copelandekevin
Nov 9, 2025
Research Papers / What Do You Do? Rethinking Work, Worth, and Second Chances [2]
Kevin Copeland
Adam Korman
ENG 102 First-Year Composition
In the U.S. more than 600,000 people are released from prison each year, returning to their communities. After serving their time, however, most people still face punishment that extends far beyond the prison gates. Stigmata, discriminatory hiring practices, and the myth that a criminal record defines a person means that most return to their communities without any real means to survive. Second-chance employment programs that integrate vocational training, behavioral health services, and mentorship significantly reduce recidivism, strengthen communities, and restore purpose to individuals reentering society after incarceration.
Most conversations when meeting someone new start the same way. Someone smiles, makes eye contact, extends a handshake, exchanges pleasantries then asks, "So, what do you do?" For most people this is an easy and normal interaction. For someone recently released from incarceration, that question cuts deep. It's a painful reminder of lost chances, missed opportunities, and closed doors. Work is more than just a means to make a living. It is tied to identity, purpose, and dignity. Once community and individual purpose are restored, recidivism is greatly reduced through focused support that includes targeted employment training for behavioral health. This includes employment mentoring and other prison support services that help transition a person back into their community.
Since the 1970s, the United States has had some of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. The expansion of the prison system was fueled by the "War on Drugs" and the 1994 Crime Bill, allowing states to profit from the construction of new prisons and the introduction of longer prison sentences. By 2000, the number of people incarcerated in the United States had grown to over 2 million. As prison populations expanded, barriers to reentry grew. The system of filters grown around hiring made the choice to not hire someone with a criminal record a default. Employers who did hire people with records did so in such a way as to build filters that were the opposite of inclusive. The "Ban the Box" initiatives, which were politically aimed at addressing public sentiment, were symbolic gestures rather than real solutions. Most of what they did was delay discrimination. Background checks and filters that were exclusionary remained in place. The elimination of barriers to reentry must be framed in a historical context. Offering second-chance employment is thus not a soft concession, but the righting of a historical wrong.
Today, the U.S. grapples with the repercussions of its punitive history. The Prison Policy Initiative reports that people who are formerly incarcerated face an unemployment rate of over 27 percent, more than any other demographic in the country, even exceeding the unemployment rate during the Great Depression (Couloute and Kopf). This figure reflects the reality of countless released offenders who are struggling with unanswered applications and interviews that end the moment their criminal record is disclosed. The lack of employment after serving time is a strong predictor of recidivism. Under such circumstances, people are likely to make survival decisions that involve a violation of parole or new criminal activity. Without a job, instability of housing, the break-up of families, and a deeper descent into the cycle of poverty become nearly inevitable. Barriers also include missed court obligations, transportation to attend court or parole appointments, and housing, which will lead to a cascade of ignored court obligations, culminating in a technical violation and prison.
Societal costs rise with unemployment post-incarceration. In three years, 66% of formerly incarcerated people will be re-arrested, which creates a cycle that is costly for the court system, correctional system, and taxpayers. When you take into account costs associated with law enforcement, public defense, and the actual costs of incarceration, the waste is billions of dollars every year. The deepest waste isn't financial, it's human. Children lose parents, communities lose neighbors, and employers lose willing, capable hands in a time when so many industries desperately need them. The stigma of incarceration is in isolation that silences entire communities, breaking the trust in institutions, and seeding exclusion that is intergenerational. In that respect, second-chance employment is a community-stability strategy and not only anti-recidivism.
Evidence shows that second-chance hires are more loyal, experience lower turnover, and become more motivated than their counterparts without records. One recent meta-analysis shows that the combination of vocational training and mentoring in reentry employment programs leads to long-lasting employment, better salaries, and a drop in recidivism (Connell et al.). Employers who engage with reentry programs often discover that their investment pays off through consistent attendance, low turnover, and employees who bring a strong willingness to work. Despite the benefits of these programs aren't widely known and many still see background checks as a primary risk. This attitude not only constrains the openings available to the people involved, but also impacts whole sectors, especially those with chronic shortages of motivated and dependable talent.
While immediate solutions, or "band-aid" solutions, offer temporary relief, they do not resolve the fundamental structural issues. Community job fairs, résumé workshops, and temp agencies all help participants secure short-term, temporary work. After all, these positions do not provide long-term career support. Standalone events in these situations provide initial hope, only to be followed swiftly by disappointment, as jobs end with the first scheduling conflict, a breakdown in transportation, or a misunderstanding with the supervisor. Policies like "Ban the Box" do not impact employer behavior in a meaningful, sustained manner, and fall short on equity by leaving the employer bias in the hiring process unaddressed. Tax incentives, like those in Arizona, that offer employer subsidies for hiring justice-involved people, provide little relief because they are underused due to lack of awareness. Without integrated behavioral health, vocational training, and mentorship support, these poorly conceived quick fixes solely serve to offer temporary relief by providing a "band-aid" to a gaping systemic wound.
An integrated approach requires a change from punishment to restoration, seeing jobs not as an act of charity, but as rehabilitation and a community necessity. Programs like New Freedom in Phoenix, Arizona, provide a useful example. New Freedom combines behavioral health programming services with vocational training, and mentoring to help justice-involved people reenter the community and secure lasting jobs. Participants acquire a variety of real-world, high-demand employment skills including HVAC, Framing, Painting, Electrical, Peer Support Certification, Business, and Culinary arts. Along with these skills, participants receive clinical support therapy and join peer groups. These services help build not only employability but also self-esteem, responsibility, and social connectedness. Research indicates that job training results in substantial decreases in recidivism (U.S. Department of Justice). In integrated frameworks like New Freedom's, early data suggests that individuals who complete vocational training and secure jobs tend to recidivate less and stay employed longer than those who were placed in jobs without structured support. It seems simple: when employment skills, behavioral health, and mentorship are combined, employment becomes a lasting link to community life.
It is essential to align training with market demand. The U.S. economy is still dealing with shortages of skilled labor in the trades and logistics industries. Reentry programs have the potential to help close this gap by preparing graduates for occupations where practical skills, adherence to a safety culture, and industry credentials trump a résumé. Tailoring training programs to recognized credentials, offers portable proof of competence. For employers, credentials simplify hiring; they eliminate the difficult task of assessing the complex story of a past conviction and provide standardized and easily assess employee readiness and safety. In addition, structured pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs offer wage advancement, and sponsorship that takes place mentoring for the job, reinforcing the employee during the most fragile phase of reentry.
Support for behavioral health should also be regarded as foundational. A great many people who are re-entering society have incarceration-related and post-release traumas such as depression, anxiety, or grief, and suffer from social rejection and trauma. These broken seams, without mentorship and unsolved gaps, make it difficult for someone to gain or maintain a job and hinder personal development. Increasing availability of counseling, peer support, and trauma-informed systems helps people maintain jobs, employment, and helps people repair damaged social ties. The established principle for unsupported systems, such as the workforce, is clear. One should expect setbacks and build structures to allow people to learn and grow.
Designing from the employer's perspective is critical too. The policy must translate goodwill into sustainable hiring by establishing a framework to reward and mitigate the risks of second-chance employment. Governments might broaden and promote existing Work Opportunity Tax Credits (WOTC) to encourage participation from smaller and midsize employers. Providing bonding and liability shields to employers hiring justice-involved people will mitigate fears of financial and reputational risks. Guidance on the relevance of a past offense to a particular position, evidence-based look-back periods, and role-related screening can replace blanket exclusions. States can run public awareness campaigns to promote second-chance employers and showcase their business successes. Stories can help society humanize the formerly incarcerated and break down the barriers of exclusion. Awareness campaigns can spotlight success stories of employers who have thrived by embracing second-chance hiring. Society can begin to dismantle exclusion by humanizing formerly incarcerated people through storytelling.
Tech can reinforce biases or help eliminate them. Instead of excluding applicants based on background check results, human resources systems can be redesigned to evaluate candidates based on skill scoring. Applicant-tracking systems can be designed to overlook biased demographics and prioritize those with industry-recognized credentials or verified training hours. These tools don't lower standards, they help ensure every qualified candidate, regardless of background, is given a fair chance to demonstrate their ability. Companies can also work with community-based organizations to develop mentorship programs that place newly hired workers with senior staff willing to support them through and understand the reentry challenges.
The concerns critics raise are valid. Some positions deal with safety-sensitive functions or with vulnerable persons. Some positions also deal with algorithms of licensure that automatically disqualify certain convictions. The idea of second-chance hiring is not to ignore risk, but rather to manage it. The answer is a calibrated, job-related approach: define disqualifying offenses that are narrowly tailored to the duties of the role; apply reasonable look-back periods; and incorporate remediation evidence such as completion of credited courses, time since the conviction, supervisor references, and performance in transitional roles. Employers already manage risk in numerous contexts, such as commercial driving, safety, and drug-testing compliance. Second-chance hiring should be held to the same standard: identify the risk, apply job-related mitigation, measure the outcomes, and adjust. In the study by Connell and others, the risk of safety and retention is the positive outcome. Classes of people are systematically excluded from appropriate work. Research suggests that when risk is managed in this way, results are favorable for both safety and retention (Connell et al.).
The rights of victims are part of the conversation too. Any system that recognizes harm must also recognize restoration. It is important to note that employment is a way of reparations, reparations through the provision of lawful living wages, child support, taxes, restitution, and community engagement. Opportunities for community service, along with restorative practices and victim-impact curricula, allow accountability and opportunities to coexist. Viewed in this way, second-chance hiring is a public-safety strategy based on discourse that helps reduce crime by giving released offenders legate employment to support themselves and their families.
Moving from pilot projects to population-level impact requires an implementation plan that policymakers and practitioners can follow. To Start, Build Bridges Before Release. Skills screening and training can begin six to twelve months prior to release and involve training for industry credentials that continue seamlessly post-release. Second, Create Transitional Employment On-Ramps. Subsidized or social-enterprise jobs that last 90 to 180 days, accompanied by intensive coaching for the released individuals can make smooth transitions to work. Formalize Employer Partnerships with Performance Goals. Staff retention at 30, 90, and 180 days, wage progression, and supervisor satisfaction are a few performance goals that need to be included. Lock in retention supports for 3-6 weeks: transportation support, funding programs for work gear, peer groups, and access to mentors. Finally, publish outcomes, measurement, enrollment, completion, placement, day 90 retention, day 365 retention, wage growth, and returns to custody, this transparency builds public trust and ensures the field understands what works, for whom, and at what cost.
Programs like New Freedom show how this roadmap works in practice. Participants complete vocational training that aligns with actual employer demand. They join therapy groups that deal with trauma, grief, and anxiety. They receive coaching on workplace norms and communication. They connect with employers willing to evaluate skills and character rather than just a checkbox on a form. The outcomes resonate with national research: training combined with support works better than models that only provide placement, and people employed during the months following release from custody are much less likely to return (U.S. Department of Justice; Connell et al.). When employers see consistent attendance and strong performance, the perception shifts from charity to common business sense. That shift is the inflection point when second-chance hiring becomes self-sustaining.
State policy can be a welcome pillar of support here. States have a tremendous opportunity to modernize occupational licensing laws by narrowing the "good moral character" clause, setting explicit standards for rehabilitation, and removing lifetime bans when the risk isn't directly related to the job. Clean-slate and record-sealing laws can be integrated with employer education efforts so that expunged records aren't left behind in outdated vendor record databases. Automatic tax credits that are available at the time of hire, instead of complicated end-of-year tax credits, would be more beneficial for small businesses. To reduce the emphasis on short-term throughput, in corrections, performance-based contracts can be structured to reward providers for placements and year-one retention rather than enrollments alone.
There are strong economic reasons to act. Each arrest prevented and each individual kept from reoffending allows law enforcement to focus on more serious crimes. At the same time, each avoided prison sentence enables the public to redirect funds that would otherwise be spent on incarceration toward far more effective training and support services. Each prison release allows the formerly imprisoned to support a family, decreasing reliance on public subsidies and increasing income tax revenue. The case gets stronger when considering income and spending multiplicative effects on the economy. Employers also benefit. The cost of replacing a skilled employee can run from 20 to 30 percent of their annual salary. Second-chance retention reduces turnover costs and stabilizes operations in industries where high turnover rates hinder quality.
Civic identity is a testament to second-chance employment. The justice system says it believes in rehabilitation. Employers say they appreciate work ethic and loyalty. Communities say they appreciate safety and stability. Second-chance frameworks allow those assumptions to align and play out. They acknowledge that citizens are more than the worst thing they have ever done. They understand that the stakes are high when public safety relies on citizens active in the legal economy. The promise is not frivolous. It is measured and purposeful. Programs must be rigid in their adherence to rules concerning attendance, sobriety, and safety. Participants must be willing to show up, engage, and do the work. Employers must provide honest partnerships, and policymakers must cease funding failures and sustain effective programs. But when the conditions are in place, the outcomes are nothing short of life-changing.
Beyond the paycheck, employment provides an opportunity to regain one's identity, belonging, and purpose, which help in the rehabilitation process. Second-chance employment programs show that rehabilitation is achievable and transformative. With the right opportunity, those formerly classified as offenders have the potential to become mentors, taxpayers, and leaders with the power to influence entire communities. New Freedom is an example of this. Integrated vocational training, therapy, and mentorship do not only transform lives, they also improve the communities they work with. The narrative is both simple and profound: when individuals are given the appropriate tools and the chance to do something meaningful, they will deliver.
America's approach to reentry is at a crossroad. The United States could continue to spend billions on a justice system that punishes poverty and addiction on a revolving door, or make a change and spend money on programs that heal, empower, and restore. Expanding second-chance employment is not softening the stance on crime; it is showing belief on what a person can become. All the data, moral, social, and economic, point to the same conclusion: people that are offered the chance to work instead of going back to crime will not squander it. With determined design, honest measurement, and courageous leadership, the world of work lets second-chance employment become the norm rather than the exception.
Championing second-chance employment is also more than an ethical position. It is also about practicality. It builds safer communities, strengthens families, and offers businesses employees that are loyal, and skilled. It shows a society that is willing to offer redemption and is more than a word on paper. If the United States really believes in rehabilitation, it must offer opportunity. Expanding programs like New Freedom will allow policymakers and employers to change the overarching narrative on reentry from punishment to the possibility of purpose. A purpose that has been stolen from those that have served, and from the communities that have waited for their return.
Kevin Copeland
Adam Korman
ENG 102 First-Year Composition
In the U.S. more than 600,000 people are released from prison each year, returning to their communities. After serving their time, however, most people still face punishment that extends far beyond the prison gates. Stigmata, discriminatory hiring practices, and the myth that a criminal record defines a person means that most return to their communities without any real means to survive. Second-chance employment programs that integrate vocational training, behavioral health services, and mentorship significantly reduce recidivism, strengthen communities, and restore purpose to individuals reentering society after incarceration.
Most conversations when meeting someone new start the same way. Someone smiles, makes eye contact, extends a handshake, exchanges pleasantries then asks, "So, what do you do?" For most people this is an easy and normal interaction. For someone recently released from incarceration, that question cuts deep. It's a painful reminder of lost chances, missed opportunities, and closed doors. Work is more than just a means to make a living. It is tied to identity, purpose, and dignity. Once community and individual purpose are restored, recidivism is greatly reduced through focused support that includes targeted employment training for behavioral health. This includes employment mentoring and other prison support services that help transition a person back into their community.
Since the 1970s, the United States has had some of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. The expansion of the prison system was fueled by the "War on Drugs" and the 1994 Crime Bill, allowing states to profit from the construction of new prisons and the introduction of longer prison sentences. By 2000, the number of people incarcerated in the United States had grown to over 2 million. As prison populations expanded, barriers to reentry grew. The system of filters grown around hiring made the choice to not hire someone with a criminal record a default. Employers who did hire people with records did so in such a way as to build filters that were the opposite of inclusive. The "Ban the Box" initiatives, which were politically aimed at addressing public sentiment, were symbolic gestures rather than real solutions. Most of what they did was delay discrimination. Background checks and filters that were exclusionary remained in place. The elimination of barriers to reentry must be framed in a historical context. Offering second-chance employment is thus not a soft concession, but the righting of a historical wrong.
Today, the U.S. grapples with the repercussions of its punitive history. The Prison Policy Initiative reports that people who are formerly incarcerated face an unemployment rate of over 27 percent, more than any other demographic in the country, even exceeding the unemployment rate during the Great Depression (Couloute and Kopf). This figure reflects the reality of countless released offenders who are struggling with unanswered applications and interviews that end the moment their criminal record is disclosed. The lack of employment after serving time is a strong predictor of recidivism. Under such circumstances, people are likely to make survival decisions that involve a violation of parole or new criminal activity. Without a job, instability of housing, the break-up of families, and a deeper descent into the cycle of poverty become nearly inevitable. Barriers also include missed court obligations, transportation to attend court or parole appointments, and housing, which will lead to a cascade of ignored court obligations, culminating in a technical violation and prison.
Societal costs rise with unemployment post-incarceration. In three years, 66% of formerly incarcerated people will be re-arrested, which creates a cycle that is costly for the court system, correctional system, and taxpayers. When you take into account costs associated with law enforcement, public defense, and the actual costs of incarceration, the waste is billions of dollars every year. The deepest waste isn't financial, it's human. Children lose parents, communities lose neighbors, and employers lose willing, capable hands in a time when so many industries desperately need them. The stigma of incarceration is in isolation that silences entire communities, breaking the trust in institutions, and seeding exclusion that is intergenerational. In that respect, second-chance employment is a community-stability strategy and not only anti-recidivism.
Evidence shows that second-chance hires are more loyal, experience lower turnover, and become more motivated than their counterparts without records. One recent meta-analysis shows that the combination of vocational training and mentoring in reentry employment programs leads to long-lasting employment, better salaries, and a drop in recidivism (Connell et al.). Employers who engage with reentry programs often discover that their investment pays off through consistent attendance, low turnover, and employees who bring a strong willingness to work. Despite the benefits of these programs aren't widely known and many still see background checks as a primary risk. This attitude not only constrains the openings available to the people involved, but also impacts whole sectors, especially those with chronic shortages of motivated and dependable talent.
While immediate solutions, or "band-aid" solutions, offer temporary relief, they do not resolve the fundamental structural issues. Community job fairs, résumé workshops, and temp agencies all help participants secure short-term, temporary work. After all, these positions do not provide long-term career support. Standalone events in these situations provide initial hope, only to be followed swiftly by disappointment, as jobs end with the first scheduling conflict, a breakdown in transportation, or a misunderstanding with the supervisor. Policies like "Ban the Box" do not impact employer behavior in a meaningful, sustained manner, and fall short on equity by leaving the employer bias in the hiring process unaddressed. Tax incentives, like those in Arizona, that offer employer subsidies for hiring justice-involved people, provide little relief because they are underused due to lack of awareness. Without integrated behavioral health, vocational training, and mentorship support, these poorly conceived quick fixes solely serve to offer temporary relief by providing a "band-aid" to a gaping systemic wound.
An integrated approach requires a change from punishment to restoration, seeing jobs not as an act of charity, but as rehabilitation and a community necessity. Programs like New Freedom in Phoenix, Arizona, provide a useful example. New Freedom combines behavioral health programming services with vocational training, and mentoring to help justice-involved people reenter the community and secure lasting jobs. Participants acquire a variety of real-world, high-demand employment skills including HVAC, Framing, Painting, Electrical, Peer Support Certification, Business, and Culinary arts. Along with these skills, participants receive clinical support therapy and join peer groups. These services help build not only employability but also self-esteem, responsibility, and social connectedness. Research indicates that job training results in substantial decreases in recidivism (U.S. Department of Justice). In integrated frameworks like New Freedom's, early data suggests that individuals who complete vocational training and secure jobs tend to recidivate less and stay employed longer than those who were placed in jobs without structured support. It seems simple: when employment skills, behavioral health, and mentorship are combined, employment becomes a lasting link to community life.
It is essential to align training with market demand. The U.S. economy is still dealing with shortages of skilled labor in the trades and logistics industries. Reentry programs have the potential to help close this gap by preparing graduates for occupations where practical skills, adherence to a safety culture, and industry credentials trump a résumé. Tailoring training programs to recognized credentials, offers portable proof of competence. For employers, credentials simplify hiring; they eliminate the difficult task of assessing the complex story of a past conviction and provide standardized and easily assess employee readiness and safety. In addition, structured pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs offer wage advancement, and sponsorship that takes place mentoring for the job, reinforcing the employee during the most fragile phase of reentry.
Support for behavioral health should also be regarded as foundational. A great many people who are re-entering society have incarceration-related and post-release traumas such as depression, anxiety, or grief, and suffer from social rejection and trauma. These broken seams, without mentorship and unsolved gaps, make it difficult for someone to gain or maintain a job and hinder personal development. Increasing availability of counseling, peer support, and trauma-informed systems helps people maintain jobs, employment, and helps people repair damaged social ties. The established principle for unsupported systems, such as the workforce, is clear. One should expect setbacks and build structures to allow people to learn and grow.
Designing from the employer's perspective is critical too. The policy must translate goodwill into sustainable hiring by establishing a framework to reward and mitigate the risks of second-chance employment. Governments might broaden and promote existing Work Opportunity Tax Credits (WOTC) to encourage participation from smaller and midsize employers. Providing bonding and liability shields to employers hiring justice-involved people will mitigate fears of financial and reputational risks. Guidance on the relevance of a past offense to a particular position, evidence-based look-back periods, and role-related screening can replace blanket exclusions. States can run public awareness campaigns to promote second-chance employers and showcase their business successes. Stories can help society humanize the formerly incarcerated and break down the barriers of exclusion. Awareness campaigns can spotlight success stories of employers who have thrived by embracing second-chance hiring. Society can begin to dismantle exclusion by humanizing formerly incarcerated people through storytelling.
Tech can reinforce biases or help eliminate them. Instead of excluding applicants based on background check results, human resources systems can be redesigned to evaluate candidates based on skill scoring. Applicant-tracking systems can be designed to overlook biased demographics and prioritize those with industry-recognized credentials or verified training hours. These tools don't lower standards, they help ensure every qualified candidate, regardless of background, is given a fair chance to demonstrate their ability. Companies can also work with community-based organizations to develop mentorship programs that place newly hired workers with senior staff willing to support them through and understand the reentry challenges.
The concerns critics raise are valid. Some positions deal with safety-sensitive functions or with vulnerable persons. Some positions also deal with algorithms of licensure that automatically disqualify certain convictions. The idea of second-chance hiring is not to ignore risk, but rather to manage it. The answer is a calibrated, job-related approach: define disqualifying offenses that are narrowly tailored to the duties of the role; apply reasonable look-back periods; and incorporate remediation evidence such as completion of credited courses, time since the conviction, supervisor references, and performance in transitional roles. Employers already manage risk in numerous contexts, such as commercial driving, safety, and drug-testing compliance. Second-chance hiring should be held to the same standard: identify the risk, apply job-related mitigation, measure the outcomes, and adjust. In the study by Connell and others, the risk of safety and retention is the positive outcome. Classes of people are systematically excluded from appropriate work. Research suggests that when risk is managed in this way, results are favorable for both safety and retention (Connell et al.).
The rights of victims are part of the conversation too. Any system that recognizes harm must also recognize restoration. It is important to note that employment is a way of reparations, reparations through the provision of lawful living wages, child support, taxes, restitution, and community engagement. Opportunities for community service, along with restorative practices and victim-impact curricula, allow accountability and opportunities to coexist. Viewed in this way, second-chance hiring is a public-safety strategy based on discourse that helps reduce crime by giving released offenders legate employment to support themselves and their families.
Moving from pilot projects to population-level impact requires an implementation plan that policymakers and practitioners can follow. To Start, Build Bridges Before Release. Skills screening and training can begin six to twelve months prior to release and involve training for industry credentials that continue seamlessly post-release. Second, Create Transitional Employment On-Ramps. Subsidized or social-enterprise jobs that last 90 to 180 days, accompanied by intensive coaching for the released individuals can make smooth transitions to work. Formalize Employer Partnerships with Performance Goals. Staff retention at 30, 90, and 180 days, wage progression, and supervisor satisfaction are a few performance goals that need to be included. Lock in retention supports for 3-6 weeks: transportation support, funding programs for work gear, peer groups, and access to mentors. Finally, publish outcomes, measurement, enrollment, completion, placement, day 90 retention, day 365 retention, wage growth, and returns to custody, this transparency builds public trust and ensures the field understands what works, for whom, and at what cost.
Programs like New Freedom show how this roadmap works in practice. Participants complete vocational training that aligns with actual employer demand. They join therapy groups that deal with trauma, grief, and anxiety. They receive coaching on workplace norms and communication. They connect with employers willing to evaluate skills and character rather than just a checkbox on a form. The outcomes resonate with national research: training combined with support works better than models that only provide placement, and people employed during the months following release from custody are much less likely to return (U.S. Department of Justice; Connell et al.). When employers see consistent attendance and strong performance, the perception shifts from charity to common business sense. That shift is the inflection point when second-chance hiring becomes self-sustaining.
State policy can be a welcome pillar of support here. States have a tremendous opportunity to modernize occupational licensing laws by narrowing the "good moral character" clause, setting explicit standards for rehabilitation, and removing lifetime bans when the risk isn't directly related to the job. Clean-slate and record-sealing laws can be integrated with employer education efforts so that expunged records aren't left behind in outdated vendor record databases. Automatic tax credits that are available at the time of hire, instead of complicated end-of-year tax credits, would be more beneficial for small businesses. To reduce the emphasis on short-term throughput, in corrections, performance-based contracts can be structured to reward providers for placements and year-one retention rather than enrollments alone.
There are strong economic reasons to act. Each arrest prevented and each individual kept from reoffending allows law enforcement to focus on more serious crimes. At the same time, each avoided prison sentence enables the public to redirect funds that would otherwise be spent on incarceration toward far more effective training and support services. Each prison release allows the formerly imprisoned to support a family, decreasing reliance on public subsidies and increasing income tax revenue. The case gets stronger when considering income and spending multiplicative effects on the economy. Employers also benefit. The cost of replacing a skilled employee can run from 20 to 30 percent of their annual salary. Second-chance retention reduces turnover costs and stabilizes operations in industries where high turnover rates hinder quality.
Civic identity is a testament to second-chance employment. The justice system says it believes in rehabilitation. Employers say they appreciate work ethic and loyalty. Communities say they appreciate safety and stability. Second-chance frameworks allow those assumptions to align and play out. They acknowledge that citizens are more than the worst thing they have ever done. They understand that the stakes are high when public safety relies on citizens active in the legal economy. The promise is not frivolous. It is measured and purposeful. Programs must be rigid in their adherence to rules concerning attendance, sobriety, and safety. Participants must be willing to show up, engage, and do the work. Employers must provide honest partnerships, and policymakers must cease funding failures and sustain effective programs. But when the conditions are in place, the outcomes are nothing short of life-changing.
Beyond the paycheck, employment provides an opportunity to regain one's identity, belonging, and purpose, which help in the rehabilitation process. Second-chance employment programs show that rehabilitation is achievable and transformative. With the right opportunity, those formerly classified as offenders have the potential to become mentors, taxpayers, and leaders with the power to influence entire communities. New Freedom is an example of this. Integrated vocational training, therapy, and mentorship do not only transform lives, they also improve the communities they work with. The narrative is both simple and profound: when individuals are given the appropriate tools and the chance to do something meaningful, they will deliver.
America's approach to reentry is at a crossroad. The United States could continue to spend billions on a justice system that punishes poverty and addiction on a revolving door, or make a change and spend money on programs that heal, empower, and restore. Expanding second-chance employment is not softening the stance on crime; it is showing belief on what a person can become. All the data, moral, social, and economic, point to the same conclusion: people that are offered the chance to work instead of going back to crime will not squander it. With determined design, honest measurement, and courageous leadership, the world of work lets second-chance employment become the norm rather than the exception.
Championing second-chance employment is also more than an ethical position. It is also about practicality. It builds safer communities, strengthens families, and offers businesses employees that are loyal, and skilled. It shows a society that is willing to offer redemption and is more than a word on paper. If the United States really believes in rehabilitation, it must offer opportunity. Expanding programs like New Freedom will allow policymakers and employers to change the overarching narrative on reentry from punishment to the possibility of purpose. A purpose that has been stolen from those that have served, and from the communities that have waited for their return.
