenhausen, 1988).
1988). Forexample,
For example, in a study by
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987),
(1987), subjects were asked to review evidence from
from a
crime in order to assess the defendant's
defendant’s guilt.
guilt. When the defendant was presented as
as an
ethnic minority, subjects
subjects were subsequently better able to recall incriminating
incriminating evidence
evidence
and less able
able to recall exonerating
exonerating evidence
evidence compared to subjects
subjects presented with
ethnically
ethnically nondescript targets.
targets. The strong associations between race and crime "facilitate
facilitate
the processing and encoding stereotype-consistent infonnation,
information, leading
leading subjects
subjects to
differentially
differentially attend to the full
full range of evidence.
evidence. This "confinnation
“confirmation bias"
bias” thus places a
greater burden on the amount and/or
andor salience of infonnation
information needed to overcome

•

associations. hldividuals
Individuals unconsciously
information consistent with
stereotyped associations.
unconsciously privilege infonnation
expectations, while simultaneously
simultaneouslydiscounting
discounting that which contradicts
contradicts them. Though
expectations,
expectations, these processes can lead individuals
individuals to
efficient when dealing with accurate expectations,
retain false
false beliefs far longer than optimal.
optimal.
addition to privileging
attention to confinnatory
confirmatory evidence,
evidence, stereotypes
stereotypes can
In addition
privileging attention
systematic distortions
distortions in the interpretation of neutral or ambiguous
ambiguous
further lead to systematic
Schofield, 1980).
1980). In a study by Darley and
information (Bodenhausen,
(Bodenhausen, 1988;
1988; Sagar & Schofield,
infonnation
Gross (1983),
(1983), for example,
example, researchers
researchers asked subjects
subjects to rate the academic
academic ability ofa
of a
Gross
Subjects were led to believe that the girl
young girl shown taking an achievement test. Subjects
socioeconomic background.
subjects were
came from either a high or a low socioeconomic
background. Though all subjects
shown identical videotapes, those who believed the girl came from a higher

•

significantly higher ability than those who
socioeconomic class rated her as having significantly
believed the girl was from a lower socioeconomic
socioeconomic class. Both groups cited specific

•

179
179

elements of her behavior during the test as "evidence"
“evidence” for her ability level.
level. The expected
association
ability, therefore, led to strong
association between social class and ability,
strong distortions
distortions in the
coding and processing of information concerning
unrealistic to
concerning performance. It is not unrealistic
interviews when employers
employers are
consider that similar biases may operate during interviews
confronted with applicants from stereotyped groups.
groups. An energetic, outgoing,
outgoing, young
confronted
white applicant,
applicant, for example,
example, may be viewed as motivated and eager to work,
work, where a
similarly energetic,
energetic, outgoing,
outgoing, young black male may be seen as a hussler or a "player."
“player.”
Even relatively straightforward cues can be interpreted in vastly different
different ways,
depending
depending on the context of the situation
situation or the characteristics
characteristics ofthe
of the actor (see
(see Sagar &
&
Schofield,
Schofield, 1980).
1980).

•

distortion produced by stereotypes
stzreotypes concerns
concerns the quantity
quantity and
The third major distortion
quality of new information gathered to make judgments (Hattrup
(Hattrup &
& Ford,
Ford, 1995;
1995; Trope &
&
Thomson,
Thomson, 1997).
1997). Trope and Thomson (1997),
(1997), for example, asked subjects
subjects to make

judgments about the attitudes
attitudes of stereotyped and nonstereotyped targets,
targets, allowing
subjects to ask questions
questions of the targets
targets to inform
inform their opinions.
opinions. Despite
Despite opportunities
opportunities to
subjects
disconfirm the stereotype,
stereotype, subjects
subjects asked significantly
significantly fewer
fewer questions
questions of the stereotyped
stereotyped
disconfirm
nonstereotyped target. Subjects
Subjects with strong
strong category-based
target than of the nonstereotyped
expectations were therefore willing
willing to make decisions
decisions about specific
specific individuals
individuals on the
expectations
of their group
group membership
membership without learning much about their personal
personal
basis oftheir
characteristics. Given the costs
costs of information search (e.g.,
(e.g., time
time and effort),
effort), perceivers
perceivers
characteristics.
forgo opportunities
opportunities to gather individuating
individuating information
information about
about individuals
individuals
are willing to forgo

•

belong to stereotyped
stereotyped groups.
groups. Though
Though exposure
exposure to information
information that is inconsistent
inconsistent
who belong
stereotypes has been shown to attenuate
attenuate their effects
effects on judgment (Allport,
(Allport, 1954;
1954;
with stereotypes

•

180
180

Fiske & Neuberg,
Neuberg, 1990;
1990; Anderson,
Anderson, 1999),
1999), perceivers are less
less likely
likely to seek out such
such
infonnation
information when confronted
confronted with members of salient social
social groups
groups (but see
see Neuberg,
Neuberg,
1989).
1989). A pernicious
pernicious c.ognitive
cognitive cycle is thus produced:
produced: the effects
effects of stereotypes
stereotypes are
are most
pronounced
pronounced when available
available infonnation
information about a target is limited or ambiguous
ambiguous (Hattrup
(Hattrup
&
& Ford, 1995);
1995); and yet, individuals
individuals are less
less likely
likely to seek out additional information
which might attenuate the impact ofthe
of the stereotype
stereotype when the stereotype
stereotype provides
provides salient
salient
heuristic
heuristic cues.
cues.

Again, it is easy to imagine
imagine how this might play out in employment
employment settings.
settings. In
Again,
employers are
are confronted
confronted with stereotyped applicants
applicants (i.e.,
(Le., blacks or excases where employers
offenders), they may be more likely to make negative attributions
attributions about
about the individual
offenders),

•
a

specific character ofthe
of the applicant in question.
question. During
without probing deeper into the specific
interview, employers
employers may ask fewer questions
questions which probe job
the course of an interview,
competence
competence or worker integrity,
integrity, providing few
few opportunities
opportunities to disconfirm initial

expectations. Indeed prior research has shown that white subjects conducting
conducting mock
expectations.
interviews with black applicants
applicants ask fewer
fewer questions
questions and tenninate
terminate interviews
interviews more
interviews
with similar white applicants
applicants (Word et aI.,
al., 1974).
1974). While in some cases
cases this
quickly than ~ith
from overt prejudice, these patterns
patterns of behavior can also
also be the product of
may result from
subtle cognitive
cognitive distortions
distortions in the evaluation process
process rather than an animus-based
animus-based
more subtle
form of discrimination.
discrimination.
fonn
confirmation-bias produced by stereotyped perceptions
perceptions affects
affects not only the
The confirmation-bias
also the quality
quality of information
information gathered.
gathered. Individuals
Individuals are
are not merely passive
passive
quantity but also

•

recipients of information about their social
social world;
world; rather,
rather, they actively
actively participate in its
recipients
construction. In doing
doing so,
so, pre-existing
pre-existing stereotypes
stereotypes can alter interactions
interactions in such a way as
as
construction.

•

181
to distort
distort the production of infonnation;
information; infonnation
information later used to evaluate
evaluate the accuracy
of initial
pointedly, prior research demonstrates that stereotypes
initial expectations.
expectations. More pointedly,
stereotypes
affect interactions
interactions in such a way that leads to the objective confinnation
confirmation of pre-existing
expectations.
expectations. For example, in a two-part experimental
experimental study ofjob
of job interviews,
interviews, Word et .
al.
al. (1974)
(1974) demonstrate
demonstrate the ways in which nonverbal behavior can produce self-fulfilling
self-fulfilling

prophesies in interracial
interracial interactions.
interactions. In the first experiment,
experiment, naIve
nalve white job
interviewers interacted with trained white and black job applicants.
applicants. Conversations
Conversations with
interviewers
the black applicants
applicants contained a greater number of pauses, speech errors,
errors, and were

terminated more quickly.
quickly. The second experiment employed
employed a trained interviewer
interviewer and
tenninated
naIve
ndive white applicants.
applicants. The interviewer
interviewer was trained to interact with the subjects
subjects as
as the

•

experiment had interacted with either the black or white
interviewer in the first experiment
applicants. White subjects
subjects treated like the blacks ofthe
of the first experiment were judged to
applicants.
perform
adequately and to be more nervous
perfonn less adequately
nervous in the interview situation than subjects
treated like the whites. This experiment
experiment demonstrates
demonstrates the ways in which the expectations
expectations
can-by way of nonverbal
nonverbal interactions-impact
interactions-impact the objective
objective
of interviewers can-by
performance
of job applicants. No longer merely relying on cognitive
cognitive distortions,
distortions, the act
perfonnance ofjob
information can further
further lead to the behavioral confinnation
confirmation of existing
existing
of gathering infonnation
stereotypes (see also Christensen
Chstensen & Rosenthal,
Rosenthal, 1982;
1982; Dipboye, 1982).
1982).
stereotypes
Again,
emphasize that these processes can emerge
emerge even among
Again, it is important to emphasize
individuals who do not actively or intentionally
intentionally seek to discriminate.
discriminate. According
According to
individuals
al. (1998:513),
(1 9985 13), "Rather
“Rather than being relaxed and spontaneous,
spontaneous, people may find
find
Crocker et al.

•

themselves vigilantly guarding against
against unwitting prejudiced behavior, leading to anxiety
sensitive topics
topics thereby leading
leading to
or uneasiness.”
uneasiness." Employers may be wary of broaching sensitive

•

182
182

more strained
strained interactions
interactions with blacks and/or ex-offenders.
ex-offenders. Indeed,
Indeed, employers in the
audit study often seemed uncomfortable
uncomfortable about the issue of a criminal record and
uncertain about what was legally or socially
socially appropriate
appropriate for them to ask.
ask. This created
heightened discomfort
discomfort and left the applicant without the opportunity
opportunity to explain the
context of the crime nor the extent of his rehabilitation.
rehabilitation.
The three types of responses described in this section
section illustrate
illustrate the various ways
in which individuals
individuals process
process and react to stigma.
stigma. Certainly this does
does not represent an
exhaustive
exhaustive discussion
discussion of reactions
reactions to stigma,
stigma, nor should it imply that all reactions
reactions are
are
negative.
negative. What this section
section does
does suggest is that stigma can elicit powerful
powerful conscious and
unconscious reactions
reactions with serious
serious consequences.
consequences. Particularly in employment
employment

•

interactions, applicants
applicants bearing the mark of stigma are unlikely to be perceived in the
same light as their non-stigmatized counterparts,
counterparts, regardless
regardless of their personal
qualifications.

discussion-and of much ofthe
of the literature
literature to date-is
date-is its
One limitation of the present discussion-and
emphasis on singular
singular interactions.
interactions. The employer evaluates
evaluates the applicant or the juror
emphasis
evaluates the defendant
defendant within a single round of interaction.
interaction. But for the stigmatized
stigmatized
evaluates
individual, it is not merely this unique interaction that carries
carries significance
significance but rather the
individual,
accumulation of such
such incidents
incidents which become consequential.
consequential. In the remainder of this
accumulation
chapter, I discuss
discuss the longer-term
longer-term consequences
consequences of stigma,
stigma, both for individual
individual and group
chapter,
outcomes.

•

183
183

The Cycle
Cycle ofStigma
of Stigma
The
Beyond the visible forms
forms of disadvantage
disadvantage to blacks and ex-offenders
ex-offenders documented
documented by this
study,
study, there is a pernicious epilogue
epilogue to this story.
story. The audit study
study measures the first
first
round of what, in the course
course of real life-job
life-job searches,
searches, is an iterative process.
process. As job
seekers
seekers make attempts to secure
secure employment,
employment, they receive explicit and implicit feedback
feedback
from
from employers
employers about their suitability
suitability for various
various kinds ofjobs
of jobs and their desirability
desirability to
various
various kinds of employers.
employers. The information gathered during
during these initial
initial searches
searches is
likely to guide subsequent
subsequent search
search behavior and to influence
influence expectations
expectationsofthe
of the returns
returns to
investments
investments in work-related
work-related capital.
capital.

abundance of social-psychological
social-psychological literature
literature documents
documents the powerful negative
An abundance

•

feedback
feedback effects created when initial reactions
reactions are internalized
internalized or imposed upon
stigmatized
stigmatized individuals. A "self-fulfilling
“self-hlfilling prophesy"
prophesy” of poor outcomes
outcomes can thus be
generated as
as expectations
expectations become reality, regardless
regardless of how inaccurate
inaccurate were the initial
initial
evaluations
1948). To use the findings
findings ofthe
of the present audit study as
as an example,
example,
evaluations (Merton, 1948).
consider
consider the longer-term impact of discrimination
discrimination at the point of hiring.
hiring. The fact that
blacks and ex-offenders
ex-offenders were each one-halfto
one-half to one-third
one-third as
as likely to be considered
considered for

entry-level job openings
openings implies
implies that their search
search process
process will on average
average take
take twice
twice to
entry-level
of time spent by whites and/or those without criminal records.
records.
three times the amount oftime
eventually these individuals
individuals are
are likely to wind up with job offers,
offers, the time to
While eventually
serious consequences
consequences in itself.
itself. The first potential consequence is
employment can have serious
individual’s psychic disposition,
disposition, resulting
resulting from
from the frustration
frustration and
its impact on an individual's

•

disappointment from
from nearly continuous
continuous rejection.
rejection. "Expecting
“Expecting and fearing
fearing rejection,
disappointment
[in prison]
prison] may act less confidently
confidently and more defensively,
defensively, or they
people who have been [in

•

184
may simply avoid a potentially threatening contact altogether.
altogether. The result may be strained
strained
and uncomfortable
uncomfortable social interactions
interactions with potential
potential stigmatizers,
stigmatizers, more constricted
constricted social
networks, a compromised quality of life, low self-esteem,
self-esteem, depressive
depressive symptoms,
symptoms,

stigmatized
unemployment and income loss"
loss” (Link & Phelan, 1999).113
1999).’* Thus, as stigmatized
individuals
individuals come to expect disapproval or rejection, their internal defenses
defenses become
activated.
activated. The tension caused by such interactions
interactions can be resolved through either an
active disidentification
work), thereby preserving the
disidentification with the initial goal (i.e.,
(Le., finding
finding work),
congruence between one's
1994), or
one’s aspriations
aspnations and one's
one’s achievements
achievements (Crocker et aI.,
al., 1994),
through an internalization of negative
negative attributions,
attributions, with an associated lowering
lowering of
expectations
expectations for success
success (Fanon,
(Fanon, 1967).
1967).

•

apparent even among
The psychological toll this can take on a job seeker was apparent
testers, for whom these interactions
interactions were the substance of their paid employment.
employment.
feelings of frustration
fi-ustration and
Testers in the criminal record condition reported feelings
demoralization as they witnessed the dismissive
dismissive glances given to their applications.
applications. One
demoralization
feelings of discouragement and frustration
frustration that he had had very
tester reported early on feelings
responses from employers.
employers. As a successful,
successfd, bright, African-American college
few responses
student, the change in status
status to a young black criminal was quite extreme, and the
student,
difference in treatment he received seemed to take a toll. Fortunately, after gaining more
difference
experience with the project,
project, this tester (and others)
others) seemed to feel
feel more comfortable
comfortable in
experience
their interactions
interactions and better able to perform in their assigned
assigned roles. But it was clear from
impersonal interactions
interactions can serve a
these initial reactions the degree to which these impersonal

•

I13

from a study on the stigma of mental illness;
illness; the psychic reactions
reactions described,
described,
This quote was drawn from
however, apply more broadly to other forms
forms of stigma as well.
however,
113

•

185
185

serious
serious blow to one's
one’s self-confidence and motivation. For job seekers
seekers actually in need of

work, this process is likely to be far more taxing.
taxing.
Indeed,
Indeed, interviews
interviews with real ex-offenders have brought up similar issues, with
individuals
individuals reporting feelings
feelings of heightened anxiety when approaching
approaching employers
employers
because of their criminal
criminal record-not
record-not knowing what might be asked of them,
them, not
knowing
knowing if or how to approach the topic,
topic, and not knowing
knowing how much it would be used
against them. These
These anxieties
anxieties can surely form their own self-fulfilling
self-fulfilling prophesies, as the
anxiety of the applicant
applicant can translate into poor interactions
interactions with the employer.
employer. The
psychic costs of stigma can thereby manifest themselves
themselves in very tangible ways, as the
expectation
defensive interactions.
interactions. The cycle of stigma is
expectation of rejection leads to tense or defensive

•

reinforced as blacks or ex-offenders present the angry or "shifty"
“shifty” personality traits
already associated with their group membership.
membership.

experienced, in this
The second potential long-term consequence of stigma (as experienced,
case,
case, through increased time to employment)
employment) is its impact on an individual's
individual’s objective
qualifications, as the job seeker spends
spends more and more time out of work. Research
Research has

consistently shown that employers
employers are reluctant to hire individuals
individuals who have large gaps
consistently
(Holzer, 1996;
1996; Wilson, 1996).
1996). For an ex-offender
ex-offenderjust
in their employment histories (Holzer,
prison, the weeks or months
months spent searching
searching for employment accumulate
accumulate as
released from prison,
an "objective"
“objective” basis on which to refuse consideration
consideration ofthe
of the applicant.
applicant. A job search,
search,

already two to three times more difficult
difficult from the beginning, becomes
therefore, already
114
increasingly problematic with the passage oftime.
of time.’14
criminal stigma trigger
increasingly
Racial and criminal

•

114
‘I4 See Duneier's
Duneier’s (1999) discussion of how the timing of opportunity
opportunity can,
can, in itself,
itself, have serious
n.8).
consequences for
for the emergence of deviance (p.
(p. 377, n.8).

•

186
negative employment outcomes;
outcomes; negative employment
employment outcomes then exacerbate
exacerbate the
manifestation
manifestation of stigma;
stigma; the cumulative
cumulative disadvantage which accrues
accrues to such individuals
individuals
sets into motion a self-reinforcing
self-reinforcing cycle of stigma.
stigma.
The complex
complex consequences
consequences of stigma are described in detail by Loury (2002)
(2002) in

(p.26-33). In this discussion,
what he terms
terms ''the
"the logic
logic of self-confirming
self-confirming stereotypes" (p.26-33).
Loury articulates
articulates three key components
components of this cycle by which initial evaluations-no
evaluations-no

matter how innocent--ean
innocent-can have serious consequences for distribution
distribution of outcomes
outcomes among
involves an initial evaluation,
evaluation, say,
say, by employers ofjob
of job applicants,
applicants,
groups. The first stage involves
inferences on the basis oflimited
of limited and difficult-to-observe
for which employers must draw inferences
information. Following what could be a rational cognitive process, employers
employers are likely
information.

•

to make statistical inferences, based on perceived associations
associations between observed
characteristics
gender, age, criminal
criminal history) and job-relevant concerns.
concerns.
characteristics (such as race, gender,

seeks to intentionally
intentionally exclude
exclude members
members of certain
certain social
Whether or not an employer seeks
categories, internalized expectations
expectations about these categories can play
categories,
playaa significant role in
the evaluation
evaluation process (as we have seen above).
above).
cycle, the employer's initial evaluation provides
In the second stage of this cycle,
applicant, concerning
concerning the degree to which their job-relevant
feedback to the applicant,
characteristics are noticed and appreciated,
appreciated, and,
and, likewise,
likewise, the probability that future
future
characteristics
investments in job-relevant skills
skills will be rewarded.
investments
rewarded. To the extent that blacks and/or exoffenders feel
feel that their job-relevant characteristics
characteristics are devalued by employers,
employers, the
offenders
skills will decline
decline (see also
also Arrow, 1998).
1998). Whether or not the
incentive to invest in such skills

•

individuals themselves
internalize negative attributions,
attributions, a rational cost-benefit analysis
analysis of
individuals
themselves internalize
job search behavior indicates
indicates that the returns are lower for members of stigmatized

•

187

groups.
groups. While some may become motivated to overcome
overcome these barriers
barriers through an effort
of escalated
escalated intensity,
intensity, many wi11likely
will likely to resign themselves
themselves to failure
failure (Crocker and
Major, 1989).115
1989).
Finally, through the interaction of initial
initial (category-based)
(category-based) evaluations
evaluations and
feedback
feedback effects,
effects, an equilibrium can be reached.
reached. As initial
initial rejections create
create disincentives
disincentives
for stigmatized
stigmatized individuals
individuals to persevere, a congruence between employer expectations
expectations
and applicant characteristics
characteristics is achieved.
achieved. The result ofthis
of this negative
negative feedback
feedback loop
loop is
that, over time,
time, it becomes entirely
entirely "rational"
“rational” for employers
employers to make decisions
decisions on the
basis of "functionally
“functionally irrelevant attributes"
attributes” (Loury,
(Loury, 2002:27):
2002:27): as
as prior negative
negative
expectations
expectations lead to the emergence of real differences
differences in job-relevant attributes,
attributes, the

•
@

perceived link between the stigma (race
(race and/or
andlor criminal record) and productivity
becomes realized.
realized.
Perhaps even more damaging,
damaging, the mechanisms
mechanisms producing
producing this outcome can

believe that the disadvantaged state
state of
remain entirely hidden. Employers mistakenly believe
racial minorities
minorities or ex-offenders is due to some
some intrinsic
intrinsic property ofthe
of the group,
group, while in

fact this association is at least in part produced by faulty
faulty expectations
expectations imposed by the
fact
1I6
employers themselves.
themselves.116
outcomes are
are thus seen
seen as the confirmation of
employers
Negative outcomes

expectations rather than the consequence thereof, perpetuating
perpetuating an unchallenged system
system of
expectations
misattributions
misattributions and faulty
faulty judgments.
judgments.
I I5

Williams, 1984 and Flaim,
Flaim, 1984 for discussions
discussions of the "discouraged
“discouraged worker"
worker” in the contemporary
contemporary
See Williams,
market.
labor market.
I I6
116 Of course,
course, at least
least in the
the case
case of ex-offenders,
ex-offenders, it is not difficult
difficult to imagine
imagine why an employer
employer would be
reluctant to consider
consider such an applicant;
applicant; in many cases
cases slbe
s h e may be right.
right. But for those ex-offenders
ex-offenders who
reluctant
actually do want to come clean,
clean, or,
or, for
for the increasing
increasing numbers
numbers in prison who were nothing more than petty
actually
with, the strong stigma
stigma of their past can severely
severely limit the opportunities
opportunities for legitimate
legitimate
criminals to begin with,
criminals
115

•

188

From Stigma to Stratification
Strat$cation
The empirical literature
literature on stigma provides tremendous insight concerning category-

based expectations,
expectations, evaluations,
evaluations, and judgments. Based on the results of carefully
designed experiments,
experiments, we can begin to understand the ways in which subtle cognitive
cognitive
distortions
distortions can have substantial
substantial impact on interpersonal
interpersonal evaluations.
evaluations. But it is precisely
the localized nature ofthis
of this research-typically
research-typically focused
focused on small-group
small-group interactionsinteractionswhich limits
limits the scope of its insight.
insight. The emphasis
emphasis on the formation
formation and impact of
individual-level perceptions
perceptions neglects consideration
consideration ofthe
of the broader consequences
consequences of these
processes. In fact it is the collective
collective impact of stigma-the
stigma-the sum.ofmillions
sum of millions of micro-

•

interactions-which is of greatest concern. It is at the aggregate
aggregate level that we see
level interactions-which
how the sum of these micro-processes results in categorical exclusion and the

(ascribed) group membership.
membership.
perpetuation of inequality on the basis of (ascribed)
further that the effects
effects of
multiple domains.
domains.
pf stigma can be felt across multiple
Consider further
discussion has focused
focused primarily on the effects
effects of race and criminal
criminal record on
While this discussion
employment opportunities,
opportunities, there are numerous additional contexts
contexts in which
whch these stigmas
stigmas
employment
severe disadvantage.
disadvantage. In the case of racial discrimination,
discrimination, previous audit
also result in severe
studies have documented substantial disparities
disparities in the context of housing searches
(Yinger, 1995),
1995), car sales (Ayres
(Ayres &
& Siegelman,
Siegelman, 1995),
1995), hailing taxis (Ridley et aI.,
al., 1989),
(Yinger,
insurance (Wissoker et aI.,
al., 1998),
1998), home mortgages
mortgages (Turner &
& Skidmore,
Skidmore,
applications for insurance
1999), in addition to several
several pre-existing audits
audits of employment searches
searches (Crosset
(Cross et aI.,
al.,
1999),
1990; Turner et aI.,
al., 1991;
1991; Bendick et aI.,
al., 1994).
1994). While the existing
existing body of audit
1990;

•

employment. As we see in the audit study,
study, even the most articulate and well-qualified
well-qualified "ex-offenders"
“ex-offenders” have
employment.

•

189

research investigates
the" nearly infinite
investigates what are only a few
few of the
infinite domains of social life, it
demonstrates
demonstrates the wide range of contexts
contexts in which race profoundly limits opportunity.
opportunity.
Consider how each of these everyday
everyday interactions
interactions accumulate across
across the lifecourse in the

form of sequential and additive
additive disadvantage.
disadvantage. For blacks, everyday
everyday life achievements
achievements
fonn
take longer,
longer, require
require more effort, and cost more.
more.
Similarly, in the case of ex-offenders, the stigma of a criminal record can have

consequences in a wide range of social
social domains,
domains, including
including restrictions
restrictions on housing
serious consequences
1999; Travis et aI.,
al., 2001;
2001 ;Uggen & Manza, 2002),
2002),
(Hellegers, 1999;
and political participation (Rellegers,

disruption of family and community
community networks
networks (Edin,
(Edin, 2001;
2001; Western &
&
and the disruption
2001; Ragan
Hagan &
& Dinovitzer,
Dinovitzer, 1999).
1999). I discuss
discuss these themes more thoroughly
McLanahan, 2001;

•

concluding chapter.
chapter. The vast numbers
numbers of individuals
individuals returning from prison each
in the concluding
effects are not restricted
restricted to a small number of unfortunate
year implies that these effects
unfortunate
individuals. Rather, the emergence of a criminal underclass
seems imminent, with the
individuals.
underc1ass seems
opportunities of millions
citizens becoming defined by their master status
status as offender.
opportunities
millions of citizens
of these effects,
effects, across
across the population and across domains
domains of
The magnitude ofthese
social life, demonstrates the power of stigma.
stigma. As individuals
individuals come to be identified by
social
salient marking, their identity, their opportunities,
opportunities, and their outcomes can be
some salient
influenced. Likewise,
Likewise, as these patterns are produced and reproduced across
across the
heavily influenced.
population,
increasingly relegated to subordinate
subordinate standing.
standing.
population, the group as a whole becomes increasingly
manuscript-as in most research related to stigma
Though the empirical research in this manuscript-as
stereotypes-concentrates on micro-level interactions,
interactions, the implications are far
and stereotypes-eoncentrates

•

greater-reaching. The disadvantage experienced
experienced in singular interactions
interactions or by unique
greater-reaching.
tremendous difficulty
difficulty finding
finding work.
work.
tremendous

•

190

individuals
individuals are by definition part of the larger disadvantage faced by the stigmatized
group. As these groups increase
increase in size (particularly
(particularly as in the case of ex-offenders), their
subordinate
subordinate role in the stratification
stratification order becomes more pronounced.

•

191
191

Chapter 8.
8. Conclusion:
Conclusion:
Chapter
Problems and
and Possible
Possible Solutions
Solutions
Bigger Problems

•

192

Conclusion: Bigger Problems and Possible Solutions
No American institution has grown more rapidly over the past three decades than the
system. Expanding to roughly seven times its original size, the penal
criminal justice system.
4.6
system now holds more than two million individuals in custody, with an additional 4.6

million under the supervision of probation or parole (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001a).
eventually be released, with more than half a
Given that 95 percent of inmates will eventually
particular, labor market
million returning each year, questions
questions of prisoner reentry and, in particular,
reintegration
reintegration have become of central
central concern.
concern. No longer a peripheral institution,
institution, the
criminal
criminal justice system
system has become a dominant presence in the lives of young
disadvantaged
disadvantaged men, playing a key role in the sorting and stratifying
stratifying of labor market

•

opportunities.
opportunities.

The
The Mark ofa
of a Criminal
Criminal Record

goal of this
this manuscript
manuscript has been to assess
assess the impact of incarceration
incarceration on the
the
The primary goal
outcomes of black and white job seekers.
seekers. Prior attempts
attempts to investigate
investigate these
these
employment outcomes
issues have generally
generally relied upon longitudinal
longitudinal survey
survey data to estimate
estimate the
the employment
employment
issues
and earnings
earnings of individuals
individuals following
following release
release from
from prison.
prison. While
While these
these analyses
analyses provide
provide
and
estimates of the
the aggregate
aggregate effects
effects of incarceration
incarceration on labor market outcomes,
outcomes, the
the
useful estimates
problems of selection
selection inherent
inherent to
to survey
survey research
research leave
leave the findings
findings vulnerable
vulnerable to
to serious
serious
problems
criticism. There
There are
are many plausible
plausible reasons
reasons to
to expect
expect that the types
types of individuals
individuals who
who
criticism.
are sentenced
sentenced to
to prison
prison would
would have
have had poor employment
employment outcomes
outcomes even
even in
in the
the absence
absence
are

•

193
193

of incarceration.
incarceration. It is difficult,
difficult, using survey data,
data, to conclusively
conclusively demonstrate
demonstrate any causal
effect
effect of incarceration
incarceration on subsequent
subsequent outcomes.
outcomes.
The
The present research provides a direct
direct test of incarceration as
as a causal mechanism.
mechanism.
Employing an experimental
experimental audit approach,
approach, this method allows
allows us to bracket the
complicated web of characteristics
characteristics that affect an applicant's
applicant’s chances in real job searches,
searches,
to focus
focus on the
the specific
specific causal impact
impact of a criminal
criminal record.
record. Indeed,
Indeed, the results
results ofthe
of the
audit study provide clear evidence
evidence for the dramatic
dramatic impact of a criminal
criminal record on
employment
employment opportunities.
opportunities. Employers
Employers seem to use the information as
as a screening
screening

mechanism, weeding out undesirable
undesirable candidates
candidates at the very start of the hiring process.
process.
mechanism,
result, ex-offenders
ex-offenders are one-half to one-third as
as likely to receive
receive initial
initial consideration
consideration
As a result,

•

from employers
employers relative to equivalent applicants
applicants without criminal
criminal records.
from
The results
results of this study provide
provide evidence
evidence for the powerful
powerful effect
effect of a criminal
criminal
The
record; and yet, there are
are several
several reasons to believe the estimates
estimates from
from this study
record;
understate the full
full consequences
consequences of incarceration on employment
employment outcomes.
outcomes. First, many
understate
features ofthe
of the present study design represent a 'best-case
‘best-case scenario'
scenario’ for ex-offenders:
ex-offenders:
features
bright, articulate
articulate college
college students
students with effective styles
styles of self-presentation.
self-presentation.
testers were bright,
Given that typical ex-offenders
ex-offenders have less advanced
advanced interpersonal
interpersonal and academic
academic
Given
credentials, their true employment
employment probabilities
probabilities are
are likely to be lower than what was
credentials,
estimated here.
here. Much of the ex-offender population
population suffers
suffers from
from multiple
multiple overlapping
overlapping
estimated
disadvantages, including
including low educational
educational attainment,
attainment, unstable work histories,
histories, and poor
disadvantages,
interpersonal skills,
skills, in addition
addition to the burden of criminal
criminal stigma (Travis
(Travis et aI.,
al., 2001).
2001). The
interpersonal

•

job prospects
prospects for these individuals,
individuals, in the absence
absence of serious
serious job training
training and placement

assistance, are likely to be far worse that what has been reported here.
here.
assistance,

•

194
Second,
Second, this study focuses
focuses on only one mechanism by which incarceration affects
subsequent
subsequent emploYment
employment outcomes;
outcomes; namely, the effects
effects of criminal stigma.
stigma. It is also the
case that incarceration can result in the substantial
substantial decay in human capital and/or decline
decline
in psychological
psychological well-being through time out of the labor market and prolonged exposure
exposure

to the institutional
institutional climate
climate of the prison. Though some inmates are able to use their time
in prison to acquire a GED
GED and/or participate in job training programs, a majority of
inmates
inmates spend much oftheir
of their time idle or involved in activities
activities that have little relevance to

building job skills (Mincy,
(Mincy, 1994;
1994; Travis et aI.,
al., 2001).
2001). Add to this an institutional culture
degradation and the impact of incarceration becomes
of brutal violence and psychological degradation
(Parenti, 1999).
1999). A true estimate
estimate of the consequences
consequences of incarceration,
incarceration,
even more severe (parenti,

•

therefore, must also take into account the transfonnative
transformative effects
effects of prisons and their
therefore,
subsequent impact on the emplOYment
employment prospects ofthose
of those coming
coming out.
out.

The
N/ark ofRace
The Mark
of Race

issue of incarceration
incarceration cannot be fully
hlly addressed without a discussion
discussion of race. At any
The issue
10 percent of young black men between the ages
ages of 25 and 29 are
given time, nearly 10

behind bars; roughly a third are under criminal
criminal justice supervision (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2001 a). The disproportionate
disproportionate representation
representation of blacks in prison, therefore,
Statistics,2001a).
effects of incarceration
incarceration will be felt most strongly in the black
implies that any negative effects
population. In designing
designing this project, the inclusion
inclusion of race as a variable was intended to
serve as a complement to the main effects of a criminal record, to explore possibility of
serve

•

interaction. And yet, the results of this study demonstrate
demonstrate that the effects of race alone
an interaction.
entry-level emplOYment.
employment. Black testers presenting identical
identical
remain a powerful barrier to entry-level

•

195
195

credentials
credentials to their white
white counterparts
counterparts received call-backs from
from employers
employers at less
less than
half the rate of whites.
whites. Perhaps
Perhaps most striking,
striking, the
the results
results show
show that even
even blacks without
without a
criminal
criminal record
record fare
fare no better-and
better-and perhaps
perhaps worse-than
worse-than do
do whites
whites with criminal
criminal
records.
records. That the impact of race could be as
as large
large or larger than that of a criminal
criminal record
is shocking
shocking to many of us who see direct racial discrimination
discrimination as
as a force
force in decline.
decline. In
fact,
fact, over the past ten years affirmative
afirmative action has come
come under attack across
across the country
on the grounds
grounds that race no longer represents
represents a major barrier to employment (e,g.,
D'Souza,
D’Souza, 1995;
1995; Steele,
Steele, 1991). Several
Several universities have been forced
forced to eliminate
eliminate all
forms
forms of racial preferences from their admissions
admissions process, leading
leading to substantial
substantial declines
declines

2002). It is likely that the University of Michigan
(Tienda et aI.,
al., 2002).
in minority enrollment (Tienda

•

U.S. Supreme Court next year, where the fate
fate of affirmative
affirmative action
case will reach the U.S.
will be decided once and for all.
all. If the findings
findings of the audit study in Milwaukee
Milwaukee have any
bearing on hiring practices in the rest of
of the country, the end of affirmative
affirmative action would
face severe barriers
devastating for the millions of African-Americans who continue to face
be devastating

to opportunity on the basis of their race.
Beyond the main effects of race, there is also some indication that blacks with
criminal records face an added disadvantage,
disadvantage, a finding which remains becomes stronger
and statistically significant when analyzed separately among suburban employers or those
with whom testers had extensive
of a “two
"two
extensive personal contact.
contact. These results are suggestive of
strikes and you’re
you're out”
out" mentality among employers, who view the combination of
of race
and criminal record as an indicator of
of serious trouble. Future research using larger

•

sample sizes will be needed to confirm the reliability of
of these findings.

•

196
196
Preferences: Method Matters
Employer Preferences:

The headliner findings
findings from this study concern the dramatic
dramatic effects
effects of race and criminal
findings can be thought of as the "revealed
record on hiring outcomes.
outcomes. These findings
“revealed
preferences" of employers,
preferences’’
employers, or the behaviors which demonstrate employers'
employers’ underlying
attitudes about various types of workers. But employers were also given the opportunity
attitudes
to express
express their preferences directly, on a survey
survey conducted after the audit study had been
completed.
completed. As discussed in Chapter 6, these "expressed
“expressed preferences"
preferences” provide a very
different
different picture of employers'
employers’ likely reactions
reactions to the kind of applicant
applicant presented in the
audit study.
study. While employers
employers were not shy about reporting
reporting an aversion to applicants
applicants
convicted of violent or property crimes, more than 60 percent reported a favorable
favorable

•

individual with a prior felony
felony drug conviction.
conviction. These
These results
results are at
likelihood of hiring an individual
17 and 5 percent of employers who actually
actually responded to the white
sharp odds with the 17
and black testers with felony
felony drug convictions
convictions in the audit study.
study. Even more noteworthy,
noteworthy,

estimates of racial differences
differences from
fiom the survey,
survey, even though obtained through indirect
the estimates
comparisons, dramatically
dramatically understated the influence
influence of race on actual
rather than direct comparisons,
hiring decisions.
decisions. In Chapter 6,
6 , I discussed
discussed several
several possible
possible explanations
explanations for
for these
these
hiring
discrepanciesbetween the survey
survey and the audit.
audit. Though
Though it is not possible to conclusively
conclusively
discrepancies
determine the source
source ofthese
of these differences,
differences, the important conclusion from
from this
this comparison
comparison
determine
matters. The
The view we would take from
from the survey
survey alone
alone is a benign
is that method matters.
of the obstacles
obstacles to employment
employment for
for drug
drug offenders
offenders and even less
less differentiation on
picture ofthe
study, however, we see
see this
this not to be true.
true. The
the basis of race; based on the audit study,

•

common reliance
reliance on survey
survey data for information
information about employer practices and
common
preferences is
is thus called into
into question
question with the comparisons
comparisons presented
presented here.
here. Of course,
course,
preferences

•

197

findings would provide useful validation of the results (and of
replication of the present findings
ofthis
the reliability of both attitude
attitude and behavior measures); nevertheless, the results of
this
study suggest a large disconnect between survey measures and those of behavioral
studies,
finding which is common to previous literature
literature (see Deutscher,
Deutscher, 1966;
studies, a finding
1966; Wicker,
1969;
& Johnson, 1976 for reviews). The moral of the story:
researchers
1969; and Schuman &
story: researchers
should
should exert great caution in interpreting
interpreting survey
survey results
results as
as indicators
indicators of actual behavioral

probabilities. While surveys
surveys may tell us a great deal of useful
useful information
information about the ways
probabilities.
employers
employers think and feel,
feel, they are poor predictors of how they act.
act.

Overall this manuscript demonstrates
demonstrates the massive barriers
barriers to employment
employment faced
faced
Overall
ex-offenders at the point of hire.
hire. The effects
effects of race confirm the results of
by blacks and ex-offenders

•

studies, and point to the enduring
enduring disadvantages
disadvantages faced
faced by blacks in the search
search for
earlier studies,
employment. The effects of a criminal record point to a new mechanism of stratification,
employment.
attention. Though some contemporary
contemporary research has
one which has only recently gained attention.
presented aggregate
aggregate associations
associations between incarceration and labor market outcomes,
outcomes, this

provides conclusive
conclusive evidence
evidence for
for the causal
causal relationship between a criminal
criminal record
study provides
opportunities. Mere
Mere contact
contact with the criminal
criminal justice system-.in
system-in the
and employment opportunities.
absence of any transformative
transformative or selective
selective effects-severely
effects-severely limits
limits subsequent
subsequent job
absence
prospects. The
The mark of a criminal
criminal record indeed
indeed represents
represents a powerful
powerful barrier to
prospects.
employment.
employment.

focused its attention
attention on labor market outcomes.
outcomes. It is
The present manuscript has focused
acknowledge, however,
however, that the consequences
consequences of incarceration
incarceration are
are not
important to acknowledge,

•

limited to employment
employment outcomes alone.
alone. In fact,
fact, the collateral consequences
consequences of
incarceration extend
extend to many other domains,
domains, with implications
implications for
for the
the well-being of
inc.arceration

•

198
198

individuals,
individuals, families,
families, communities,
communities, and society.
society. Though a full
full analysis
analysis of each of these
domains is well beyond the scope of the present investigation, in the following
following discussion
discussion
I highlight some the primary issues raised in these areas.
areas. For a true estimate
estimate of the social
social
costs of incarceration, these are the potential
potential damages
damages that must be accounted for.
for.

Collateral
Collateral Consequences
Consequences
The experience
experience of incarceration represents
represents a great deal more than a period of
incapacitation;
incapacitation; it can also
also include
include the loss
loss of certain civil
civil liberties,
liberties, the disruption
disruption of
family
family ties, the loss of work and permanent housing,
housing, and an aggregate
aggregate impact on
neighborhoods
fully appreciate
appreciate the total consequences
consequences of
neighborhoods and communities.
communities. In order to fully

•

incarceration, one must also
also consider its effects
effects on this wider array ofoutcomes.
of outcomes. Below I
provide
provide a brief overview of these broader consequences
consequences of incarceration; it is the task of

future research to more fully
fully investigate
investigate the nature and scope of each of these domains.
domains.
future

Participation: In all
all but four
four states,
states, prisoners convicted of felonies
felonies lose
lose the
Political Participation:
& Manza, 2002). In more than 30 states
states they can reapply only when
right to vote (Uggen &

are off parole, while, in 12
12 states,
states, a felony
felony results in disen.franchisement
disenfranchisement for
for life.
they are
numbers of prisoners over the past three decades,
decades, trends in
Given the massive rise in the numbers
felony disenfranchisement
disenfranchisement can have serious
serious implications
implications for real political
political outcomes.
outcomes.
felony
According to Uggen &
& Manza (2001),
(2001), given trends in voter turnout,
turnout, political affiliations,
affiliations,
felony convictions,
convictions, several
several significant
significant gubernatorial,
gubernatorial, congressional,
congressional, presidential
and felony

•

elections over the past three decades
decades may have turned out differently
differently had felons
felons retained
elections

•

199

their ability to vote. The expansion of the criminal justice system may thus have
significant
democratic elections.
significant consequences
consequences for the political outcomes of major democratic
elections.

Beyond the general impact of felony disenfranchisement,
disenfranchisement, the consequences of
these policies for black political participation are particularly severe.
severe. While two percent
of adults throughout the country do not have the right to vote, within the black
community
community the figure
figure is 13
13 percent (Human Rights
Rights Watch,
Watch, 1996).
1996). In seven states,
states, fully
hlly
one quarter ofblack
of black men have permanently
permanently lost the right to vote (Human Rights
Rights Watch,
1996).
1996). As black suffrage
suffrage is gradually undermined by the high rates
rates of felony
felony convictions
convictions
among blacks and their subsequent
subsequent loss of vote, the balance of power becomes shifted
further
further in favor of the white majority.
majority. The democratic
democratic principles
principles ofthis
of this country become
inadvertently
loses its
inadvertently compromised when such a substantial segment of our population loses
political voice.

Family Welfare:
Welfare: The large
large number of men and the rapidly increasing
increasing number of women
in prison can have severe
I 17 Two-thirds
severe consequences
consequences for
for the families
families they leave
leave behind.
behind.'17
Two-thirds

more than one-half of incarcerated men are
are the parents
parents of
of incarcerated women and more
children less
less than 18
18 years of age (Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2000c).
2000~).These
These numbers
numbers
children
translate into
into more than 1.5
1.5 million children
children that have a parent who is incarcerated
incarcerated
(Travis et aI.,
al., 2001), representing
representing two percent of all
all children and seven percent of black
(Travis
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2000c).
2000~).The destabilizing
destabilizing effects
effects of incarceration
children (Bureau of Justice
family are
are indeed a serious
serious concern (Western &
& McLanahan,
McLanahan, 2001;
2001; Hagan &
&
on the family

•

Dinovitzer, 1999).
1999). While
While certainly
certainly in some
some cases
cases incarceration
incarceration involves
involves the removal
removal of
Dinovitzer,

•

200

an abusive parent whose absence
absence improves the family's overall well-being (Widom,
1994),
1994), the balance of evidence suggests
suggests that in more cases,
cases, incarceration
incarceration results
results in the
loss of an important breadwinner, caretaker, or both (Hagan &
& Dinovitzer,
Dinovitzer, 1999;
1999;
Hairston,
Hairston, 1998).118
1998)."* Future research will be needed to assess the long-term consequences
consequences
of incarceration
incarceration for children
children who grow up in families
families with one or more parents behind
bars.
bars.

Housing: The problem of housing is perhaps one of the biggest challenges
challenges for exinmates
inmates immediately following
following release.
release. Individuals
Individuals typically leave prison without
enough money for a downpayment,
downpayment, making it difficult
difficult to secure
secure long-term stability.
stability.

•

Further,
Further, many landlords
landlords require
require references
references and criminal history information
information from
from

prospective
excluding many ex-offenders
ex-offenders from
fiom private housing markets
prospective tenants, thus excluding
(Travis et aI.,
al., 2001). Unfortunately,
Unfortunately, securing public housing is also problematic for ex(Travis
offenders. According to federal
federal housing policies,
authorities, Section
Section 8
offenders.
policies, all public housing authorities,
providers, and federally
federally assisted housing programs are permitted, and in some cases
criminal convictions
convictions (Legal
(Legal
required, to deny housing to individuals that have prior criminal
Center, 2001).
2001). The guidelines for denying
denying or revoking
Action Center,
revoking public housing are fairly
criminal activity
activity of non-residential
non-residential family members as grounds
grounds for
broad, including the criminal
removal (Hellegers,
(Hellegers, 1996).
1996). The difficulties
difficulties in obtaining
obtaining permanent housing lead many
families; others
others end up in
offenders to seek temporary shelter: Those who can stay with families;
homeless shelters
shelters or on the street. According
According a report by the California Department of

•

correctional institutions
institutions has increased
increased by nearly 50 percent since
since
The number of women per capita in correctional
1990, compared with a 27 percent per capita increase
increase for men (Bureau
(Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 1999b).
1999b).
1990,

117

•

201
20 1

Corrections,
Corrections, on any given day 10
10 percent of the state's
state’s parolees
parolees are homeless; in San
Francisco and Los Angeles,
percent (California
Angeles, this number ranges between 30 and 50 percent
Department of Corrections,
Corrections, 1997).
1997). Given the enormous
enorrnous instability
instability facing
facing ex-inmates
upon return, it is no surprise that recidivism
high; the opportunities
recidivism rates are so high;
opportunities to settle
down and find work are severely constrained
constrained when the problems of housing remain
unresolved.
unresolved.

Neighborhood Stability:
Stability: The population of inmates
inmates is far from
from a random sample
sample of the
country's
country’s residents;
residents; rather, a disproportionate
disproportionate number of inmates
inmates come from
from a limited
range of states,
states, counties,
counties, and neighborhoods.
neighborhoods. Of inmates
inmates released in 1998,
1998, just under half

•

came from one of five
five states;
states; nearly a quarter came from California alone (Travis
(Travis et al.,
2001).119
2001).119 These concentrations are further reflected at thelocal
the local level:
level: In Cleveland,
Cleveland,

of the county's
county’s block groups accounted for twenty percent ofthe
Ohio, just three percent ofthe
state's
state’s prisoners (Lynch &
& Sabol,
Sabol, 2001).
2001). In Brooklyn,
Brooklyn, eleven percent of the city blocks
held 50 percent of its parolees (Cadora &
& Swartz,
Swartz, 1999).
1999). The high concentration
concentration of

individuals leaving for and returning from
from prison can have a substantial impact on the
individuals
community’s capacity for less coercive means of social
social control (Rose &
& Clear,
Clear, 1998;
1998;
community's
1995). In fact,
fact, while some removal of criminals
criminals from
from a community has beneficial
Tonry, 1995).
effects on neighborhood stability,
stability, recent research argues
argues that, beyond a tipping point,
high rates of population removal and return can lead to higher crime rates due to a

social control
control (Lynch & Sabol,
Sabol, 2000;
2000;
weakening of ties among residents and reduced social

•

I IS
118

Though only 44
44 percent of incarcerated
incarcerated fathers
fathers lived with their children
children prior to incarceration,
incarceration, most
contributed some combination of income, child care,
care, and social support (Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics,
contributed
2000c;
2000c; Hairston,
Hairston, 1998).
1998).
I19
119 California
represents 12
U.S. population.
population.
California represents
12 percent of the total U.S.

•

202

aI., 2000; Moore, 1996).
communities most affected by high levels of
Clear et al.,
1996). The communities

incarceration and ex-offender absorption are often those already struggling with serious
ofjoblessness,
families, and poverty. The churning of residents,
problems of
joblessness, single-parent families,

mostly young men, between prison and home can further
fiuther undermine the already tenuous
social order that exists within these neighborhoods.
neighborhoods.

The collateral
collateral consequences
consequences of mass incarceration
incarceration thus extend far beyond the realm of
employment.
employment. The impact on political participation,
participation, family
family welfare, housing, and
neighborhood
neighborhood stability demonstrate
demonstrate the vast number of social
social domains
domains affected by the
high and rising number of individuals
individuals behind bars.
bars. Taken together,
together, the consequences
consequences of

•

incarceration
incarceration sum
s u m to a great cost to society;
society; it is unclear that the relative
relative benefits of
incapacitating
incapacitating criminals
criminals can outweigh these enormous
enormous cost to individuals, families,
families, and
,

communities.
communities.

are signs
signs that policy makers
makers and the
the public
public are
are rethinking
rethinking the costcostIndeed, there are
benefit ratios
ratios of incarceration,
incarceration, and that there
there is gaining
gaining momentum for
for alternative
alternative

discuss this
this
approaches to dealing
dealing with crime.
crime. In the remainder ofthis
of this chapter,
chapter, I discuss
approaches
changing of tide, and
and the
the ways
ways in which
which we might envision
envision a future
future of fewer
fewer prisons.
prisons.
changing

Public and
and Political
Political Opinions
Opinions on
on Crime
Crime and
and Punishment
Punishment
Public

of the past three
three decades,
decades, the
the expansion
expansion ofthe
of the criminal
criminaljustice system
system
Over much ofthe
received wide-spread
wide-spread support
support from
from politicians
politicians and
and the
the public,
public, with concern
concern over
over crime
crime
received

•

consistentlyrepresenting
representing one
one of the
the major
major policy issues
issues of the
the 80s
80s and
and 90s
90s (Beckett,
(Beckett,
consistently
1997). The
The nearly
nearly universal
universal call
call for
for stricter
stricter enforcement
enforcement and
and harsher
harsher penalties
penalties largely
largely
1997).

•

203
203
muted consideration
alternatives to incarceration.
incarceration. In more recent years,
consideration of viable alternatives
of tides. After a decade of
of falling
however,
however, there appears
appears some indication of a turning of
crime rates
rates and an expanding economy, public sentiment appears to softening its stance,
emphasizing
of crime and delinquency.
delinquency. As a few
emphasizing longer-range solutions to the problems of
key examples:
examples:

•

Between 1990
1990 and 2001,
200 1, the percentage
percentage of Americans who say that there was more
crime
crinie than there
there was a year ago dropped from 84 percent to 41 percent (with a
corresponding
from 5
corresponding increase
increase in those who say there was less crime than a year ago fi-om
Statistics, 2002).
to 43 percent) (Gallup
(Gallup Poll, cited in Bureau of Justice Statistics,

•

Between 1990 and 2000, the percent of individuals
individuals who believed that more money
should
should be spent "attacking
“attacking the social
social and economic problems that lead to crime
through better education and training"
"deterring crime by improving law
training” versus “deterring
enforcement
judges" increased f
from
enforcement with more prisons,
prisons, police, and judges”
rom 57 to 68 percent,
white
while the number favoring
favoring more law enforcement fell
fell from
from 36 to 27 percent (Gallup
Poll,
Poll, cited
cited in Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2002).
2002).

•

In 2001,
2001, over half of all Americans believed that drug use should be treated as a
disease
disease rather than a crime
crime (relative
(relative to 35 percent who believed it should be treated as
a crime,
crime, and 10
10 percent indicating
indicating it should be treated as both) (Gallup
(Gallup Poll, cited "in
in
Bureau of Justice
Statistics,
2002).
Justice Statistics, 2002).

•

In 2002,
2002, three-fourths
three-fourths of Americans
Americans approved
approved of sentencing
sentencing non-violent offenders to
In
treatment instead ofto
of to prison (Hart
(HartAssociates, 2002).
2002).
probation or treatment

•

In 2002,
2002, aa majority
majority of Americans
Americans favored
favored the elimination
elimination of mandatory sentencing
sentencing
In
laws and
and the
the return
return of discretion
discretion to judges (Hart
(HartAssociates,
Associates, 2002).
2002).
laws

These trends
trends suggest
suggest a new willingness
willingness to rethink crime control
control strategies,
strategies, focusing
focusing on
These
more effective
effective prevention
prevention and
and treatment
treatment rather than stricter
stricter enforcement.
enforcement. If public
more
sentiment becomes
becomes reflected
reflected in
in politician's
politician’s platforms,
platforms, we may see
see a slowing
slowing of prison
sentiment

•

growth and
and perhaps
perhaps even
even aa gradual
gradual decarceration.
decarceration. Certainly
Certainly the general
general public appears
appears
growth
ready for
for such
such aa change.
change.
ready

•

204

Fortunately,
Fortunately, as the economy slows
slows and states
states face
face tightening budgets,
budgets, legislators
legislators
are also
also looking
looking for more cost-effective
cost-effective ways of managing crime. Many states
states have
adopted--or
are considering-new
adopted-r
considering-new legislation to revise or reverse mandatory
mandatory sentencing
sentencing
laws passed in the early 90s.
90s. Likewise,
Likewise, some
some states
states are considering
considering alternatives
alternatives to
incarceration
incarceration for low-level offenders
offenders or parole violators,
violators, relying more heavily on
intensive
intensive community supervision and/or treatment programs. Over the past year, states
states
l2o
across
:
across the country have made significant
significant changes
changes in their sentencing
sentencing policies
policies'*':

•

Connecticut, Indiana,
Indiana, Arkansas,
Connecticut,
Arkansas, Utah, and North Dakota have each partially or
fully eliminated mandatory sentencing
sentencing laws adopted in the 1990s
1990s which imposed
lengthy prison sentences without the possibility of parole;

•

available to judges in
Iowa passed a similar law increasing the amount of discretion
discretion available
sentencing
decisions for
tor certain drug and property crimes previously regulated by
sentencing decisions
mandatory sentences;

•

Mississippi passed a law for first-time nonviolent offenders,
offenders, allowing
allowing them to
Mississippi
serving 25 percent of their sentence
become eligible for parole after serving
sentence (as opposed to
the 85
85 percent required by a law passed in 1994);
1994);

•

West Virginia is investing
investing in the development of alternatives
alternatives to incarceration,
providing for more intensive
intensive community supervision
supervision through probation as opposed to
pnson;
prison;

•

Louisiana, the state with the highest per capita incarceration
incarceration rate in the country, has
eliminated its mandatory sentencing laws for certain crimes including drug
possession;
possessIOn;

•

California and Arizona passed voter initiatives which mandate treatment (instead of
prison) for firstfirst- and second-time
second-time Offenders
offenders convicted of
of drug possession,
possession, with similar
initiatives
initiatives being introduced in Florida, Ohio, and Michigan;

•

Texas has made changes to its parole policies creating alternative sanctions for
parole violators;

IZo
120 Reports on state-level legislative changes come from the following
following sources:
sources: New York Times, 9/2/01;
9/2/01;
Sun, 5/21/02.
Wall Street Journal, 2/13/02; The Sun,

•

205 •’

•0

North Carolina has reduced mandatory sentences
sentences for non-violent and drug
offenders;
Alabama, Georgia,
offenders; Oregon, Alabama,
Georgia, New Mexico, and Idaho are all similar
considering changes to their criminal laws; and,

•0

New York, which has symbolized the model of 'zero-tolerance'
‘zero-tolerance7policies for drug
offenders since the early 1970s,
1970s, is considering
considering a plan by governor Pataki to repeal the
long-standing Rockerfeller drug laws.
laws.
long-standing

If sustained,
effects on the rate of incarceration
incarceration and
sustained, these changes
changes could have long-term effects

individuals behind bars. Recall from
fi-om the first chapter that the
on the total number of individuals
introduction of mandatory sentencing
sentencing laws resulted in more than a 50 percent increase
increase in
introduction
following a conviction
conviction and a 40
40 percent increase
increase in the
the likelihood of incarceration following
1999). The reduction or elimination
elimination of
average length of sentences
sentences (Blumstein & Beck, 1999).
average

•

tbese laws could have equally consequential
consequential effects
effects in the opposite
opposite direction.
direction. It may well
. L.1.ese
be that the 30 year expansion
expansion of the criminal justice system
system has finally
finally run
run its course.
course.

Incarceration
Alternatives to Incarceration

states move away from
fiom a strong
strong reliance on imprisonment,
imprisonment, there has been a renewed
As states
emphasis on finding
finding alternatives
alternatives to incarceration
incarceration that contribute
contribute to public safety.
safety. Many
emphasis
states are
are experimenting
experimentingwith programs with an
an emphasis
emphasis on restorative justice,
states
community service,
service, treatment,
treatment, and intensive
intensive community
community supervision.
supervision. Evaluations
Evaluations of
community
these programs
programs have found
found that certain
certain alternatives
alternatives to incarceration can in fact
fact have
these
sustained positive
positive effects.
effects. Indeed,
Indeed, despite
despite the pessimistic
pessimistic reviews
reviews of prison rehabilitation
sustained
fiom the early
early 1970s,
197Os, there
there is more recent evidence
evidence to suggest
suggest that well-targeted
from
programs can have lasting
lasting effects
effects on drug
drug abuse,
abuse, employment,
employment, and recidivism
programs

•

(Prendergast et aI.,
al., 1995;
1995; Petersilia,
Petersilia, 1999;
1999; Gaes
Gaes et aI.,
al., 1999).
1999).
(Prendergast

•

206

Delaware, for example, has established an intensive
intensive three-part program for
inmates
inmates nearing the time of their release. The program consists
consists of an in-prison

therapeutic component during
during which inmates confront substance
substance abuse issues;
issues; a workrelease component where inmates
inmates work in the community while continuing to live at the
correctional
correctional facility
facility and to participate in treatment;
treatment; and an after-care
after-care component, lasing
up to six months,
months, during
during which ex-inmates are required to remain drug- and alcohol-free
and to attend individual and group
group counseling.
counseling. After completing the program,

participants are also
also required to return once a month to serve as a role model for current
participants
participants
additional six months.
months. A controlled evaluation of this program
participants for up to an additional
has shown strong and lasting
lasting effects
effects for recidivism
recidivism and drug relapse.
relapse. As shown in Table

•

8.1,77
inmates who completed the full
full program remained arrest-free
arrest-free 18
18
8.1,
77 percent of inmates
months later, relative
of those who completed partial or no
relative to between 43 and 57 percent ofthose
treatment. Likewise, 47 percent of those who completed the full
full program remained drugtreatment.
free 18
18 months later,
later, relative
relative to between 16
16 and 31
3 1 percent of those with partial or no
free
treatment.
treatment.

T a ble 81 R esu Its f rom t h e D eIaware·K ey-C rest P rogram
% No Arrest
% Drug Free
at 18 Months
at 18 Months
Treament Group
Full program participation
77
47
In-prison treatment only
43
22
Work-release only
31
57
Control Group
16
46
Reproduced from TraVIS
Travis et aI.,
al., 2001.
2001.
Reproduced

support for the notion that well-targeted,
well-targeted, sustained
These results provide strong support

•

interventions can complement,
complement, and in some cases replace,
replace, incarceration with more lasting
lasting
interventions

•

207
positive results.
results. Similar stories
stories of successful
successful interventions
interventions have been reported by
Prendergast et al. (1995),
(1999, Petersilia (1999),
(1999), and Gaes et al.
al. (1999).
(1999). Even the most serious
serious
offenders
offenders have been shown to respond to intensive forms
forms of treatment and community
supervision
supervision (Gaes et aI.,
al., 1999).
1999). If federal
federal and state governments are willing to invest in

the development
development and evaluation of prison alternatives,
alternatives, the long-term costs of crime and
incarceration
incarceration could be substantially
substantially reduced. In fact,
fact, even if prison alternatives
alternatives have only

marginal gains, they are likely to be more cost-effective than our current spending
spending
priorities. According to Richard Freeman, "Given
0,000
priorities.
“Given annual direct expenditures
expenditures of $1
$10,000

per prisoner and total expenditures (including
(including capital outlays)
outlays) of$20,000,
of $20,000, the costs of the
criminal
criminal justice system,
system, the loss ofpotentially
of potentially productive citizens,
citizens, as well as costs of

•

crime to victims, my reading
program-be it
reading of the evidence
evidence is that virtually any program-be
schooling,
rehabilitation-that has even marginal
marginal success
success in making
schooling, crime prevention, or rehabilitation-that

crime less attractive
attractive and legitimate
legitimate work more rewarding for disadvantaged
disadvantaged youths is
sizeable social
social payoff’
(Freeman, 1991
1991:220). Indeed, given the social
social
likely to have a sizeable
payoff' (Freeman,
financial costs of our current crime control
control policies, virtually any alternative with
and financial
potential viability is likely to result in a worthwhile investment.
investment.
Conclusion

evidence of the damaging
damaging effects
The results presented in this manuscript provide strong evidence
incarceration. Across a wide range of occupations
occupations and industries, ex-offenders are
of incarceration.
systematically excluded from
from entry-level
entry-leveljob openings on the basis of their criminal
criminal
systematically

•

record. And while this study has focused on the consequences for ex-offenders
substantial social costs implied by these results. Finding
themselves, there are also substantial

•

208

steady, quality employment is one of
ofthe
of desistence from crime
steady,
the strongest predictors of
2001), and yet incarceration itself reduces the opportunities
opportunities for ex-offenders to
(Uggen, ZOOl),
suggests that our “crime
"crime control”
control" policies may in
find work. This negative feedback loop suggests

fact exacerbate the very conditions which lead to crime in the first place.
findings from other research suggest that the consequences of incarceration
The findings
are by no means limited to the economic sphere.
sphere. In fact,
fact, the effects
effects of incarceration can
be felt in virtually every social
social domain, including
including politics, the family,
family, and neighborhood
communities.
communities. Certainly in many cases incarceration
incarceration represents
representsjust one additional burden
among a broader constellation
constellation of disadvantage;
disadvantage; but it is not clear that this one additional
additional
state-imposed
state-imposed burden is sufficiently
sufficientlyjustified by compensating
compensating benefits to society.
society. The

•

appropriate
appropriate resolution
resolution ofthis
of this trade-off remains
remains to be resolved in academic
academic and policy
discussions;
discussions; as the evidence
evidence grows
grows for the harmful consequences
consequences of incarceration,
however, it will be increasingly difficult
difficult to justify further
further expansion of the criminal
justice system.
system.

trends in public
public opinion and crime
crime policy suggest
suggest a hopeful
hopeful direction
direction for
for
Recent trends
future. With the public
public favoring
favoring investments
investments in prevention
prevention and rehabilitation
rehabilitation and
the future.
state officials
officials seeking
seeking ways of reducing costs,
costs, there
there may well be sufficient
sufficient momentum for
for
state
gradual decarceration.
decarceration. And yet,
yet, this
this is
is by no means a clear path to the future.
future. The
gradual
downturn in the economy
economy has also
also been associated with an
an increase
increase in crime
crime over the
the past
downturn
two years,
years, with the
the homicide
homicide rates
rates in certain
certain major
major cities
cities increasing
increasing for
for the first
first time
time in a
two

the economy
economy continues
continues to
to falter,
falter, we
we can
can expect
expect to
to see
see continued rising
rising
decade.
decade.121 If the

•

I21

For example,
example, homicide
homicide rates
rates have
have doubled
doubled in
in Boston
Boston over
over the
the past
past two
two years,
years, after
after falling
falling steadily
steadily since
since
For
1990
1990 (New
(New York
York Times,
Times, 7/13/02).
7/13/02).
121

•

209

crime rates.
rates. Once again,
again, therefore,
therefore, we may return to a scenario in which the immediate
containment
containment of crime becomes a top policy priority, while discussions
discussions of alternatives,
alternatives,
treatment,
treatment, and prevention
prevention efforts
efforts are pushed aside.
aside. The long-term trends
trends in crime and

punishment remain to be seen.
seen. In 1971,just
1971, just before the massive
massive prison expansion began,
prison historian David Rothman proclaimed, "We
“We have been gradually
gradually escaping
escaping from
from
institutional
institutional responses and one can foresee
foresee the period when incarceration
incarceration will be used
still more rarely than it is today"
today” (Rothman, 1971
1971:295).
:295). Perhaps now, three decades later,
later,
his prediction will come true.

•

210

Epilogue: Implications
Implications for
for Stratification
Stratification Research
The purpose of this manuscript
manuscript has been to document
document not only the specific
specific disadvantage
disadvantage
associated with a criminal
criminal record but to consider the broader role of incarceration as
as an
emerging
emerging mechanism of stratification.
stratification. Joining the ranks of other major institutions
institutions of
stratification,
justice system has situated itself as a dominant channel to the
stratification, the criminal
criminal justiEce
lower tiers of the social
following discussion,
discussion, I seek to place
social hierarchy.
hierarchy. In the following
incarceration
incarceration within the broader framework
framework of inequality
inequality research,
research, tracing
tracing the common
common
and unique features
features of this growing
growing institution
institution relative to other modes of stratification.
stratification.122
122

central focus
focus of their work, stratification researchers
researchers investigate
investigate the
As a central
processes by which individuals
individuals are
are distributed across
across status
status hierarchies.
hierarchies. The mechanisms
mechanisms

•

allocation process takes
takes place include
include a range of formal
formal and informal
informal
by which this allocation
selection criteria.
criteria. The
The following
following discussion presents a broad typology of stratification
stratification
selection
systems,
systems, representing
representing the central
central mechanisms
mechanisms that shape the distribution
distribution of inequality.
inequality.
While
While this discussion
discussion does
does not presume
presume to capture
capture all relevant
relevant forms
forms of stratification, it

overview of several
several key dimensions
dimensions that differentiate
differentiate dominant regimes of
presents an overview
stratification.
stratification. In developing
developing this typology,
typology, I invoke
invoke Weber's
Weber’s preliminary distinction
between positive
123 This
positive and negative
negative privilege.
pri~i1ege.I~’
This categorization
categorization highlights
highlights the contrast

enable advantage
advantage versus
versus those
those that impose constraints,
constraints,
between mechanisms which enable
relative to the normative
normative baseline
baseline of equal
equal opportunity.
opportunity. Specifically,
Specifically, I focus
focus on four
four
relative
stratification: positive
positive ascription,
ascription, negative ascription,
ascription, positive
primary modes of stratification:

•

I22
This discussion
discussion does
does not represent an exhaustive
exhaustive examination
examination of relevant
relevant literature,
literature, bufrather
but rather a
122 This
preliminary
exposition of incarceration
incarceration within
within the context
context of existing
existing theories
theories of stratification.
stratification.
preliminary exposition
‘23 Weber introduced
introduced the distinction
distinction between "positive"
‘positive” and "negative"
“negative” forms
forms of stratification
stratification in a rough
rough
123
Economy and Society
Sociery (pp.302-307).
(pp.302-307). Here
Here he distinguishes
distinguishes between positively and
outline included
included in Economy
outline

•

21 1
211

credentialing,
1). Within each category, I discuss
credentialing, and negative
negative credentialing
credentialing (Table
(Table E
El).
discuss the
mechanisms by which inequalities
relevant source
source of differentiation,
differentiation, the mechanisms
inequalities are generated,
generated,
and the degree of moral legitimacy.
legitimacy. By analyzing these dimensions across systems
systems of
allocation, we can begin to understand the distinctive
distinctive features
features of incarceration as an

institution of stratification.
stratification.
institution

Table El. Typology of Stratification
Stratification
Table
Source
Mode of Stratification
Stratification
Source of
Mode
Differentiation
Differentiation

Positive Ascription
Ascription
Positive

Social designation
designation
Social

Negative Ascription
Negative
Ascription

Social designation
designation
Social

• t

Positive
Positive Credentialing
Credentialing

Formal designation
designation
Formal

Negative Credentialing
Credentialing

Formal designation
designation
Formal

Mechanism

Social
Social advantage,
advantage,
Social status
status
Social
Social
Social disadvantage,
disadvantage,
Social
Socialstigma
stigma
Legal/formal
LegaVformal opportunities,
opportunities,
Social status
status
Social
Legal/formal
Legal/formal constraints,
constraints,
Social
Social stigma
stigma

Moral
Legitimacy

Mediumhigh
Mediurn/high
Low

High
High
High

Positive Ascription
Ascription

stratification that operate
operate through ascribed group membership
membership have
The mechanisms of stratification
been the subject of a long history of stratification
stratification research.
research. Inequalities on the basis of
race, gender,
gender, class of origin,
origin, national origin,
origin, and a wide range of other group
group

memberships represent central determinants
determinants of stratification
stratification hierarchies.
hierarchies. Typically we
memberships
ascription only in its negative form:
form: Mechanisms of ascription are seen as those
think of ascription
imposing disadvantages
disadvantages relative to a category viewed as the norm, such as whites, males,
the middle class.
class. Indeed,
Indeed, ascription based on race, gender, and other stigmatizing
stigmatizing
characteristics fits
fits this model. It is important,
important, however, to acknowledge
acknowledge the sources
sources of
characteristics

•

negatively privileged property classes
classes (e.g., land owners
owners versus
slaves) and between positively
positively and
versus slaves)

•

212

stratification
stratification which operate
operate through positive ascription
ascription as well. The inheritance
inheritance of
wealth,
wealth, for example, is an ascriptive
ascriptive characteristic
characteristic with significant implications
implications for the
social advantages
advantages which accrue
accrue to relevant beneficiaries. Legacies,
Legacies, which facilitate
facilitate
admission
admission to elite educational institutions,
institutions, likewise
likewise fall
fall under the category of
stratification
stratification termed here 'positive
‘positive ascription.'
ascription.’ Positive forms
forms of ascription enable access
access
to privileged resources
resources and high social standing
standing on the basis ofbirth
of birth rights and elite

group membership.
membership.
group
Though ascriptive
stratification in the past (and in other societies)
societies) have
ascriptive modes of stratification
been regulated by official
official categorization
categorization (e.g.,
(e.g., the feudal
feudal lord, the Brahmin caste, blacks

under Jim Crow), contemporary
contemporary forms
forms of ascription typically operate
operate through social

•

designation. While these characteristics
characteristics can nevertheless
nevertheless evoke real material
designation.
(dis)advantages, such categories
categories are rarely formalized as markers of inequality.
inequality. Rather,
Rather,
(dis)advantages,
mechanisms of reproduction regulate the preservation
of privilege, with initial
preservation ofprivilege,
social mechanisms
advantages facilitating
facilitating subsequent achievements.
achievements.
advantages
legacies and "silver
“silver spooned"
spooned” children have been the subject of increased
Though legacies
social scrutiny in recent years, privileges
privileges based on positive ascription retain relatively
levels of moral legitimacy. As evidenced by the recent political debate over what
high levels
has been termed the "death
“death tax,"
tax,” few
few Americans question
question the right of individuals
individuals to
parents. Moral protest is reserved for the
inherit the full wealth accumulation of their parents.
mechanisms of disadvantage,
disadvantage, as if the two represent fully independent sources
sources of
mechanisms
inequality.

•

negatively privileged
commercial classes
classes (e.g.,
(e.g., entrepreneurs
entrepreneurs versus
versus laborers).
laborers).
privileged commercial

•

213

Negative Ascription

Negative ascription refers to those assigned characteristics
characteristics which impose a burden or
constraint. Race (black),
(black), gender (female),
(female), and class (poverty)
(poverty) each represent ascriptive
constraint.
characteristics which limit access
access to opportunity
opportunity and represent a dominant form
form of social
social
characteristics
disadvantage. Though recent years has seen a decline
decline in the use of ascribed group
disadvantage.
membership to determine
determine placement in many domains
domains of stratification
stratification (e.g., educational
educational
membership
attainment, occupational placement, earnings,
earnings, etc.),
etc.), there nevertheless
remains substantial
substantial
attainment,
nevertheless remains
economic differentiation on the basis ofthese
of these characteristics.
characteristics. These
These durable
durable
social and economic
stratification, as they remain
forms of inequality are among the most powerful markers of stratification,
forms
immutable characteristics
characteristics throughout an individual's
individual’s lifetime.
lifetime.
immutable

•

Societies vary in the extent to which they use particular ascribed characteristics
characteristics as
Societies
stratification. This variation cross-nationally
cross-nationallyand over time demonstrates
demonstrates the
the bases of stratification.
fundamentally social process by which certain characteristics
characteristics become designated as
fundamentally
markers. Despite the arbitrary
arbitrary basis for ascriptive
ascnptive hierarchies, these
relevant social markers.
characteristics nevertheless
opportunities and
characteristics
nevertheless have powerful consequences for the opportunities
outcomes of group members.
members. Characteristics
Characteristicswhich acquire a negative social valence can
outcomes
be broadly generalized, resulting
resulting in the wholesale devaluation
devaluation of group
group members.
members. As
described in chapter seven,
seven, the physical markings of race or other assigned characteristics
stigma, triggering a wide range of negative
negative attributions
attributions and diminished
diminished
form the basis of stigma,
prospects.
stratification based on ascribed group
group membership are
Though processes of stratification

•

sources of inequality, the past forty
forty years in this
among the oldest and most pervasive sources
equality, with processes of negative
country has witnessed a major shift toward norms of equality,

•

214

ascription
While there remain many
ascription having increasingly
increasingly questionable
questionable moral legitimacy. Whlle
social
social and occupational
occupational sectors that maintain strong racial or gender preferences, in most
domains
domains of public life
life it has becoming increasingly unacceptable to use negative
categorical
categorical membership
membership as the overt basis for allocating social goods.

Positive Credentialing
Credentialing
The
of achieved
The appropriate
appropriate contrast
contrast to the discussion
discussion of ascribed characteristics
characteristics is one of
of achieved
characteristics.
characteristics. In the present analysis,
analysis, I focus
focus on credentials
credentials as the category of
of their
characteristics
characteristics with the
the most powerful
powerful influence on stratification. By nature of
credentials embody a
official
official certification
certification by the state or other authoritative
authoritative entities, credentials

•

formal
formal legitimation
legitimation of social
social standing.
standing.

The mechanisms
mechanisms of stratification
stratification which operate through positive credentialing
The
credentialing are
the standard
standard fare
fare of stratification
stratification research.
research. Positive credentialing refers to the acquisition
the
formal status
status which affords
affords access
access to restricted status
status positions.
of a formal
positions. Educational
attainment and
and professional
professional licensure,
licensure, for example, represent two forms of
of positive
attainment
credentials which
which determine
determine the placement of individuals
individuals within the stratification
stratification
credentials
hierarchy, providing
providing access
access to coveted
coveted positions and advantaged status.
status. Different from
hierarchy,
the social
social designation
designation underlying ascribed
ascribed forms
forms of stratification,
stratification, positive credentials
credentials
the
attain their
their influence
influence through
through a process
process of formal
formal certification.
certification. Though background
attain
characteristics certainly
certainly affect
affect the achievement
achievement of positive
positive credentials,
credentials, they are not bound
characteristics
the fixed
fixed properties
properties of ascription.
ascription. Indeed,
Indeed, with respect to educational and professional
by the

•

attainment, there
there is
is aa substantial
substantial degree
degree of intraintra- and inter-generational mobility
attainment,
(Sorensen &
& Grusky,
Grusky, 1996;
1996;Featherman & Hauser,
Hauser, 1976).
1976).
(Sorensen

•

215

credentials exert influence
influence is through
The primary mechanism by which positive credentials
the formal
formal protection of privileged positions.
positions. Educational
Educational attainment,
attainment, for example,
provides access to a wide range of occupations
occupations that accept applicants
applicants only with particular
educational credentials.
credentials. Likewise,
Likewise, medical and legal occupations,
occupations, among others, require
educational
specific professional licensure,
licensure, in addition
addition to mandatory educational
educational credentials
credentials for
specific
individuals who wish to practice
practice in these fields.
fields. These
These formalized
formalized ports of entry directly
individuals
shape
shape the allocation of individuals
individuals across
across the stratification
stratification hierarchy by limiting
limiting access
access

appropriate credentials
credentials (Collins,
(Collins, 1979).
1979).
only to those with appropriate
There is substantial disagreement
disagreement over the extent to which
whch credentials
credentials certify an
There
individual’s actual abilities
abilities or accomplishments
accomplishments rather than merely legitimating
legitimating hislher
hisher
individual's

•

traits. In the case of educational
educational attainment, for
existing behavioral or personality traits.
example, the acquisition of human capital
capital represents
represents the explicit
explicit emphasis, while some
example,
argue that cultural knowledge
knowledge and dispositions
dispositions matter as much or more for educational
success (Bourdieu,
(Bourdieu, 1977).
1977). Likewise, there remains debate over whether credentials
credentials
success
flows (by certifying
certifying particular skills
skills or experiences) or whether
solely assist information flows
they represent independent gatekeepers
gatekeepers of privilege, accessed through the monopolization
opportunities (Collins, 1979).
1979). While I will not enter a prolonged debate
debate on this
of opportunities
seems safe to say that positive credentials provide an upward boost, net ofthe
of the
question, it seems
underlying skills
skills or achievements
achievements by which they were attained.
attained.
formal opportunities
opportunities afforded by positive credentials,
credentials, these
In addition to the formal
status markers also provide access
access to a wide range of social
social privileges.
privileges. Individuals with
status

•

levels of educational attainment
attainment or high occupational
occupational standing
standing have access
access to social
social
high levels
networks and informal opportunities
opportunities that can reinforce
reinforce or enhance
enhance their existing
existing
networks

•

216

advantage.
advantage. The effects of positive credentials,
credentials, therefore,
therefore, work through both formal
formal and
informal channels, each with important consequences for stratification.
informal
stratification.
Processes
Processes of stratification
stratification based on positive credentialing
credentialing tend to have high moral
legitimacy,
legitimacy, as they operate through what is perceived to be largely meritocratic
meritocratic processes
processes
of allocation.
allocation. Individual
Individual effort and achievement-however
achievement-however facilitated
facilitated by existing
existing
advantages-are
advantages-are seen as the most just basis on which to allocate
allocate social
social and economic
economic
rewards.
rewards. Official
Official certification
certification based on uniform criteria,
criteria, therefore,
therefore, is favored
favored over the
arbitrary
arbitrary system of stratification
stratification by ascribed group membership.
membership.

Negative Credentialing
Credentialing

•

Typically stratification
stratification researchers do not assign a valence to the concept of'
of ‘credential.’
Typically
credential.'
almost exclusively
exclusively referred
referred to formal
formal attributes
attributes that enhance
enhance opportunities,
opportunities,
The term has almost

as described
described above.
above. By contrast,
contrast, I find
find it useful
useful here to differentiate
differentiate between positive and
as
negative credentials,
credentials, highlighting
highlighting a fundamental
fundamental difference
difference between the two:
two: positive
negative
credentials enable
enable opportunities;
opportunities; negative
negative credentials
credentials impose
impose constraints.
constraints.
credentials
Similar to positive credentials, negative
negative credentials
credentials are acquired through formal
formal
designation whereby
whereby agents
agents acting
acting in an official
official capacity
capacity certify membership.
membership. But unlike
designation
positive credentials,
credentials, negative
negative credentials
credentials single
single out their bearers for
for discrimination
discrimination or
positive
exclusion from
from key domains
domains of social
social life.
life. A prison record represents
represents an
an archetypal
archetypal
exclusion
example of negative credentialing.
credentialing. Though resulting in large
large part from
from an individual's
individual’s
example
is the state
state who
who decides
decides which individuals
individuals are
are convicted
convicted and which are
are sent
sent to
behavior, it is

•

prison. The
The negative
negative credential
credential of a prison
prison record then plays a key rolein
role in shaping
shaping
prison.
stratificationby generating
generating a criminal
criminal class
class with restricted
restricted rights
rights and
and privileges.
privileges. As
As
stratification

•

217

discussed
discussed in the previous chapter, individuals
individuals with criminal records face unique
constraints
participation, among other
constraints in their options
options for employment,
employment, housing, political participation,
stratification
stratification outcomes.
outcomes. Though states vary in the duration for which a criminal record
forms
full lifetime), the aggregate
forms the legal basis for exclusion (from less than a year to a full
consequences
of ex-offenders are
consequences across
across social domains
domains and across the population of
immense.
immense.
In addition
addition to the formal
formal or legal constraints
constraints on opportunity, negative credentials
have
memberships, negative credentials
credentials
have further
fbrther social
social costs.
costs. Like many ascribed group membershps,
confer a stigma
constraints to those imposed by the
stigma upon their bearers, adding
adding informal
informal constraints
state.
consequences
state. As
As discussed in
iii chapter seven,
seven, a criminal record can have profound consequences

•

for
interactions,
for the
the immediate
immediate and long-term
long-term experiences
experiences of ex-offenders, shaping their interactions,
their
their expectations,
expectations, and their opportunities.
opportunities.

Unlike ascribed
ascribed forms
forms of stigma,
stigma, however, negative credentials maintain a high
Unlike
degree
degree of moral
moral legitimacy.
legitimacy. Because
Because a prison record results at least in part from an

individual’s voluntary
voluntary decision
decision to commit
commit crime, the assignment ofthis
of this negative
individual's
credential appears
appears fully
fully warranted.
warranted. Though
Though prison inmates are disproportionately
disproportionatelypoor
credential
and disproportionately
disproportionatelyblack,
black, a criminal
criminal record serves
serves to differentiate
differentiate between the “good
and
"good
poor” and
and the
the "good
“good blacks"
blacks” from
from those
those who have succumbed to the temptation of
poor"
of illicit
activity. In
In this
this way,
way, the
the process of negative
negative credentialing
credentialing provides official certification
certification
activity.
for the
the undeserving
undeserving underclass.
underclass.
for
Theoretically,it is
is important
important to consider the role of negative credentials in the
Theoretically,

•

current stratification
stratification regime.
regime. The
The certification
certification of an individual's
individual’s transgressions in the
current
form of an
an official
official social
social (and political)
political) status
status represents
represents a new mode of differentiation,
differentiation,
form

•

218
distinct
distinct from
from the more common forms
forms of stratification discussed above. To the extent
represents a stable underlying character
that we believe
believe delinquency
delinquency or criminal
criminal activity represents
trait-in
trait-in the way we believe that high achievement in school represents a stable
underlying skill
skill base-the
base-the credentialing
credentialing process effectively recognizes individuals
headed for trouble, appropriately
appropriately blocking access to social arenas in which their presence
could
could be disruptive.
disruptive. On the other hand, ifthe
if the credential
credential itself exacerbates negative
outcomes-as
outcomes-as the audit study seemed to indicate-this
indicate-this mechanism may do more than
of
merely
merely sort
sort and certify.
certify. The
The negative
negative credential can in itself produce new forms of
durable
durable inequality.
inequality.

•

Shifting Rules,
Rules, Common
Common Outcomes
Outcomes

As aa society,
society, we are
are moving toward a stratification
stratification regime whereby key opportunities
As
opportunities and
resources are
are allocated
allocated on the basis of formally
formally designated
designated status positions.
positions. Instead of
of
resources
status, individuals
relying on ascribed markers to determine social status,
individuals are increasingly sorted
formal institutions
institutions of stratification:
stratification: schools,
schools,jobs, and, more recently, prisons.
by formal
Generally stratification
stratification based on formal
formal credentials
credentials has high legitimacy
legitimacy because
Generally
credentials are
are viewed
viewed as
as more objective,
objective, reasoned bases for allocating social rewards.
credentials
Interestingly, however, it is
is not clear that this radical change
change in the mechanisms of
Interestingly,
allocation will have
have much significance
significance forthe
for the composition of status
status holders.
allocation
holders. Some
question, for
for example,
example, whether positive
positive credentialing
credentialing does anything more than legitimate
question,
existing inequalities
inequalities by providing
providing "objective"
“objective” designation of an individual's
individual’s merit while
existing

•

relying on
on ascriptive
ascriptive characteristics
characteristics to assign
assign these
these designations
designations (Bourdieu,
(Bourdieu, 1977;
1977; Hout,
relying
Raftery, &
& Bell,
Bell, 1993).
1993). Likewise,
Likewise, one could argue that negative credentialing
credentialing serves a
Raftery,

•

219

individual's criminal character,
similar purpose: By providing official designation of an individual’s
it becomes possible to invoke a morally legitimate rationale for marginalizing
marginalizing the already

socially disadvantaged.
disadvantaged. Thus even as the rules change, the outcomes may remain the
same.
same.
impossible to tell whether the massive presence of
At this point in history, it is impossible
incarceration
today's stratification
20th
incarceration in today’s
stratification system represents a unique anomaly of the late 20th
century, or part of a larger movement toward a system of stratification
stratification based on the
official certification
people’s eyes,
eyes, the
certification of individual character and competence.
competence. In many people's
criminal
criminal justice system represents
represents an effective
effective tool for identifying
identifjmg and segregating the

society. Whether this process will continue
continue to form
form the basis
objectionable elements
elements of society.
objectionable

•

of emerging
emerging social
social cleavages
cleavages remains to be seen.

•

220
References
References

Ageton,
Ageton, Suzanne
Suzanne and Delbert S.
S. Elliott.
Elliott. 1974.
1974. "The
“The Effect of Legal Processing
Processing on
Delinquent Orientation."
22:87-100.
Orientation.” Social Problems 22:87-100.
Allen, Francis A. 1981.
1981. The
The Decline ofthe
of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social
Purpose. New Haven:
Haven: Yale University Press.
Purpose.
Allport, G.
G. 1954.
1954. The
The Nature ofPrejudice.
of Prejudice. New York:
York: Doubleday
Doubleday Anchor Books.
Anderson,
Decency, Violence,
Anderson, Elijah. 1999.
1999. Code
Code ofthe
of the Streets: Decency,
Violence, and the Moral Life of
of
the Inner City.
City. New York:
York: W.W. Norton.
Anderson,
Anderson, Elijah.
Elijah. 2001.
2001. "Going
“Going Straight."
Straight.” In Garland,
Garland, David (Ed.), Mass
Imprisonment.
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1998.
Arrow,
1998. "What
“What Has Economics
Economics to Say about Racial Discrimination?"
Discrimination?”
Journal ofEconomic
of Economic Perspectives 12(2):91-100.
12(2):91-100.

•
0

Ayres, Ian and Peter Siegelman.
Siegelman. 1995.
1995. «Race
“Race and Gender Discrimination
Discrimination in Bargaining
for a New Car."
Car.” The
The American Economic Review 85(3):304-321.
85(3):304-321.
Banaji,
Banaji, M.R., and A.G.
A.G. Greenwald.
Greenwald. 1994.
1994. "Implicit
“Implicit Stereotyping and Prejudice."
Prejudice.” In
M.P. Zanna and J.M. Olson (Eds.), The Psychology ofPrejudice:
of Prejudice: The
The Ontario
7 3 - 7 6 . Hillsdale,
Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Jersey: Erlbaum.
Erlbaum.
Symposium 7:55-76.
Barclay, Gordon, Cynthia Tavares,
Tavares, and Arsalaan Siddique.
Siddique. 2001.
2001. "International
“International
Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 1999."
1999.” London,
London, UK: Home Office
Office of
Comparisons
the United Kingdom.
Kingdom.
Baruch,
Baruch, Yehuda.
Yehuda. 1999.
1999. "Response
“Response Rate in Academic Studies-A
Studies-A Comparative
Analysis.”
Analysis." Human Relations 52(4): 421-438.

Becker, Gary S.
S . 1971.
1971. The
The Economics ofDiscrimination,
of Discrimination, 2nd ed.
ed. Chicago: University
Becker,
Chicago Press.
of Chicago
Becker, Gary.
Gary. 1975.
1975. Human Capital.
Capital. New York: Columbia University Press.
Press.
Becker,

•
a

Beckett, Katherine
Katherine and Bruce Western.
Western. 2001.
2001. "Governing
“Governing Social Marginality:
Marginality: Welfare,
Welfare,
Beckett,
Incarceration, and the Transformation
Transformation of State
State Policy."
Policy.” In Garland,
Galand, David (Ed.).
(Ed.).
Incarceration,
2001. Mass Imprisonment:
Consequences. London:
London: Sage
Sage
2001.
Imprisonment: Social Causes and Consequences.
Publications.
Katherine. 1997.
1997. Making Crime Pay:
Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary
Beckett, Katherine.
American Politics.
Press.
Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

•

221
22 1
Bendick,
Bendick, Marc,
Marc, Jr. 1999.
1999. "Adding
“Adding Testing
Testing to the Nation's
Nation’s Portfolio
Portfolio of Infonnation
Information on
Employment
Employment Testing,"
Testing,” in Fix and Turner, A National Report Card on
Discimrination
Discimrination in America:
America: The Role of Testing.
Testing. Washington,
Washington, DC:
DC: Urban
Institute.
Institute.
Bendick,
1999. "No
“No Foot in the Door:
Door: An Experimental
Experimental
Bendick, Marc, Jr., Brown,
Brown, and Wall.
Wall. 1999.
Study of Employment Discrimination."
Discrimination.”Journal ofAging
of Aging and Social Policy
10(4):5-23.
10(4):5-23.
Bendick,
Bendick, Marc,
Marc, Jr., Charles Jackson,
Jackson, and Victor Reinoso.
Reinoso. 1994.
1994. "Measuring
“Measuring
Employment Discrimination
Discrimination through Controlled
Controlled Experiments."
Experiments.” Review ofBlack
of Black
23: 25-48.
25-48.
Political Economy 23:
Bennan,
Berman, Greg and John Feinblatt.
Feinblatt. 2001.
2001. "Problem-Solving
“Problem-Solving Courts:
Courts: A Brief Primer."
Primer.”
Law and Policy 23(2):
23(2): 125-140.
125-140.
Blumstein, Alfred &
Blumstein,
& A. Rosenfeld. 1998.
1998. "Explaining
“Explaining Recent Trends in U.S. Homicide
Homicide
Rates." Journal ofCriminal
Rates.”
of Criminal Law and Criminology
Criminology 88(4):
88(4): 1175-1217
1175-1217

•
a

Blumstein, Alfred &
& A. Rosenfeld.
1998. Assessing Recent Ups
Ups and Downs in U.S.
US.
Blumstein,
Rosenfeld. 1998.
Homicide Rates,
[check cite]
Rates, the Consortium on Violence research.
research. [check
cite]
1999. "Population
“Population Growth in U.S. Prisons, 19801980Blumstein,
Bluinstein, Alfred and Allen J. Beck. 1999.
1996,” in Michael Tonry and J. Petersilia (eds.), Prisons:
1996,"
Prisons: Crime and Justice:
Justice: A
Review ofResearch,
of Research, Vol.
Vol.26.
Chicago: University of Chicago
Chicago Press.
26. Chicago:

Blumstein,
2000. The
The Crime Drop in America.
America. New
Blumstein, Alfred and Joel Wallman (Eds.). 2000.
Press.
York: Cambridge University Press.
1982. "On
“On the Racial Disproportionality of United States
States Prison
Blumstein, Alfred.
Alfred. 1982.
Populations.”
Journal
o
f
Criminal
Law
and
Criminology
73:
1259-8
1.
Populations."
ofCriminal
73:1259-81.

Blumstein, Alfred.
1993. “Racial
University oofColorado
f Colorado
Alfred. 1993.
"Racial Disproportionality Revisited.”
Revisited." University
Law Review 64:743-760.
64:743-760.
Bodenhausen, Galen and Lichtenstein,
1987. “Social
Lichtenstein, M. 1987.
"Social Stereotypes
Stereotypes and Information
Infonnation
Strategies: The Impact of
Processing Strategies:
f Personality
of Task Complexity.
Complexity. Journal o
ofPersonality
and Social Psychology 52:871-880.
52:871-880.

•

Bodenhausen, Galen.
1988. “Stereotypic
Galen. 1988.
"Stereotypic Biases in Social Decision Making and
Memory: Testing Porcess Models of
f Personality and
of Stereotype
Stereotype Use.”
Use." Journal o
ofPersonality
Social Psychology 55(5):
55(5): 726-737.
726-737.

•

222

Boshier,
Employment·
Boshier, R.
R. and Derek Johnson.
Johnson. 1974.
1974. "Does
“Does Conviction Affect Employment
Opportunities?"
of Criminology 14:
14: 264-268.
Opportunities?” British Journal o/Criminology
Bourdieu,
Reproduction." In Karabel,
Bourdieu, Pierre.
Pierre. 1977.
1977. "Cultural
“Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.”
Jerome
Jerome and A.H.
A.H. Halsey (Eds.).
(Eds.). Power and Ideology in Education. New York:
Oxford
Oxford Press.
Press.
Bradburn,
Bradburn, N.M. 1983.
1983. "Response
“Response Effects."
Effects.” In Rossi, P., J. Wright, and A. Anderson
(Eds.).
York: Academic Press, pp.289-328.
(Eds.). Handbook 0/
of Survey Research. New York:
Buikhuisen,
Buikhuisen, W. and F.P.H. Dijksterhuis.
Dijksterhuis. 1971.
1971. "Delinquency
“Delinquency and Stigmatisation."
Stigmatisation.”
British Journal o/Criminology
of Criminology 11:
11: 185-187.
185-187.
Bureau of Justice
2001. By Allen J.
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2002a.
2002a. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2001.
Beck,
Beck, Jennifer C. Karberg, and Paige M. Harrison. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department
Department of Justice,
Justice, April.
April.

•

Bureau
Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2002b.
2002b. State Prison Admissions, 1999: Offense,
Offense, by
Timothy Hughes.
Hughes. Washington,
Washington, DC: National Corrections
Type. By Timothy
Admission Type.
Reporting Program,
Program, U.S. Department of Justice,
Justice, January.
Reporting

Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2002c.
2002c. Recidivism ofPrisoners
of Prisoners Released in 1994.
1994. By
Bureau of Justice
Langan, Patrick
Patrick and
and David Levin.
Levin. Washington,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Langan,
June.
June.
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2001a.
2001a. Prisoners in
in 2000.
2000. By Allen J. Beck and Paige M.
Bureau of Justice
U.S. Department
Department of Justice,
Justice, August.
August.
Harrison. Washington,
Washington, DC: U.S.
Harrison.
Justice Statistics,
Statistics, 2001b.
2001b. Criminal Victimization
Victimization 2000: Changes 1999-2000
Bureau of Justice
Washington, DC:
DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
with Trends
Trends 1993-2000.
1993-2000. Washington,
with
Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics.
Statistics. 2000a.
2000a. Sourcebook ofCriminal
of Criminal Justice Statistics.
Bureau
Statistics. [Online].
Available:
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/.
Available: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/.
Bureau of
of Justice
Justice Statistics
Statistics Bulletin.
Bulletin. 2000b.
2000b. Key Facts at a Glance:
Glance: Number ofpersons
Bureau
of State correctional authorities by most serious offense 1980-99.
1980-99.
in custody
custody ofState
in
Washington, DC.
DC.
Washington,
Bureau of Justice
Justice Statistics.
Statistics. 2000c.
2000c. Incarcerated Parents and their Children.
Children. U.S.
U.S.
Bureau
Department of Justice.
Justice.
Department

•

Bureau of
of Justice
Justice Statistics.
Statistics. 2000d.
2000d. Probation and Parole in the United States,
States, 2000.
2000.
Bureau
U.S. Department
Department of Justice.
Justice.
U.S.

•

223

Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Populations in the United
Statistics. 1999a.
1999a. Correctional
Correctional Populations
United States,
States, 1996.
1996.
U.S. Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Statistics. 1999b.
1999b. "Women
“Women Offenders."
Offenders.” Special Report written by
L.A.
L.A. Greenfeld and T.L.
T.L. Snell.
Snell. Washington,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Statistics Special Report 1997.
1997. Lifetime Likelihood ofGoing
of Going to State of
of
Federal Prison,
Prison, by Thomas P. Bonczar and Allen J. Beck, March, Washington,
D.C.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Statistics Special Report.
Report. 1995.
1995. Prisoners in 1994,
1994, by Allen J. Beck
K. Gilliard.
Gilliard. Washington,
Washington, DC.
DC.
and Darrell K.

1991,
Statistics. 1994.
1994. Comparing Federal and State Prison Inmates 1991,
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
by Caroline
Caroline Harlow.
Harlow. NCJ-145864,.

Statistics. 2002.
2002. Local Area Unemployment Statistics.
Statistics. Online
Online Public
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Data Query.

•
a

Bushway, Shawn
Shawn D. 1997.
1997. "Labor
“Labor Market Effects
Effects of Permitting
Permitting Employer Access
Access to
Bushway,
Records.” Working Paper. University of Maryland, Department
Criminal History Records."
of Criminology.
Criminology.
Bushway, Shawn
Shawn D. 1998.
1998. "The
“The Impact ofan
of an Arrest on the Job Stability
Stability of Young
Bushway,
Men.” The
The Journal ofResearch
of Research in Crime and Delinquency
Delinquency
White American Men."
35(4):454-479.
35(4):454-479.
Cadora, Eric and Charles Swartz.
Swartz. 1999.
1999. Analysis for the Community Justice Project at
Cadora,
the Center for Alternative Sentencing
Sentencing and Employment Services
Services (CASES).
(CASES). Based
Parole.
on Data from the New York State Division of Parole.
Corrections. 1997.
1997. Preventing Parolee Failure Progrum:
Program: An
California Department of Corrections.
Evaluation.
Sacremento: California Department of Corrections.
Corrections.
Evaluation. Sacremento:
Campbell, D.T. 1963.
1963. "Social
“Social Attitudes and Other Acquired Behavioral Dispositions. In
Campbell,
Koch, S.
S. (Ed.), Psychology:
of a Science.
Science. New York:
York: McGraw-Hill.
McGraw-Hill.
Koch,
Psychology: A Study ofa
Caplow, T. and J. Simon.
Simon. 1999.
1999. "Understanding
“Understanding Prison Policy and Population Trends,"
Trends,”
Caplow,
(eds.), Prisons:
Crime and Justice:
of
Prisons: Crime
Justice: A Review of
in Michael Tonry and J. Petersilia (eds.),
Research,
Vol.26.
26. Chicago:
Chicago: University of Chicago
Chicago Press.
Press.
Research, Vol.

•

Strategy (COWS).
(COWS). 1996.
1996. Milwaukee Area Regional Economic
Center on Wisconsin Strategy
Analysis.
Analysis. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

•

224

Christensen,
Christensen, D. and R.
R. Rosenthal.
Rosenthal. 1982.
1982. "Gender
“Gender and Nonverbal Decoding Skill as
Determinants
Determinants of Interpersonal
Interpersonal Expectancy Effects."
Effects.” Journal ofPersonality and
Social Psychology
42:75-87.
Psychology 42:75-87.
Clear,
Clear, Todd,
Todd, Dina Rose,
Rose, and J.A.
J.A. Ryder.
Ryder. 2000.
2000. "Coercive
“Coercive Mobility and the Community:
Community:
The Impact of Removing
Removing and Returning
Returning Offenders."
Offenders.’’ Working paper.
Cohen,
Cohen, Dov and Richard E. Nisbett. 1997.
1997. "Field
“Field Experiments
Experiments Examining
Examining the Culture
Culture of
Honor:
Honor: The Role of Institutions
Institutions in Perpetuating Norms about Violence."
Violence.’’
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Bulletin 23(11):1188-1199.
23(11):1188-1199.
Cohen, Jacqueline and Jose Canela-Cacho.
Canela-Cacho. 1994.
1994. "Incapacitation
“Incapacitation and Violent Crime."
Crime.”
In Reiss, Albert and Jeffrey
Jeffrey Roth (Eds.). Understanding
Understanding and Preventing
Violence,
vol.4. Washington,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences,
Sciences, pp.296-338.
Violence, VolA.
Collins, Randall.
Randall. 1979.
1979. The
The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology ofEducation
of Education
Stratification. New York:
York: Academic Press.
and Stratijkation.

•

Cox, Brenda G.; David A.
A. Binder; B. Nanjamma Chinnappa; Anders Christianson;
Christianson;
Michael J. Colledge; and Phillip
S. Kott. 1995.
1995. Business Survey Methods.
Phillip S.
Methods. New
York:
York: John Wiley &
& Sons,
Sons, Inc.
Crandall, C.S. 1994.
People: Ideology and Self-Interest."
Crandall,
1994. "Prejudice
“Prejudice against Fat People:
Self-Interest.” Journal
ofPersonality
Psychology 66:
of
Personality and Social Psycltology
66: 882-894.
882-894.

Crocker, Jennifer and Brenda Major. 1989.
1989. "Social
“Social Stigma and Self-Esteem:
Self-Esteem: The SelfSelfCrocker,
Protective Properties
Stigma.” Psychological Review 96:608-630.
96:608-630.
Properties of Stigma."
Crocker, Jennifer,
Jennifer, Brenda Major, and Claude Steele. 1998.
"Social Stigma,”
Stigma," in Gilbert,
Gilbert,
Crocker,
1998. “Social
Daniel, Susan Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (Eds.). Handbook of
Social
ofSocial
Psychology,
Psychology, vo1.4.
volA.

Crocker,
S. Broadnax.
1994. "Collective
“Collective SelfCrocker, Jennifer, Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B, and S.
Broadnax. 1994.
esteem and Psychological
Psychological Well-being among White, Black, and Asian College
Students.”
13.
Students." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20:502-5
20:502-513.
Crosby,
1980. “Recent
Crosby, Faye; Stephanie
Stephanie Bromley; and Leonard Saxe. 1980.
"Recent Unobtrusive
Studies of Black and White Discrimination and Prejudice: A Literature Review.”
Studies
Review."
Psychological Bulletin 87(3): 546-563.
546-563.

•

Cross, Harry, Genevieve
1989. Diferential
Genevieve Kenney, Jane Mell, and Wendy Zimmerman. 1989.
Differential
Hispanic and Anglo Job Seekers:
Treatment of
ofHispanic
Seekers: Hiring Practices in Two
Two Cities.
Cities.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

•

225

Cross,
Cross, Harry,
Hany, Genevieve
Genevieve Kenney,
Kenney, Jane Mell,
Mell, and Wendy Zimmennan.
Zimmerman. 1990.
1990. Employer
Hiring Practices:
of Hispanic and Anglo Job Seekers.
Seekers.
Practices: Differential Treatment
Treatment ofHispanic
Washington,
Washington, DC: Urban Institute
Institute Press.
Press.
Culp, Jerome and Bruce Dunson.
Dunson. 1986.
1986. "Brothers
“Brothers of a Different Color:
Color: A Preliminary
Preliminary
Look at Employer Treatment of White and Black Youth."
Youth.” In Freeman, Richard
B.
B. and Harry 1.
J. Holzer (eds).
(eds). 1986.
1986. The
The Black Youth
Youth Employment Crisis.
Crisis.
Chicago,
Chicago, IL:
IL: U Chicago
Chicago Press for National Bureau of Economic
Economic Research.
Research.
Curtin,
Curtin, Richard;
Richard; Stanley
Stanley Presser;
Presser; and Eleanor Singer.
Singer. 2000.
2000. "The
“The Effects
Effects of Response
Response
Rate Changes
Changes on the Index of Consumer Sentiment."
Sentiment.” Public Opinion
Opinion Quarterly
Quarterly
64: 413-428.
413-428.
64:
D'Souza,
D’Souza, Dinesh. The
The End ofRacism:
of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society.
Society. New York:
Free Press.
Press.
Rehabilitation of Ex-Offenders.”
Ex-Offenders." Crime and
Dale, Mitchell. 1976.
1976. "Barriers
“Barriers to the Rehabilitation
22: 322-337.
322-337.
Delinquency 22:

•

Gross. 1983.
Hypothesis-Confinning bias in labeling
Darley, J.M. and P.H. Gross.
1983. "A
“A Hypothesis-Confirming
labeling effects."
effects.’’
ofPersonality
Journal o
f Personality and Social Psychology 44:20-33
44:20-33..
Justice. 1994.
Department of Justice.
1994. An Analysis ofNon-violent
of Non-violent Drug Offenders with Minimal
Criminal Histories.
Histories. Washington,
Washington, DC: Department of Justice, February 4.
4.
Policy." Social
Deutscher, Irwin.
Irwin. 1966.
1966. "Words
“Words and Deeds: Social Science and Social
Social Policy.”
13:235-254.
Problems 13:235-254.
Fading? The
Devine, P. G. and A. J. Elliot. 1995.
1995. "Are
“Are Racial Stereotypes
Stereotypes Really Fading?
Revisited." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(11):
Princeton Trilogy Revisited.”
2 1 (1 1):
1139-1
150.
1139-1150.

Devine, Patricia.
1989. “Stereotypes
Patricia. 1989.
"Stereotypes and Prejudice:
Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled
Components.”
Personality and Social Psychology 56:5-18.
Components." Journal of
ofPersonality
56:5-18.
Dickey, Walter.
1988. Community corrections in 1987-88.
Walter. 1988.
1987-88. Wisconsin: Division of
of
Corrections.
Corrections.
Dickey, Walter.
1990. “From
Walter. 1990.
"From the Bottom Up: Probation and Parole Supervision in
Milwaukee.”
of Wisconsin Law
Milwaukee." Research monograph.
monograph. Wisconsin: University of
School.
School.

•

DiIulio, John and Anne Morrison Piehl. 1991.
1991. “Does
Stonny National
"Does Prison Pay? The Stormy
Debate over the Cost Effectiveness
Imprisonment.” The Brookings Review,
ofImprisonment."
Effectiveness of
fall: 28-35.
28-35.
fall:

•

226
Dipboye, R.L.
R.L. 1982.
1982. "Self-Fulfilling
“Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
Prophecies in the
the Selection-Recruitment
Selection-Recruitment
Interview."
Interview.” Academy ofManagement
of Management Review 7:579-586.
7579-586.
Dockery,
Dockery, Terry and Arthur Bedeian.
Bedeian. 1989.
1989. "'Attitudes
“’Attitudes Versus
Versus Actions':
Actions’: LaPiere's
LaPiere’s
(1934)
Classic
Study
Revisited."
Social
Behavior
and
Personality
17(1):
(1934) Classic Study Revisited.’’
17( 1): 9-16.
9-16.
Dovidio, J.F.,
J.F., Evans,
Evans, N., and R.B. Tyler. 1986.
1986. "Racial
“Racial Stereotypes:
Stereotypes: The Contents
Contents of
Their Cognitive
Cognitive Representations.
Representations. Journal ofExperimental
of Experimental Social Psychology
22 ~22-37.
22:22-37.
Fagan,
Fagan, Jeffrey;
Jeffrey; Franklin E. Zimring;
Zimring; and June Kim.
Kim. 1998.
1998. "Declining
“Declining Homicide
Homicide in New
York City:
City: A Tale
Tale of Two
Two Trends."
Trends.” Journal ofCriminal
of Criminal Law and Criminology
Criminology
88(4): 1277-1306.
1277-1306.
88(4):
Faim, PaulO.
Paul 0. 1984.
1984. "Discouraged
“Discouraged Workers:
Workers: How Strongly are their Links
Links to the Job
Market?"
Market?” Monthly Labor Review (August):
(August): 8-11.
8-1 1.
Fanon,F.
Skins, White
A/asks. New York:
Fanon, F. 1967.
1967. Black Skins,
Wzite Masks.
York: Grove.
Grove.

•
0

Fenton-O'Creevy,
Fenton-O’Creevy, M. 1996.
1996. Employees Involvement and the Middle Manager.
Business School.
School.
Unpublished Dissertation, London Business

Finn, R.H.
R.H. and P.A. Fontaine. 1985.
1985. "The
“The Association Between Selected Characteristics
Characteristics
Criminal.Justice
Justice and Behavior 12:
12:
and Perceived Employability
Employability of Offenders.”
Offenders." Criminal
3353-365.
5 3 -365.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. 1975.
1975. Belie5
Belief, Attitude, Intention,
Intention, and Behavior. MA:
AddisonWesley.
Addison-Wesley.
Fiske, Susan and S.L. Neuberg. 1990.
1990. "A
“A Continuum Model of Impression
Impression Formation:
From Category-Based to Individuating
Individuating Processes as a Function of Information,
Motivation,
Motivation, and Attention.”
Attention." In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Psychology, Vol.
Vol. 23. California: Academic Press.
Fiske, Susan.
Susan. 1998.
1998. “Stereotyping,
"Stereotyping, Prejudice,
Prejudice, and Discrimination,”
Discrimination," in Gilbert, Daniel,
Susan Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook oofSocial
f Social Psychology, vo1.4.
volA.
Fix, Michael and Raymond J. Struyk (Eds.).
(Eds.). 1993.
1993. Clear and Convincing Evidence:
Measurement oofDiscrimination
f Discrimination in America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute
Press.

•

Fowler, Floyd J. 1995.
1995. Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. CA:
Sage Publications.
Publications.

•

227
Freeman,
Freeman, Richard B. 1987.
1987. "The
“The Relation of Criminal Activity to Black Youth
Employment."
The
Review
ofBlack
Political Economy 16(1-2):
Employment.” The
of Black PoliticaZ
16(1-2): 99-107.
99- 107.
No.
Freeman, Richard B. 1994.
1994. "Crime
“Crime and the Job Market."
Market.” NBER Working Paper No.
Cambridge, MA: NBER.
4910, Cambridge,
NBER.
Freeman,
Freeman, Richard B. and Harry
Hany J. Holzer (eds).
(eds). 1986.
1986. The
The Black Youth
Youth Employment
Crisis.
Chicago, IL:
IL: U Chicago Press for National Bureau of Economic Research.
Research.
Crisis. Chicago,

Rodgers III.
111. 1999.
1999. "Area
“Area Economic Conditions
Conditions
Freeman, Richard B; and William M. Rodgers
Outcomes of Young Men in the 1990s
1990s Expansion."
Expansion.” NBER
and the Labor Market Outcomes
Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Working Paper No. 7073, Cambridge,
Gainsborough, Jenni and Marc Mauer. 2000.
2000. "Diminishing
“Diminishing Returns:
Returns: Crime and
Gainsborough,
Incarceration in the 1990s."
1990s.” Policy report from
from the Sentencing
Sentencing Project.
Project.
Incarceration
Garland,
Imprisonment: Social Causes
Garland, David (Ed.). 2001. Mass Imprisonment:
Causes and Consequences.
Consequences.
London: Sage Publications.

•

Garland, David.
David. 1990.
1990. Punishment in Modern Society:
Theory.
Garland,
Society: A Study in Social Theory.
Chicago:
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Garland,
Garland, David.
David. 2001.
2001. The
The Culture ofControl:
of Control: Crime
Crime and Social Order in
Contemporary
Society.
Chicago:
University
of Chicago
Chicago Press.
Press.
Contemporary Society. Chicago:

2002. "Zone
“Zone Defense."
Defense.” Washington
Washington Monthly.
Gould, John. 2002.
Monthly. June.
Grogger, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey. 1992.
1992. "Arrests,
“Arrests, Persistent Youth Joblessness,
Joblessness, and BlacklWhite
BlackWhite
Grogger,
of Economics and Statistics,
Statistics, 74: 100-06.
100-06.
Differentials,” Review ofEconomics
Employment Differentials,"
Grogger, Jeffrey. 1995.
1995. "The
“The Effect of Arrests on the Employment and Earnings of
Grogger,
Men.” Quarterly
Quarterb JournaZ
of Economics 110:
110: 51-72.
5 1-72.
Young Men."
Journal ofEconomics
Groves, Robert M. and Lars E. Lyberg.
Lyberg. 1988.
1988. "An
“An Overview ofNonresponse
of Nonresponse Issues in
Groves,
Telephone Surveys."
Surveys.” In Groves,
Groves, Robert M. et a1.,
al., Telephone
Telephone Survey
Telephone
Methodology.
pp. 191-212.
Methodology. New York: Wiley, pp.191-212.
Hauser. 1978.
1978. Opportunity
Opportunity and Change.
Change. New
Featherman, David L., and Robert M. Hauser.
York:
York: Academic Press.
Press.

•

1993. "The
“The Social
Social Embeddedness
Embeddedness of Crime and Unemployment."
Unemployment.”
Hagan, John. 1993.
31(4): 465-491
465-491..
Criminology 31(4):

•

228
Hairston, C.F.
C.F. 1998.
1998. "The
“The Forgotten Parent:
Parent: Understanding
Understanding the Forces that Influence
Incarcerated
Incarcerated Fathers'
Fathers’ Relationships
Relationships with their Children."
Children.” Child Welfare
Welfare 77: 617617639.
639.
Hakken, Jon. 1979.
1979. Discrimination against Chicanos
Chicanos in the Dallas Rental Housing
Market: An Experimental Extension ofthe
Market:
of the Housing Market Practices Survey.
Survey.
Washington, DC:
DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Development.
Harris, Anthony.
Anthony. 1975.
1975. "Imprisonment
“Imprisonment and the Expected Value of Criminal Choice: A
Perspective." American
Specification
Specification and Test of Aspects of the Labeling Perspective.”
Sociological Review 40(February):71-87.
4O(February):7 1-87.
Harris, Anthony. 1976.
1976. "Race,
“Race, Commitment to Deviance and Spoiled Identity."
Identity.”
American Sociological Review 41:432-42.
41 :432-42.
Hart Associates.
Associates. 2002. Poll conducted
conducted for the Open Society
Society Institute.
Institute.

•

1995. "The
“The Roles of Information Characteristics
Characteristicsand
Hattrup, Keith and J. Kevin Ford. 1995.
Accountability
Processes during
Accountability in Moderating
Moderating Stereotype-Driven
Stereotype-Driven Processes
during Social
Social
Decision Making.”
Making." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
63(1):73-86.
63(1):73-86.
Heckman,
Heckman, James;
James; Hidehiko Ichimura; Jeffrey Smith; and Petra Todd. 1998.
1998.
"Characterizing
“Characterizing Selection
Selection Bias Using Experimental Data."
Data.” Econometrica 6:10176: 10171099.
1099.

Hellegers, Adam P. 1999.
1999. "Reforming
‘‘Reforming HUD's
HUD’s 'One-Strike'
‘One-Strike’ Public Housing Evictions
Hellegers,
through Tenant Participation."
Participation.” The
The Journal ofCriminal
of Criminal Law and Criminology
90(1):
90( 1): 323-361.
323-361.
1996. Just a Temp.
Temp. Philadelphia: Temple
Temple University Press.
Press.
Henson, Kevin D.. 1996.
Welfare Recipients:
The Effects
Stoll. 2001. Employers and Welfare
Holzer, Harry and Michael Stoll.
Recipients: The
of
WeIfare
Reform
in
the
Workplace.
San
Francisco:
Public
Policy
Institute
of Welfare
Workplace.
Francisco:
Institute of
California.
California.

Harry, Steven
Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll.
Stoll. 2001.
2001. "Perceived
“Perceived Criminality,
Criminality,
Holzer, Harry,
Practices of Employers."
Employers.”
. Criminal Background Checks and the Racial Hiring Practices
Working Paper.
Working
Paper.

•

Harry, Steven
Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll.
Stoll. 2002.
2002. "Will
“Will Employers Hire ExHolzer, Harry,
Offenders? Employer Preferences,
Preferences, Background Checks, and Their
Offenders?
Determinants.” Institute
Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion
Discussion Paper 1243-02.
1243-02.
Determinants."

•

229

Holzer, Harry,
Harry, Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll.
Stoll. 2002.
2002. Survey ofLos
of Los Angeles
Employers. Analysis of unpublished data.
data.
Employers.
Holzer,
Holzer, Harry.
Harry. 1987.
1987. "Infonnal
“Informal Job Search and Black Youth Unemployment."
Unemployment.”
American Economic Review 77(3):
77(3): 446-452.
446-452.
Holzer, Harry.
Harry. 1988.
1988. "Search
“Search Methods
Methods Used by Unemployed Youth."
Youth.” Journal ofLabor
of Labor
6( 1): 1-20.
1-20.
Economics 6(1):
Holzer, Harry.
Harry. 1991.
1991. "The
“The spatial
spatial mismatch hypothesis:
hypothesis: What has the evidence
evidence shown?"
shown?”
Urban
Urban Studies 28(1):
28(1): 105-122.
105-122.
Holzer,
Holzer, Harry.
Harry. 1996.
1996. What
What Employers Want:
Want: Job Prospects for Less-Educated Workers.
Workers.
NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
New York, NY:
Foundation.
Hout, Michael, Adrian E. Raftery,
Rafiery, and Eleanor O.
0. Bell. 1993.
1993. "Making
“Making the Grade:
Educational Stratification
Stratification in the United States,
States, 1925-1989."
1925-1989.” In Shavit,
Shavit, Yossi and
Peter Blossfeld.
Inequality: Cchanging Educational Attainment in
Blossfeld. Persistent Inequality:
Thirteen
Thirteen Countries.
Countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Press.

•
0

Human Rights
1996. Losing the Vote:
Vote: The
The Impact ofFelony
of Felony
Rights Watch.
Watch. 1996.
States. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States.
Husley,
Husley, Lonnie Freeman.
Freeman. 1990.
1990. "Attitudes
“Attitudes of Employers with Repect to Hiring Released
Prisoners."
Prisoners.” Ph.D. dissertation,
dissertation, Mankato State University, Mankato, MN.
Irwin,
It's About Time.
Irwin, J. and J. Austin.
Austin. 1994.
1994. It’s
Time. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wadsworth.
Jacobs,
Jacobs, D. and R.E. Helms. 1996.
1996. "Towards
“Towards a Political Model ofIncarceration."
of Incarceration.”
American Journal ofSociology
of Sociology 102(2):
102(2): 323-57.
323-57.
Jensen,
Jensen, W. and W.C. Giegold.
Giegold. 1976.
1976. "Finding
“Finding Jobs for Ex-Offenders:
Ex-Offenders: A Study of
Employers'
Attitudes." American Business Law Journal 14:195-225.
Employers’ Attitudes.”
14:195-225.

Markus H., Miller D.T.,
D.T., Scott R.
R. 1984.
1984. Social Stigma:
Stigma:
Jones E., Farina A., Hastorf A., Markus
The
of Marked Relationshrps.
Freeman.
Relationships. New York: Freeman.
The Psychology ofMarked
Keeter,
Presser.
Keeter, Scott;
Scott; Carolyn Miller;
Miller; Andrew Kohut; Robert M. Groves;
Groves; and Stanley
Stanley Presser.
2000.
2000. "Consequences
“Consequences of Reducing
Reducing Nonresponse in a National Telephone
Telephone
Survey.” Public Opinion
Opinion Quarterly
Quarterly 64:
64: 125-148.
125-148.
Survey."

•

Kirschenman, Joleen and Katherine
Katherine Neckerman.
1991. "We'd
“We’d Love to Hire Them,
Them,
Kirschenman,
Neckennan. 1991.
but....":
but....”: The Meaning of Race for Employers,"
Employers,” in Christopher Jencks and P.
Peterson,
Peterson, The
The Urban
Urban Underclass,
Underclass,Washington,
Washington, D.C.:
D.C. : Brookings Institute.
Institute.

•

230

Kling, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey. 1999.
1999. "The
“The Effect of Prison Sentence
Sentence Length on the Subsequent
Employment and Earnings of Criminal Defendants."
Defendants.” Discussion Paper no.
no. 208.
208.
Woodrow Wilson School,
School, Princeton University.
University.
Kurki,
Kurki, Leena.
Leena. 1997.
1997. "International
“International Crime Survey:
Survey: American Rates about Average."
Average.”
Overcrowded Times
8(5):
1-7.
Times 8(5): 1-7.
LaPiere,
LaPiere, Richard T. 1934.
1934. "Attitudes
“Attitudes Vs.
Vs. Actions."
Actions.” Social Forces 13:
13: 230-237.
Legal Action Center. 2001.
2001. "Housing
“Housing Laws Affecting Individuals
Individuals with Criminal
Convictions."
Convictions.” Washington,
Washington, D.C.: Legal Action Center.
Levine,
Levine, Marc and Sandra Callaghan.
Callaghan. 1998.
1998. The
The Economic State ofMilwaukee.
of Milwaukee.
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Center for Economic Development.
Development.
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CED/publications.html.
http://www .uwm.edu/Dept/CED/publications.html.
Lichtenstein,
Lichtenstein, Sarah and J. Robert Newman. 1967.
1967. "Empirical
“Empirical Scaling of Common
Verbal Phrases associated with Numerical Probabilities."
Probabilities.” Psychonomic Science
9(10): 563-564.

•

Link,
Link, Bruce G.
G. and Jo C.
C. Phelan.
Phelm. 2001. "Conceptualizing
“Conceptualizing Stigma."
Stigma.” Annual Review of
of
Sociology 27:363-385.
27:363-385.
LoU,
Lott, J.R. 1992.
1992. "Do
“Do We Punish High-Income Criminals
Criminals Too Heavily?"
Heavily?” Economic
Inquiry 30: 583-608.

C. 1977.
1977. "A
“A Dynamic Theory of Racial
Racial Income
Income Differences."
Differences.” In Wallace,
Loury, Glenn C.
PA and La Mond, AM (Eds).
Minorities, and Employment
(Eds). Women,
Women, Minorities,
Lexington, MA: Heath, pp.
153-86.
Discrimination.
Discrimination. Lexington,
pp.153-86.
2000. "Prison
“Prison Use and Social Control."
Control.” In Criminal Justice:
Justice: Policies,
Policies,
Lynch & Sabol, 2000.
of the Criminal Justice System.
System. Washington,
Washington, D.C.:
D.C.: U.S.
Processes and Decisions ofthe
Department of Justice.
Lynch,
Lynch, James .P. and Sabol,
Sabol, William.
William. 2001.
2001. "Prisoner
“Prisoner Reentry in Perspective."
Perspective.’’ Urban
Institute Crime Policy Report.
Report. Washington DC: Urban Institute
Institute Press.
Press.
Institute

Fowler; and Thomas A. Louis.
Louis. 1992.
1992. "Question
“Question
Mangione, Thomas W.; Floyd J. Fowler;
Characteristics and Interviewer Effects."
Effects.” Journal ofOfficial
ofOfJicia1Statistics
Statistics 8(3):
8(3): 293Characteristics
307.
307.

•

Martinson, Robert.
Robert. 1974.
1974. "What
“What Works? Questions
Questions and Answers
Answers about Prison Reform."
Reform.”
Public Interest 35(2):22-54.

1999. Race to Incarcerate.
Press.
Mauer, Marc. 1999.
Incarcerate. New York: The New Press.

•

23 1
231

Mauer,
Mauer, Marc.
Marc. 2001.
2001. "The
“The Causes
Causes and
and Consequences
Consequencesof Prison Growth
Growth in the United
States.” In Garland,
Garland, David (Ed.).
(Ed.). Mass Imprisonment:
Imprisonment: Social Causes
Causes and
States."
London: Sage
Sage Publications.
Publications.
Consequences. London:
Consequences.
Mauer,
Mauer, Marc.
Marc. 2001.
2001. http://www.sentencingproject.org/brief/usvsrus.pdf
http://www.sentencingproject.org/brief/usvsrus.pdf
McGuire,
McGuire, J.
J. What
What Works?
Works? Reducing Reoffending. New York:
York: Wiley.
Wiley.

Merton, Robert.
Robert. 1940.
1940. "Fact
“Fact and Facitiousness
Facitiousness in Ethnic
Ethnic Opinionsaires."
Opinionsaires.” American
Merton,
5 13-28.
Sociological Review 5:3-28.
Merton,
Merton, Robert.
Robert. 1948.
1948. "The
“The Self-Fulfilling
Self-Fulfilling Prophesy."
Prophesy.’’ Antioch Review 8:193:210.
8:193:210.

Michener, H.
H. Andrew;
Andrew; John D.
D. DeLamater;
DeLamater; and Shalom
Shalom H.
H. Schwartz.
Schwartz. 1986.
1986. Social
Michener,
Psychology. San
San Diego:
Diego: Harcourt Bruce Javanovich,
Javanovich, Publishers.
Miller,
Miller, Jerome.
Jerome. 1996.
1996. Search and Destroy: African-American Males in
in the Criminal
Criminal
Cambridge: Cambridge
Cambridge University Press.
System. Cambridge:
Justice System.

•

Mincy, Ronald.
Ronald. 1994.
1994. Nurturing Young
Young Black Males. Washington,
Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute Press.
Press.
Institute
Moore, Joan. 1996.
1996. "Bearing
“Bearing the Burden:
Burden: How Incarceration Weakens
Weakens Inner-City
Inner-City
Communities.” In The
The Unintended Consequences
Consequences ofIncarceration,
of Incarceration, papers from a
Communities."
conference organized
organized by the Vera Institute
Institute of Justice.
Justice.
conference

MOSS,Philip, and Chris
Chris Tilly. 1991.
199 1 . Why
Why Black Men
Men are Doing Worse
Worse in the Labor
Moss,
of Supply-side and Demand-Side
Demand-Side Explanations.
Explanations. New York:
Market: A Review ofSupply-Side
Social Science
Science Research Council.
Council.
Social
Waldfogel. 1993.
1993. "The
“The Effect of Conviction
Conviction on Income through
Nagin, Daniel; and Joel Waldfogel.
Cycle.” NBER Working
Working Paper No. 4551,
455 1, Cambridge,
Cambridge, MA: NBER.
NBER.
the Life Cycle."
Johnson. 1996.
1996. "The
“The Role of Premarket Factors
Factors in BlackNeal, Derek, and William Johnson.
Differences.” Journal ofPolitical
of Political Economy,
Economy, 104(5):869-895.
104(5):869-895.
White Wage Differences."
Needels, Karen E. 1996.
1996. "Go
“Go Directly to Jail and Do Not Collect? A Long-Tern
Long-Term Study
of Recidivism, Employment,
Employment, and Earnings Patterns
Patterns among Prison Releases.”
Releases."
Journal ofResearch
of Research in Crime aiid
Delinquency
33:47
1-96.
and
33:471-96.

•

Nelson, Marta; Perry Deess; and Charlotte Allen. 1999.
1999. The First Month
Out: PostMonth Out:
Justice.
City. New York: Vera Institute of
ofJustice.
Incarceration Experiences in New York City.

•

232

Neumark,
Study."
Neumark, David.
David. 1996.
1996. "Sex
“Sex Discrimination
Discrimination in Restaurant Hiring: An Audit Study.”
Quarterly Journal ofEconomics
of Economics 915-941.
915-941.
Nolan,
movement. New
Nolan, James.
James. 2001.
2001. Reinventingjustice:
Reinventing justice: The
The American drug court movement.
Jersey:
Jersey: Princeton
Princeton University
University Press.
Press.
O'Connor,
2001. Urban
Inequality:
O’Connor, Alice, Chris
Chris Tilly,
Tilly, and Lawrence D. Bobo. 2001.
Urban Inequality:
Evidence
from
Four
Cities.
New
York:
Russell
Sage
Foundation.
York:
Foundation.
Evidencefiom
Cities.
Oettinger,
of
Oettinger, Gerald
Gerald S. 1996.
1996. "Statistical
“Statistical Discrimination and the Early Career Evolution of
the Black-White Wage
Wage Gap."
Gap.” Journal ofLabor
of Labor Economics 14:52-78.
14:52-78.
Office
"Drug Treatment in the
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
(ONDCP). 2001. “Drug
.Criminal
Clearinghouse.
Criminal Justice
Justice System."
System.” ONDCP
ONDCP Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse.
Oliver,
Macmillan.
The Politics ofDisablement.
of Disablement. Basingstoke:
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Oliver, M.
M. 1992.
1992. The

•

Pace,
Pace, C.
C. Robert
Robert and
and Jack Friedlander.
Friedlander. 1982.
1982. "The
“The Meaning of Response Categories:
How
Often
is
"Occasionally,"
"Often,"
How
is “Occasionally,” “Often,” and "Very
“Very Often"?
Often”? Research in Higher
Education
17(3): 267-281.
267-281.
Education 17(3):
Pager,
Pager, Devah.
Devah. 2001.
2001. "Criminal
“Criminal Careers:
Careers: The Consequences of Incarceration for
Occupational Attainment."
Attainment.” Conference paper for the American Sociological
Occupational
Sociologi~al
Annual Meetings,
Meetings, Anaheim.
Anaheim.
Association Annual
Palmer,
Palmer, Ted.
Ted. 1975.
1975. "Martinson
“Martinson Revisited."
Revisited.” Journal ofResearch
of Research in Crime and
12(2): 133-152.
133-152.
Delinquency 12(2):

Parenti, Christian.
Christian. 1999.
1999. Lockdown America:.
America: Police and Prisons in the Age o
f Crisis.
Parenti,
ofCrisis.
York: Verso.
Verso.
New York:
Pawasarat, John
John and
and Lois
Lois M.
M. Quinn.
Quinn. 2000.
2000. "Survey
“Survey of Job Openings in the Milwaukee
Pawasarat,
Metropolitan Area:
Area: Week of May 15,2000."
15,2000.” Employment and Training Institute,
Metropolitan
University Outreach,
Outreach, University
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2000
University
Petersilia, Joan.
Joan. 1999.
1999. "Parole
“Parole and
and Prisoner
Prisoner Reentry
Reentry in the United States."
States.” In Michael
Petersilia,
Tonry
and
J.
Petersilia
(eds.),
Prisons:
Crime
and
Justice:
A
of Research,
Tonry and J. Petersilia (eds), Prisons: Crime
Justice: Review ofResearch,
V0l.26.
Chicago: University
University of Chicago
Chicago Press.
Press.
Vol.
26. Chicago:

•

Pettit, Becky
Becky and
and Bruce
Bruce Western.
Western. 2001.
2001. "Inequality
“Inequality in Lifetime
Lifetime Risks of Imprisonment."
Imprisonment.”
Pettit,
Paper
presented
at
the
Annual
Meetings
of
the
American
Sociological
Sociological
Paper
at the
Meetings
Association.
Association.
Poskocil, A.
A. 1977.
1977. "Encounters
“Encounters between Blacks
Blacks and White
White Liberals:
Liberals: The Collision of
Poskocil,
Stereotypes.” Social Forces
Forces 55:715-727.
55 :715-727.
Stereotypes."

•

233

Quillian, Lincoln and Devah Pager.
Neighbors, Higher Crime?
Pager. 2001.
2001. "Black
“Black Neighbors,
Crime? The Role
of Racial
Racial Stereotypes
Stereotypes in Evaluations of Neighborhood Crime."
Crime.” American Journal
of Sociology 107(3):
107(3): 717-767.
717-767.
ofSociology
Rand,
Rand, Michael and Callie
Callie Rennison.
Rennison. 2002. "True
“True Crime Stories?
Stories? Accounting for
Differences
Differences in Our National Crime Indicators."
Indicators.” Chance 15(1):
15(1): 47-51.
47-5 1.

RAND. 1994.
1994. Controlling
Controlling Cocaine:
Cocaine: Supply versus Demand Programs.
RAND.
Programs. Written by
C. Peter Rydell and Susan S.
S. Everingham.
Everingham. RAND
RAND publication MR-331MR-33 1C.
ONDCP/A/DPRC.
ONDCP/A/DPRC.

Remington, Todd D.
D. 1992.
1992. "Telemarketing
“Telemarketing and Declining
Declining Survey
Survey Response
Response Rates."
Rates.’’
Remington,
Journal ofAdvertising
of Advertising Research
32(3).
Research 32(3).
Riach, Peter B. and Judith Rich.
Rich. 1991-2.
1991-2. "Measuring
“Measuring Discrimination
Discrimination by Direct
Riach,
Experimentation Methods: Seeking Gunsmoke."
Gunsmoke.” Journal ofPostKeynesian
of PostKeynesian
Experimentation
Economics, Winter 1991-2,
1991-2, 14(2):143-50.
14(2):143-50.

•

Ridley,
Ridley, Stanley,
Stanley, James A. Bayton,
Bayton, and Janice Hamilton Outtz.
Outtz. 1989.
1989. "Taxi
“Taxi Service
Service in
the District of Columbia:
Columbia: Is It Influenced by Patrons'
Patrons’ Race and Destination?"
Destination?”
DC: The Washington Lawyers'
Lawyers’ Committee
Committee for Civil
Civil Rights Under
Washington, DC:
the Law. Mimeographed.
Mimeographed.

1998. "Incarceration,
“Incarceration, Social
Social Capital,
Capital, and Crime:
Crime:
Rose, Dina and Todd Clear. 1998.
Implications for Social
Social Disorganization Theory."
Theory.” Criminology
Criminology 36(3).
36(3).
Implications
S. Edari,
Edari, Lois M. Quinn,
Quinn, and John Pawasarat.
Pawasarat. 1992.
1992. "The
“The
Rose, Harold M., Ronald S.
Labor Market Experience of Young African American Men from
from Low-Income
Low-Income
Families in Wisconsin."
Wisconsin.’’ Employment and Training Institute,
Institute, University
Families
Outreach, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Outreach,
Rosenfeld, R.
R. 2000.
2000. "Patterns
“Patterns in Adult Homicide, 1980-1995."
1980-1995.” In Blumstein, A. and J.
J.
Rosenfeld,
(Eds.). The
The Crime Drop in America.
Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Kingdom:
Wallman (Eds.).
America. Cambridge,
Press.
Cambridge University Press.
Rothman, David.
David. 1971.
1971. The
The Discovery ofthe
of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the
Rothman,
Little, Brown, &
& Co.
Co.
Republic.
Republic. Boston, MA: Little,
Rubin, Donald B. 1990.
1990. "Formal
“Formal Modes of Statistical
Statistical Inference
Inference for Causal Effects."
Effects.’’
Rubin,
Journal ofStatistical
of Statistical Planning and Inference 25:279-292.
25:279-292.

•a

Sagar, H.A.
H.A. and Schofield,
Schofield, J.W. 1980.
1980. "Racial
“Racial and Behavioral Cues in Black and White
Sagar,
of Personality
Children’s Perceptions of Ambiguously Aggressive
Aggressive Acts.”
Children's
Acts." Journal ofPersonality
39590-598.
and Social Psychology 39:590-598.

•
a

234
234
Sampson,
Making: Pathways and
Sampson, Robert J. and John H.
H. Laub.
Laub. 1993.
1993. Crime
Crime in the Making:
Turning Points through Life.
Life. Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard
University Press.
Cambridge,
Sampson,
1987. "Urban
“Urban Black Violence:
Violence: The Effect of Male Joblessness
Joblessness and
Sampson, Robert. 1987.
Family Disruption."
Disruption.” American Journal ofSociology
of Sociology 93(2):
93(2): 348-82.
348-82.
Schaeffer,
Schaeffer, Nora Cate.
Cate. 1991.
1991. "Hardly
“Hardly Ever or Constantly?
Constantly? Group Comparisons
Comparisons Using
Vague Quantifiers."
Quantifiers.” Public Opinion Quarterly
Quarterly 55:
5 5 : 395-423.
395-423.
Schuman,
Schuman, H. and M.P. Johnson.
Johnson. 1976.
1976. "Attitudes
“Attitudes and Behavior."
Behavior.” In Inkeles,
Mreles, A., J.
Coleman, and N. Smelser (Eds.), Annual Review ofSociology,
of Sociology, Volume
Volume 2.
2.
California:
California: Annual Reviews.
Reviews.
Schuman, Howard and Lawrence Bobo. 1988.
1988. "Survey-Based
“Survey-Based Experimentson
Experiments on White
Racial Attitudes
Attitudes toward Residential
Residential Integration."
Integration.” American Journal ofSociology
of Sociology
94(2):273-299.
94(2):273-299.

•
e

Schuman,
Schuman, Howard.
Howard. 1995.
1995. "Attitudes."
“Attitudes.” In Cook,
Cook, Karen;
Karen; Gary Fine;
Fine; and James
James House.
Sociological Perspectives on Social Psycholog)?.
Psychology. Boston, MA:
MA: Allyn &
& Bacon.

S c h w a , Richard and Jerome Skolnick.
Skolnick. 1962.
1962. "Two
“Two Studies
Studies of Legal Stigma."
Stigma.” Social
Schwartz,
Problems, fall:
Problems,
fall: 133-142.
133-142.
David. 1997.
1997. "Three
“Three Strikes
Strikes as a Public Policy:
Policy: The Convergence
Convergence of the New
Shichor, David.
Penology and the McDonaldization
McDonaldization of Punishment."
Punishment.” Crime
Crime and Delinquency
43(4):470-492.
43(4):470-492.
Shover, Neil. 1996.
1996. Great Pretenders:
Careers ofPresistent
of Presistent Thieves.
Thieves.
Shover,
Pretenders: Pursuits
Pursuits and Careers
CO: Westview.
Westview.
Boulder, CO:
Simpson, Ray H. 1944.
1944. "The
“The Specific
Specific Meanings
Meanings of Certain Terms
Terms Indicating
Indicating Differing
Simpson,
Frequency.” The
The Quarterly
Quarterly Journal ofSpeech
of Speech 30:
30: 328-330.
328-330.
Degrees of Frequency."
Slevin, Peter. 2000.
2000. "Life
“Life After Prison: Lack of Services
Services Has High Price."
Price.” Washington
Washington
Slevin,
2000.
Post: Monday, April 24,
24,2000.
Post:
Smith, Tom W. 1991.
1991. What
What Americans Say about Jews.
Smith,
Jews. New York:
York: American Jewish
Committee.
Committee.

•

Sneiderman, Paul M. and Thomas
Thomas Piazza.
Piazza. 1993.
1993. The
The Scar ofRace.
of Race. Cambridge,
Cambridge, MA:
MA:
Sneiderman,
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
The Belknap

•

235
235

Spelman,
Spelman, W.
W. 2000.
2000. "The
“The Limited Importance
Importance of Prison Expansion."
Expansion.” In Blumstein,
Blumstein, A.
and J. Wallman (Eds.). The
The Crime
Crime Drop in America.
America. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge
Cambridge University Press.
Press.
Kingdom:
Steele,
Steele, Shelby.
Shelby. 1991.
1991. The
The Content ofOur
of Our Character:
Character: A New Vision
Vision ofRace
of Race in America.
America.
York: Harper Perennial.
Perennial.
New York:
Stoll,
Stoll, Michael, Harry Holzer,
Holzer, and Steven
Steven Raphael.
Raphael. 2002.
2002. Unplished codebook for the
Study.
LA Worker Study.
Sorensen,
Sorensen, Jesper,
Jesper, and David B. Grusky.
Grusky. 1996.
1996. "The
“The Structure
Structure of Career Mobility in
Microscopic Perspective."
Perspective.” In Baron, James,
James, David B. Grusky,
Grusky, and Donald
Microscopic
Dzflerentiation and Inequality.
Inequality. Boulder, CO:
CO: Westview
Treiman (Eds.). Social Differentiation
Press. Pp.83-114.
Press.

Winn. 1993.
1993. "Imprisonment
“Imprisonment in the American States."
States.’’ Social
Taggart, W.A. and R.G. Winn.
Taggart,
74:736-49.
Science Quarterly 74:736-49.

•
0

Tienda, Marta;
Marta; Kevin Leicht, and Kim Lloyd.
Lloyd. 2002.
2002. "Before
“Before and After Hopwood:
Hopwood: The
The
Tienda,
Elimination of Affinnative
Affirmative Action and Minority Student
Student Enrollment
Enrollment in Texas."
Texas.”
Elimination
Annual Meetings of the Population Association of
Paper presented at the Annual
American, Atlanta.
Atlanta.
American,
Tilly, Chris;
Chris; Philip Moss;
Moss; Joleen Kirtschenman;
Kirtschenman; and Ivy Kennelly.
Kennelly. 2001.
2001. "Space
“Space as
as a
Tilly,
Signal: How Employers
Employers Perceive Neighborhoods in Four Metropolitan
Metropolitan Labor
Signal:
Markets.” In O'Connor,
O’Connor, Alice, Chris
Chris Tilly,
Tilly, and Lawrence
Lawrence Bobo (Eds.).
(Eds.). Urban
Urban
Markets."
Inequality: Evidence from
Cities. New York:
York: Russell Sage.
Sage.
Inequality:
from Four Cities.
Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald and Sheryl
Sheryl Skaggs.
Skaggs. 1999.
1999. "An
“An Establishment-Level
Establishment-Level Test of
Tomaskovic-Devey,
the Statistical
Statistical Discrimination
Discrimination Hypothesis."
Hypothesis.” Work
Work and Occupations
Occupations 26(4):420443.
443.
Tonry, Michael and Richard Frase (Eds.).
(Eds.). 2001. Sentencing and Sanctions in Western
Western
Tonry,
Countries. New York:
York: Oxford
Oxford University
University Press.
Press.
Countries.
Tonry, Michael.
Michael. 1995.
1995. Malign
Malign Neglect:
Neglect: Race,
Race, Crime,
Crime, and Punishment in America.
America.
Tonry,
York: Oxford.
Oxford.
New York:·
Tonry, Michael.
Michael. 1999.
1999. "Why
“Why are U.S.
U.S. Incarceration Rates
Rates so High?"
High?” Overcrowded
Tonry,
Times 10(3):
lO(3): 7-16.
7-16.
Times

•

Travis, Jeremy;
Jeremy; Amy Solomon;
Solomon; and Michelle
Michelle Waul.
Waul. 2001.
2001. From Prison
Prison to Home:
Home: The
The
Travis,
Dimensions and Consequences
Consequences ofPrisoner
of Prisoner Reentry.
Reentry. Washington DC:
DC: Urban
Dimensions
Institute Press.
Press.

•

236

Trope,
Trope, Yaacov and Erik P. Thomson.
Thomson. 1997.
1997. "Looking
“Looking for Truth in All the Wrong
Asymmetric Search
Search of Individuating
Individuating Information about Stereotyped
Stereotyped
Places? Asymmetric
Group Members."
Members.” Journal ofPersonality
of Personality and Social Psychology 73(2):229-241.
73(2):229-241.
Turner,
Turner, Margery Austin and Felicity Skidmore
Skidmore (Eds.).
(Eds.). 1999.
1999. Mortgage Lending
of Existing Evidence.
Evidence. Washington D.C.: The Urban
Discrimination: A Review ofExisting
Discrimination:
Institute.
Institute.
Turner,
Turner, Margery,
Margery, Michael Fix,
Fix, and Raymond Struyk.
Struyk. 1991.
1991. Opportunities
Opportunities Denied,
Denied,
Opportunities Diminished:
Diminished: Racial Discrimination
Discrimination in Hiring.
Hiring. Washington,
Washington, DC:
Opportunities
Institute Press.
Press.
Urban Institute
Uggen,
Uggen, Christopher,
Christopher, Melissa Thompson,
Thompson, and JeffManza.
Jeff Manza. 2000.
2000. "Crime,
“Crime, Class, and
Reintegration: The
The Socioeconomic,
Socioeconomic, Familial, and Civic
Civic Lives of Offenders."
Offenders.”
Reintegration:
18,2000,
American Society
Society of Criminology
Criminology Meetings,
Meetings, San Francisco.
Francisco.
November 18,
2000, American

“Work as
as a Turning
Turning Point in the Life Course
Course of Criminals:
Criminals: A
Christopher. 2000. "Work
Uggen, Christopher.
Employment, and Recidivism."
Recidivism.” American Sociological
Duration Model of Age, Employment,
65(4):529-546.
Review 65(4):529-546.

•
0

Services Administration,
Administration, Substance
Substance Abuse and Mental
U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services
Services Administration (SAMHSA).
(SAMHSA). 1999.
1999. Summary ofFindings
of Findings from the
Health Services
I998 National Household Survey on Drug Use.
Use. Washington,
Washington, DC,
DC, p.16.
p. 16.
1998

U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services
Services Administration,
Administration, Substance
Substance Abuse and Mental
u.S.
Services Administration (SAMHSA).
(SAMHSA). 1998.
1998. Prevalence
Prevalence ofSubstance
of Substance Use
Use
Health Services
United States,
States, 1991-1993.
1991-I 993.
Among Racial and Ethnic Subgroups in the United
Washington, DC.
Washington,
Justice. 1993.
1993. Federal Bureau of Investigations,
Investigations, Criminal
Criminal Justice
Justice
U.S. Department of Justice.
Information Services
Services (CnS)
(CJIS) Division. "Age-Specific
“Age-Specific Arrest Rates and RaceRaceInformation
Specific Arrest Rates
Rates for Selected Offenses,
Offenses, 1965-1992."
1965-1992.” Uniform Crime
Crime
Specific
Reports.
Reports.
Wacquant, Loic. 2000.
2000. "Deadly
“Deadly Symbiosis:
Symbiosis: When Ghetto
Ghetto and Prison Meet and Mesh."
Mesh.”
Wacquant,
3-1 (Winter):95-134.
(Winter):95-134.
Punishment and Society 3-1
Waldfogel, J.
J. 1994.
1994. "Does
“Does Conviction Have a Persistent
Persistent Effect on Income and
Waldfogel,
Employment?”
International
Review
of
Law
Economics, March.
March.
ofLaw and Economics,
Employment?" International

•
0

Weber, Max.
Max. 1968.
1968. Economy and Society:
Society: An Outline
Outline ofInterpretive
of Interpretive Sociology.
Sociology. Edited
Weber,
Guenther Roth and Claus
Claus Wittich.
Wittich. New York:
York: Bedminster Press
Press
by Guenther
Western, Bruce and Becky Pettit.
Pettit. 1999.
1999. "Black-White
“Black-White Earnings
Earnings Inquality,
Inquality, Employment
Employment
Western,
Rates, and Incarceration."
Incarceration.” Working
Working Paper (June).
(June).
Rates,

•

237

Western, Bruce and Katherine Beckett.
Beckett. 1999.
1999. "How
“How Unregulated is the U.S. Labor
Western,
Market? The Penal System
System as a Labor Market Institution."
Institution.” American Journal of
of
Sociology 104(4):1030-60.
104(4):1030-60.
Western, Bruce.
Bruce. 2002.
2002. "The
“The Impact of Incarceration
Incarceration on Earnings."
Earnings.” Forthcoming
Forthcoming in the
American Sociological Review, September.
September.

1989. Multiway Contingency Tables
Tables Analysis
for the Social Sciences.
Thomas. 1989.
Analysisfor
Sciences.
Wickens, Thomas.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
Inc., Publishers.
Publishers.
1969. "Attitudes
“Attitudes versus Actions:
Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt
Wicker, A. W. 1969.
Behavioral Responses
Behavioral
Responses to Attitude Objects.
Objects. Journal ofSocial
of Social Issues 25:
25: 41-78.
41-78.

Spatz. 1994.
1994. "Childhood
“Childhood Victimization and Risk for Adolescent Problem
Widom, Kathy Spatz.
Behaviors.’’ In Lamb, M.E.
M.E. and R. Ketterlinus
Ketterlinus (Eds.), Adolescent Problem
Behaviors."
York: Earlbaum.
Earlbaum.
Behaviors. New York:

•

E. Reid, John C. Simonson,
Simonson, and Frederick J. Eggers.
Eggen. 1979.
1979.
Wienk, Ronald E., Clifford E.
Measuring Discrimination in American Housing Markets: The Housing Market
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Practices Survey.
Survey. Washington,
Development.
Development.
1984. "Young
“Young Discouraged Workers: Racial Differences
Differences
Williams, Donald R. 1984.
Explored."
Explored.” Monthly Labor Review (June):
(June): 36-39.
36-39.

Julius. 1987.
1987. The
The Truly Disudvantaged:
City, the
Wilson, William Julius.
Disadvantaged: The Inner City,
Chicago: The University of Chicago
Chicago Press.
Press.
Underclass, and Public Policy.
Underclass,
Policy. Chicago:
Julius. 1996.
1996. When
When Work
Work Disappears: The
The World
World ofthe
of the New Urban
Urban
Wilson, William Julius.
Poor.
York: Vintage Books.
Poor. New York:
Winship, Christopher and Stephen L. Morgan.
Morgan. 1999.
1999. "The
“The Estimation of Causal Effects
Effects
from Observational Data."
Data.” Annual Review ofSociology
of Sociology 25 :659-706.
:659-706.
from
Wright, Erik Olin.
O h . 1973.
1973. The
The Politics ofPunishment:
of Punishment: A Critical Analysis ofPrisons
of Prisons in
Wright,
York: Harper & Row publishers
America. New York:
publishers..
Yinger, John.
John. 1995.
1995. Closed Doors,
Russell Sage
Yinger,
Doors, Opportunities Lost. New York: Russell
Foundation.
Foundation.

•

1987. Making Confinement Decisions: The
The Economics of
of
Zedlewski, Edwin. 1987.
Deincarceration.
Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Deincarceration. Washington,
U.S. Department of Justice.

•

238

Zimring, Franklin and G. Hawkins.
Hawkins. 1997.
1997. Crime
Crime is Not the Problem:
Problem: Lethal Violence
Violence in
America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Press.
Zimring, Franklin.
Franklin. 1972.
1972. "The
“The Medium is the Message:
Message: Firearms
Firearms Caliber as a
Determinant of Death from
from Assault."
Assault.” Journal ofLegal
of Legal Studies 1:97-123
1:97-123..

•