Career Building Among Formerly Incarcerated College Graduates

Abstract

The California State University (CSU) Project Rebound is a re-entry program that provides educational, social, financial, and case management to formerly incarcerated college students with the goal of helping them become successful post-incarceration and post-graduation. This exploratory study examines successful career-building strategies reported by formerly incarcerated college graduates (FICG) who participated in a CSU-sponsored re-entry program. In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 alumni of a specific Project Rebound program (N = 13). Results from thematic analysis revealed five major themes depicting the post-graduation employment trajectory of FICG, the challenges that are unique to FICG, and strategies for improving career success among this population. Implications of the findings for theory, research, practice, and policy are discussed.

Keywords

formerly incarcerated college graduates re-entry programs project rebound qualitative data

Throughout the past 40 years, the United States has led the world in incarceration rates, far surpassing nations that have similar rates of violent crime (Widra & Herring, 2021). In the era of mass incarceration, more Americans have criminal records now than ever before. As of March 2021, 78.8 million American citizens had criminal records (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2021). Americans who have been previously incarcerated are subjected to a multitude of socioeconomic barriers upon re-entry. The American Bar Association compiled a collection of the 45,000 state and federally imposed “collateral consequences” that formerly incarcerated individuals may face upon re-entry throughout the nation (Mitchell, 2015). The term “collateral consequences” is used to describe local, state, and federal sanctions which permeate all areas of a formerly incarcerated individual’s life (Stafford, 2006). Some of these consequences affect access to employment, education, licensure, housing, public benefits, and civic engagement (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2019).

The unemployment rate among formerly incarcerated individuals who were actively looking for work was 27 percent in 2018, much higher than the national rate of 3.9 percent that same year (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). Each year, 630,000 individuals are returning home and studies have shown that 60 percent of them will not be able to secure employment within the first year of re-entry (Society for Human Resource Management, 2012). Research shows that unemployment is the number one indicator of re-arrest or re-incarceration, a term referred to as recidivism (Lockwood et al., 2016). Policy makers have recognized this trend since the late 19th century and have been implementing reintegration strategies that include skill-based training and/or academic programs, often offered in penal institutions (Coppedge & Strong, 2013).

The issue of unemployment among the formerly incarcerated population is more severe for communities of color. African Americans are incarcerated at a rate of 5.1 times that of white Americans, while Latinos are incarcerated at 1.4 times the rate of whites in America (Nellis, 2016). Due to disproportionately higher rates of incarceration among minority populations, African Americans and Latinos are frequently subjected to employment discrimination based on criminal convictions. African American men who have been formerly incarcerated experience an unemployment rate of 35.2 percent, while formerly incarcerated African American women fare worse, with an unemployment rate of 43.6 percent (Couloute & Kopf, 2018).

Vocational training and/or career technical education (CTE) have prepared inmates for employment after re-entry in the U.S. These types of programs are designed to increase skills and knowledge to perform a specific occupational function or trade (Tesfai, 2014). By 1936, correctional institutions began to offer opportunities for apprenticeship programs in occupations such as carpentry, plumbing, and automotive repair, whereas women in federal prisons were encouraged to train in stenography, typewriting, and nursing (Coppedge & Strong, 2013). During the early 20th century, inmates labored in agricultural industrial institutions so that the private industry can offset the cost of institutional overhead (Coppedge & Strong, 2013).

Beginning in the 1960s, state prisons have incorporated tertiary education programs into their reformatory initiatives (Coppedge & Strong, 2013). In 1965, federal Pell grants were available to incarcerated students (Prison Fellowship, 2020) (Education Amendments of 1972, 1972) The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 created a “Pell Ban” that has been in effect until 2015 when the Second Chance Pell Program, a trial program which permitted certain students to once again access federal funds to pay for college while incarcerated, was implemented under the Obama Administration (Cantora et al., 2020). Within the past 5 years, the population of college students with some criminal history has skyrocketed (Silbert & Mukamal, 2020). This is due, in part, to increased accessibility to educational programs in correctional institutions (Pelletier & Evans, 2019), the lift on the Pell Ban for currently incarcerated individuals (Mangan, 2021), and campus-based re-entry programs aimed at softening the transition from correctional institutions to campuses (Anderson et al., 2019; Murillo, 2021).

Unemployment and Underemployment Among the Formerly Incarcerated

The most influential factor on the incidence of recidivism is unemployment (Lockwood et al., 2016). Unemployment among the formerly incarcerated population is due to employers’ perception of the risks of repetition of criminal behavior combined with the legal stigma that assigns formerly incarcerated individuals “negative credentials” which endure a lifetime (Sugie et al., 2020). Underemployment can have both objective and subjective features and is defined as the extent to which the labor time and skills of any individual or group are underutilized in the labor force (Livingstone, 1999). In one study, formerly incarcerated men were comparatively underemployed when found to have access to gainful employment 9 weeks less per year and earn 11% less wages than non-formerly incarcerated men (Duwe & Clark, 2014). Notably, underemployment has been linked to challenges with employee identity formation, mental health, and wellbeing (McKee & Harvey, 2011).

Employability

Formerly incarcerated students benefit from institutional-based education in a variety of ways in addition to decreased recidivism, such as 1) the development of personal skills and attributes, 2) building prosocial networks, and 3) strengthening prosocial bonds to traditional institutions (Pelletier & Evans, 2019). To prepare students for graduation and employment, stakeholders including employers, university personnel, graduates, and students suggest that the following strategies are most beneficial to further job outcomes: work experience including part-time work, extracurricular activities, volunteerism, career advice, registering with professional associations, and networking (Kinash et al., 2016). To better prepare career counselors to assist this unique population, Thompson and Cummings (2010) suggest that career counselors obtain more knowledge of formerly incarcerated college graduates (FICG) by researching employment opportunities with companies who are receiving federal incentives for hiring ex-offenders, becoming more familiar with barriers to professional licensing, and staying up to date on community efforts toward restorative justice measures.

Ban the Box

In addition to efforts to increase employability factors among the formerly incarcerated population, Ban the Box initiatives have also been legislated in 29 states throughout the nation (Hanks, 2017). Ban the box policies make it illegal for employers to inquire about past convictions on the job application. In fact, employers under Ban the Box policies may only ask about past convictions following a conditional job offer (Hanks, 2017). For example, the Fair Chance Act, passed in California in 2018, “generally prohibits employers with five or more employees from asking a job candidate about conviction history before making a job offer, among other requirements” (California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, 2022).

Education and the Formerly Incarcerated

Due to increasing accessibility of education within correctional institutions, college students are beginning their academic careers while incarcerated (Mangan, 2021). In a recent study examining the pathways from incarceration to college graduation, researchers ascertained that there were 11,472 incarcerated students accessing higher education in penal institutions throughout the state of California in June of 2020 (Murrillo, 2021). During that same timeframe, approximately 20,000 California college students reported being formerly incarcerated (Murrillo, 2021). The transition from carceral institutions to college life can be especially challenging for the formerly incarcerated student (Donaldson & Viera, 2021) In addition to the challenges faced during re-entry, students must also adapt to the unfamiliar university setting (Anderson et al., 2019).

Structural issues are highly influential in an individual’s ability to successfully obtain a college degree. Runell (2017) examines the challenges of pursuing higher education from the formerly incarcerated perspective including influences from pre-carceral life, financial and housing insecurity, and stigmatization. Education and career training can facilitate the development of social capital and economic mobility among formerly incarcerated individuals. Further, research has found that education can increase the employability of formerly incarcerated individuals by accounting for time lost to incarceration and allowing the employer to focus on non-stigmatized aspects of the individual’s identity (Owens, 2009). While there is no significant difference in post-release employment attainment among secondary and post-secondary degree earners, those who did earn post-secondary degrees while incarcerated reported working more hours and earning more wages (Duwe & Clark, 2014).

Project Rebound

As a transitional re-entry program providing services in an educational setting, Project Rebound offers support to formerly incarcerated students in the form of financial assistance, academic support, community and campus resource linkage, political and legal advocacy, and professional development opportunities, with the overarching goal of increasing participants’ career outcomes (Murillo, 2021). This program was originally established in 1967 on the campus of San Francisco State University. As of 2021, the program has been implemented on 14 California State University campuses with 566 students enrolled to date (California State University Chancellor’s Office, 2022). “Rebound Scholars are active in both undergraduate and graduate programs, pursuing degrees in fields such as the Social Sciences, Business and Economics, Health and Human Services, Arts and Humanities, Engineering and Computer Science, Education, and more” (California State University Chancellor’s Office, 2022, p. 6). A program outcomes evaluation shows that Project Rebound has maintained a 100 percent retention rate with 66.7 percent of participants on track to graduate in spring of the year of the study. Participants of this program have a less than one percent recidivism rate (California State University Chancellor’s Office, 2022).

Rationale and Purpose of this Study

While multiple studies have highlighted the positive effects of education on recidivism rates in the U.S. (Cantora et al., 2020), little information has been gathered regarding effective career-building strategies reported by formerly incarcerated college graduates (FICG). FICG must deal with a multitude of issues when entering the competitive labor market such as limited social capital, underdeveloped technical skills, gaps in professional experience, underemployment, and intersectional discrimination in addition to legal status. Although education is viewed as a conduit to employment among the formerly incarcerated population, a recent study has found that college graduates with no criminal records receive 50 percent more positive callbacks from employers than do college graduates with criminal records (Cerda-Jara et al., 2020). Identifying and promoting career building strategies among FICG will help alleviate the socioeconomic strain of mass incarceration and recidivism. Moreover, assisting formerly incarcerated college students with career development strategies can enhance individual and community well-being among this marginalized population.

The purpose of this study was to identify strategies utilized in a university setting which mediated barriers unique to this population in the pursuit of successful career attainment. In particular, this study answered the following three related questions: 1) What are the employment-seeking experiences of FICG who participated in a campus-based re-entry program in Southern California? 2) What are effective employment-building sources for FICG? 3) From a recipient perspective, how beneficial are a campus-based re-entry program’s career-building services?

Methodology

Research Design and Ethics

This study took a qualitative, exploratory approach toward answering its underlying questions. This design allows the researchers to gain insight regarding the career-seeking experiences of FICG. Prior to conducting this study, each member of the research team successfully completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) training. The researchers sought and obtained approval to conduct this study from X University Institutional Review Board (IRB-FY2022-42).

Sampling

This study used the purposive sampling method to recruit participants, all of whom were graduates of a California State University (CSU) Project Rebound program. That is, the participants must be formerly incarcerated or have been involved with the criminal justice system and admitted to a university that hosts a Project Rebound program. Moreover, all respondents must have graduated with a bachelor, master, or a doctoral degree. The sample was further limited to participants who have engaged in job-searching activities post-graduation.

Recruitment

Each participant was recruited from contact information provided by Project Rebound, using phone calls and emails. The respondents were selected based on criteria to participate in the study. The researchers asked participants for consent to participate in the study. Each respondent was interviewed via Zoom and the location of each participant was varied. Respondents arranged a date and time to meet via Zoom to complete interviews. Interviews were automatically transcribed using the function provided in the Zoom platform. Interviews were facilitated between December 2021 and February 2022.

Demographics

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the study participants (n = 13). The respondents ranged in age from 25 to 63, with eight participants (61.53%) reporting being younger than 45 years old, and five participants (38.46%) reporting being 45 years or older. Over three-quarters (n = 10) of the participants were male, which is reflective of the gender gap in national incarceration rates. Regarding race and ethnicity, 53.85% (n = 7) of the respondents reported Hispanic heritage, while 30.77% (n = 4) identified as African American and 15.38 (n = 2) identified as White. In terms of relationship status, 6 participants reported being single, while seven were married or in a relationship.

Table 1.

Sample Demographic Characteristics (N = 13).

Variables	n	%
Age	13	100
Younger than 45	8	61.53
45 and older	5	38.46
Gender	13	100
Male	10	76.92
Female	3	23.07
Race/ethnicity	13	100
African American	4	30.77
Hispanic	7	53.85
White	2	15.38
Marital status	13	100
Single	6	46.15
Married/in a relationship	7	53.85
Employment status	13	100
Employed full-time	9	69.23
Employed part-time	2	15.38
Unemployed	2	15.38
Income	13	100
Under $49,999	6	46.15
$50,000 and over	7	53.84
Time to become employed	13	100
3 months or less	10	76.92
Between 3 and 6 months	2	15.38
N/A	1	7.69
Employed in field studied	13	100
Yes	7	53.84
No	6	46.15
First generation student	13	100
Yes	8	61.54
No	5	38.46
Highest level of education	13	100
Undergraduate degree	6	46.15
Graduate degree	7	53.84
Major	13	100
Social sciences	12	92.30
Non-social sciences	1	7.69

Related to employment status, nine respondents reported full time employment, while the other respondents were employed part-time (n = 2) or unemployed (n = 2). Importantly, 10 respondents reported becoming employed within 3 months of graduation, two became employed within 3 to 6 months post-graduation, and one respondent began graduate school and did not seek employment post-graduation. Income was reported, with 46.15% (n = 6) of the respondents indicating an income of less than $49,999, and only one respondent earning less than $25,000, annually. Further, 53.84% (n = 7) of respondents indicated earning $50,000 or more, with one respondent earning $75,000 or more. Of the participants, seven were employed in their field of study, while six were not. Occupations reported included contractor, electrical engineer, security guard, administrator, case manager, clinician, program director, college instructor, and leasing consultant. Over half (n = 8) of the respondents were first generation college graduates. As far as education level, seven respondents earned a graduate degree, while six earned an undergraduate degree.

Data Collection and Procedures

The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with the participants, using Zoom video conferencing. Demographic information was collected via a Qualtrics link. The interview questions, which the research team collaboratively developed, were focused on respondents’ career-seeking experiences following graduation. To ensure the cultural sensitivity of the questions, the researchers piloted them on individuals who are representative of the population. The researchers then refined the interview guide based on the feedback received. The researchers conducted interviews with participants by following a common script of eight questions and using follow-up questions to encourage participants to expand their responses. In order to collect participants’ recommendations to service providers, scaling and scaffolding questions were used such as “what number would you rate X as” and “which factors would allow this number to increase/decrease?”

Data Analysis

After transcribing the collected interviews, the researchers proceeded with thematic analysis for the qualitative portion of the data. Abreu et al. (2021) took a similar approach in analyzing employment data among Latinx transgender people who considered themselves immigrants. Thematic analysis is an inductive procedure well suited for qualitative data (Labra et al., 2019) and which offers flexibility regarding theory, sample, and data collection (Clarke & Braun, 2017). According to Labra et al. (2019), thematic analysis generally contains six steps—familiarization with the collected data, generation of initial codes, search for themes, review of themes, definition/name of themes, and presentation and discussion of the results. First, the researchers (all four authors) received a copy of the interview transcripts before meeting for 2 hours to familiarize themselves with the transcribed data. Next, the Author 1 and Author 3 independently started the coding by using a spreadsheet to determine the participants’ responses to each interview question. Still working separately, these two authors identified initial codes, categories, and themes that arose from the data. Author 1 and Author 4 then met for 4 hours to discuss the initial findings. When the level of agreement between the two authors reached 100% for each theme, a meeting was scheduled with the most experienced author on the research team (Author 4). This author reviewed the whole coding process (including theme selection) before agreeing with the identified themes. Finally, Author 1 and Author 3 identified and extracted multiple quotes from the interview transcripts. These quotes served to corroborate the perspectives of the study participants vis-à-vis career building. Elsewhere, the researchers used the demographic data for descriptive purposes only.

Results

Results from thematic analysis revealed five major themes: perceptions of career building services, perceptions of service deficiencies, experiences during the job-seeking process, experiences in the workplace, and advice for career preparation. Each of these themes is described below.

Graduates’ perceptions of career building services: there is a broad range of support that constitutes the career-building network of FICG

The qualitative data obtained supports the utilization of a broad range of career building support by formerly incarcerated college students. Themes reported reflected career building support obtained from a campus-based re-entry program, general university services, and the broader community. Regarding the re-entry program, respondents reported receiving social, career, legal, academic, and financial support. Respondents also shared that involvement in the campus-based re-entry program aided toward an overall feeling of belongingness and an increase in confidence. Respondents reported benefits from referrals to various on and off campus resources. As far as services offered by the university, respondents reported receiving administrative, academic, financial, and career support. Some respondents reported engaging in different student support programs offered on campus. A few respondents gained direct employment from the university as well. Relatedly, respondents also reported receiving career building services from the greater community. Some of the support received came from county agencies, legal advocates, community coalitions, previously attended community colleges, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) council, court programs, transportation services, on-line job search engines, community funding opportunities, and temp agencies.

Major themes emerged as graduates discussed the career building services received from the campus-based re-entry program. Mentorship was the most commented upon service obtained by staff and peers associated with the agency. Graduates agreed that having access to staff with lived experience was helpful and empowering. Respondent #3 (male) reported the following:

“Project Rebound did help me to be affiliated with people who have already been through the process.”

Moreover, graduates were provided with one-on-one support through mentorship which created a safe space for students to receive encouragement and validation. Respondent #9 (female) stated the following, “we sat down and talked for like an hour and [staff] told me that I would be okay and encouraged me to keep pursuing that goal.” Respondents also shared that they were encouraged to pursue graduate school by mentorship from staff at the re-entry program. Regarding post-baccalaureate education, respondent #4 (male) stated, “Project Rebound offered me a career path.” Similarly, graduates were empowered through connection with peers. Interviewee #5 (male) found a sense of connection among fellow participants, stating:

“Project Rebound made me realize that I wasn’t the only convict in the university. I felt different than everyone else but then I started meeting people from Project Rebound.”

Respondents overwhelmingly shared that they were provided with confidence and resilience as a fundamental service provided by the re-entry program. These factors increased their success as they pursued higher education and began their job search. Respondent #3 (male) stated the following:

“I think it just helped me to feel confident in understanding that even though I had a record that I was introduced to other Project Rebound members who were already working in the same field as I was going into. So, it allowed me to be more confident to understand that becoming licensed within social work was a possibility.”

Respondent #5 (male) shared a similar experience, stating:

“I think, if anything, they just gave me the confidence to be myself… Project Rebound helped me with self-development and just to have more confidence within myself to be a better member of society.”

Moreover, the re-entry program assisted respondents with gaining work experience by offering internships, and subsequent post-graduate employment of two interviewees.

Interviewees also received beneficial career-building services from the university. Some of the most prevalently mentioned services referencing career development were networking, job-seeking support, and direct support from faculty and staff. Interviewees shared benefits resulting from the personal and professional networks formed through interactions with campus departments and peers. Career building support, including mock interviews and resume building, were received from the campus career center and from individual graduate programs. Further, the campus is also credited with hosting job fairs which were deemed beneficial to job seeking students. Respondent #3 (male) shared, “During the job fairs, we were able to ask questions. We were able to go from booth to booth and network with employers that we were interested in pursuing after we graduated our master’s program.”

Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that support received from faculty and staff, including mentorship and letters of recommendation, were the most beneficial career preparation services obtained from the university attended. Respondent #11 (male) shared:

“My professors were instrumental in not only pointing me in the right direction but helping me to produce the paperwork that I needed. I had help from professors with networking, recommendations, and how I should structure my resume. They even helped me to develop my education plan.”

Respondent #2 (male) stated, “professors give their support and the letters of recommendation…those benefited me very much.” Additionally, interviewees utilized additional campus resources such as workability services associated with the Department of Rehabilitation and supplemental financial and advising programs such as SAIL and EOP. Respondent #5 (male) gained direct employment from the university as a student worker.

Respondents reported obtaining services that enhanced their career seeking experiences from the community which included social services, legal advocacy groups, and employment services. Multiple respondents reported receiving services from the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) which is an agency that assists individuals who are differently abled join the workforce. Participant #1 (male) commented on receiving a “LEAP letter,” which, he shared, “will help you attain a position at a county or state or federal agency, and they know that you’re disabled.” Participant #5 (male) shared that his involvement with the DOR led to his chosen career path:

“I decided that I wanted to be a counselor of some sort… I knew I had a record, so I was wondering if I can work in a setting like that and yeah, they’ve hired people with records before. That’s another reason why I went down that road.”

Legal advocacy groups, including Root and Rebound, the Inland Empire Fair Chance Coalition (IEFCC), and the NASW Council of Inclusion and Rehabilitation, were also described by respondents as helpful in their career development. These organizations were instrumental in providing legal support and opportunities to graduates to learn to advocate for themselves and others. Participant #3 (male) shared:

“Through the IEFCC and Project Rebound, I had the opportunity to be the keynote speaker for [a community event].”

Another graduate shared that he became involved with a specific group of social workers who were concerned with improving access to licensure for formerly incarcerated individuals. Regarding the legal advocacy group, participant #3 (male) reported the following:

“I got in touch with the organization Root and Rebound and they helped me out if I need a letter of recommendation or they help explain the steps I should take in order to get the job.”

Respondents also mentioned gaining support within the community from previously attended junior colleges in the form of recommendations and information about job opportunities. Respondent #9 (female) shared:

“My transfer counselor from [the junior college] actually referred me to the job that I still have now. I’ve been there for two and a half years.”

Graduates’ perceptions of service deficiencies: deficiencies exist within the broad range of support necessary for increased career outcomes

While respondents reported that Project Rebound provided resources and personnel that were useful for their career-seeking opportunities and academic achievements, respondents reported several resources that can be beneficial for future Project Rebound participants. Deficiencies were noted by respondents in the areas of networking, advising, resources, and student involvement. Respondents shared that career-building networking opportunities provided by the re-entry program could be improved by the inclusion of “felon-friendly employers” and more connections with faculty and staff from different majors on campus. Graduates felt that the latter could result in more major-driven mentorship available to FICS. In addition, respondents agreed that advising services, including guiding students toward degrees that will allow them opportunities despite having a record, could be improved upon. Respondent #5 (male) remarked, “It would have been helpful if I was told how difficult it would be to get a job despite having a master’s degree.” Resource deficiencies were also identified including financial resources and information on professional licensure. Finally, graduate respondents shared that current FICS would benefit from more involvement in the re-entry program. Some suggestions made were to devise and implement career-building workshops and offer incentives for students who attend, as well as to continue to engage with students who have graduated by creating an “aftercare program.”

Respondents reported that the university campus provided many helpful and useful resources; however, areas of improvement to increase career preparedness were suggested related to advising, mentorship, and career guidance. Respondents pointed out that faculty and staff could better assist FICS by having more knowledge of the career-seeking challenges and opportunities unique to the population. Respondent #6 posited that hiring staff and faculty with lived experience would increase the legitimacy of career-related information available to students. Several respondents shared that they may have benefited from major-specific employment information communicated in person or via email, as opposed to the mass email techniques currently utilized by the university. While resume building offered from the University’s Career Center was reportedly utilized by respondents, it was also noted among the respondents that Career Center staff were unequipped in areas such as addressing “gaps” in resumes and formatting resumes relative to specific fields/jobs. Finally, graduates felt it necessary to comment upon the limited space and opportunities available for the formerly incarcerated student population on campus. Respondents shared that this population would be empowered if the campus offered a “safe space” for students to engage in workshops and present information specific to the experiences of the formerly incarcerated college student and/or graduate. Participant #3 (male) shared the following when asked how Project Rebound could improve services:

“I think just a bigger place. I used to go over to the office to visit and you know it was kind of condensed and crowded, and I think with more space it would allow more people to come in and feel safe…a study area where people come in and do their homework in between classes.”

Experiences during the job-seeking process: respondents report a “mixed bag” in terms of career seeking experiences post-graduation

Graduates reported both positive and negative career seeking experiences post-graduation. The types of career-seeking experiences varied by respondent regarding access to employment opportunities, self-perceived preparedness, and the hiring process. Respondents who reported negative experiences while seeking employment reported the challenges such as criminal records which prevented them from gaining employment and resulted in “failing background checks.” Other negative experiences included settling for low wages, working multiple jobs to “pay the bills,” working more or less hours than preferred, and long commutes for jobs they were eligible for. Respondent #5 (male) reported the following, “I had to settle for what my life really is.” Interviewee #10 (male) felt that “most places didn’t care that I had a degree.” Respondents also shared that they experienced challenges with online job searching platforms related to resume formatting.

For respondents who encountered positive experiences while seeking employment, they reported experiences such as being directly connected with an employer via the campus-based re-entry program and feeling prepared for the job search process due to the services received while at the university. One respondent shared that his internship led to employment, and some respondents were hired directly after graduation. Respondents reported building relationships as a positive experience. Respondent #7 (female) had been offered jobs but denied them because she was continuing her education. Respondent #8 (female) received a promotion from the warehouse level and became employed with human resources within the organization. One respondent reported turning down more money to work in the nonprofit sector.

Experiences in the workplace: despite progress, a lot remains to be seen in terms of reintegrating FICG into the workplace

While policies have been implemented in California to counteract the barriers to employment among the formerly incarcerated population, FICG are still experiencing challenges when integrating into the workforce post-graduation. Respondents have reported working in fields unrelated to their degrees obtained from the university due to their previous convictions. Additionally, respondents have reported a lack of satisfaction in their current jobs related to wages, hours, and commute. Others have reported disliking the characteristics of their current jobs including the type of work and the values of the organization at which they are employed. Interviewee #2 (male) related a lack of job satisfaction to barriers resulting from previous convictions, stating,

“I wish I worked more, and I wish I was using my degree. I’m working on getting some things expunged so that I can use my degree.”

As evidenced by responses, those who have graduated with a master’s degree found career opportunities in their fields, as opposed to those respondents who graduated with only their bachelor’s degree. Subsequently, FICG who did not pursue graduate school demonstrated a trend of becoming underemployed after graduation. Graduates who reported higher job satisfaction in their current occupation found their jobs rewarding, flexible, and challenging. Meanwhile, multiple graduates shared that they work with the re-entry population. Elsewhere, respondents reported additional benefits of their employment including flexibility, independence, and health and retirement benefits. Participants expressed the aforementioned feelings as follows:

It’s rewarding in the sense that you get to teach and mentor [students]. It brings a certain amount of satisfaction back to you when there's a positive response and you know that you change a life in the small way that you can.

I get to work with at-risk youth…we help them find jobs and reconnect them to school if they haven’t graduated high school…we help them apply for college…I would say my job is very rewarding.

My job was to just conduct research by doing a landscape analysis and getting in touch with all the reentry organizations in the area to address the gaps and needs of the reentry community. I got in touch with amazing folks doing reentry work.

I’m in charge of a whole team of substance use counselors, peers, and social workers. So I was not really prepared to be in that position, but now I’m getting the hang of it. It’s more exciting and it allows me to think a lot further ahead and see how I can be more of an asset to the program.

Graduates’ advice for career preparation: graduates who were proactive regarding career building strategies reported more positive career seeking experiences and increased job satisfaction

Having the privilege of hindsight, combined with firsthand experience of seeking a career post-graduation has enabled respondents to provide feedback regarding steps that currently enrolled, formerly incarcerated students can take to ensure best possible outcomes in career attainment. Minor themes discussed related to actions taken to prepare for the labor market prior to graduation, and decisions to consider when in the job-search process. First, respondents encourage FICG to put forth their best effort toward their studies and consider their impact on those who follow:

I would say, not only take life seriously but take your education seriously. Don’t take it for granted because especially being system impacted, there’s going to be kind of like a microscope on us to see how we do within our major like in our job preferences that we choose. And if we ever want to turn a corner or make it easier for the next person, then we really have to excel in what it is that we do.

Relatedly, respondents stress the importance of a “positive mindset,” and remind students to “not let your past affect your present.” Further, respondents offer FICS advice to be better prepared for employment post-graduation, including contacting “felon-friendly employers,” practicing interviewing skills, learning networking techniques, and working toward professional licensure. One respondent suggests that students strongly consider their major with regards to the probability of becoming hired in their field. In addition, respondents overwhelmingly encourage formerly incarcerated students to seek out strategies for post-conviction relief prior to graduation including contacting an attorney or legal advocacy group, pursuing expungement, obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation (COR), and learning about current policies and resources the state has to offer to assist with post-conviction relief. Finally, respondents encourage jobseekers to consider more than just the pay when considering a position. Some characteristics of positions discussed were a sense of purpose associated with the job, benefits including health care and retirement funds, and proximity to the place of employment. Respondent #9 summed it up when he suggested, “be resilient and do not give up because a lot of times you’ll hear no, but then you will get the yes that you need.”

Discussion

Overall, the findings obtained from this study are consistent with the findings of fellow researchers investigating this population. The need for various types of support for the formerly incarcerated college student has been represented in the literature (Anderson et al., 2019; Donaldson & Viera, 2021). Mentorship has been shown to be beneficial in multiple domains including interpersonal encouragement, establishing social capital, and strengthening self-efficacy among this population (Tietjjan et al., 2020). Although re-entry programs in educational settings are becoming more common, Donaldson and Viera (2021) point out that these support programs are in need of additional funding sources to support programming, which is consistent with the findings of this study indicating that some deficiencies exist within the services available to the formerly incarcerated college student population.

The variability in career seeking experiences reported by the respondents in this study is consistent with Owen’s (2009) claim that, although obtaining post-secondary degrees does not negate the social stigma ascribed to this population, college education can alleviate some challenges during job searching such as explaining gaps in resumes and drawing attention to non-criminal aspects of the individual’s identity. While Fair Chance policies are being implemented to address the unemployment rate among the formerly incarcerated population (Hanks, 2017), more efforts are required to manage the enduring stigma of criminal conviction (Owens, 2009).

Limitations

There are notable limitations to this research study, and as such, the findings should be considered with caution. The study was limited demographically, as most of the respondents were male, which while an accurate reflection of the current statistics of incarceration by gender, is not an accurate reflection of the formerly incarcerated student or graduate population. Another limitation that should be considered is the setting and location in which this study was conducted. This study was conducted with participants from one re-entry program on the campus of an urban university in Southern California. Local and state policies could have effects on the data, which will be inconsistent in other locales. In sum, the findings of this study are applicable only within the boundaries of its setting.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should include a larger sampling size composed of FICG obtained through random sampling methods. Further, studies should be conducted in various locations within the U.S. to highlight services and barriers unique to different locales. The city and state where this study was conducted only makes up a small sample size of the population that is being studied. In addition, future researchers should take care to obtain a more diversified sample population, one that is more representative of the FICG population.

Conclusion

In conclusion, FICG face many obstacles while seeking employment in their chosen field of study. Universities have implemented campus-based re-entry programs to support FICG through their challenges and college experiences. The study found positive and negative job seeking experiences after participating in a campus-based re-entry program. Some respondents reported facing challenges while seeking employment despite participating in a campus-based re-entry program. A common theme was respondents failing background checks due to their system-impacted background. Respondents reported that the campus-based re-entry program offered mentorship and guidance, resume preparation, and preparation for interviews, which helped them develop skills for applying to and working in their chosen field of study. Respondents also reported benefiting from using career-building strategies such as working towards expungement of their record(s), networking and communicating with felon-friendly employers, taking a position that does not feel like a job, and learning more about local resources in the community or state. Respondents found that mentorship, networking, peer support, and workshops provided by a campus-based re-entry program were beneficial components in their professional development.

Implications of the Findings

The findings in this study carry implications for research, practice, and policy. In terms of research, the findings of the study have contributed to the literature on the career-building support necessary for this unique population; however, further research should be implemented at statewide and national levels, at cross sectional and longitudinal intervals. Moreover, the findings of this research will guide professional practice when providing career building services among the formerly incarcerated population.

With respect to policy, the results in this study shed light on steps lawmakers can take to help FICG in the labor market. Fair hiring policies, such as “Ban the Box,” have been widely instituted; however, this policy requires more oversight and evaluation than it is currently receiving in the community of Southern California. Furthermore, policymakers should consider the unique challenges experienced by the FICG population related to stigma within the workplace. Although there are laws that may insulate formerly incarcerated individuals from workplace discrimination, there is currently no policy that identifies this population as a protected class under the law. Other policy implications of this research pertain to the allocation of funds for professional development among formerly incarcerated college students. Specifically, subsidized employment or internship opportunities could help alleviate financial strain faced by transitioning students, while providing necessary professional experience that can help assuage gaps in employment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Roberta Fox

Annika Anderson

Author Biographies

Roberta Fox is an associate social worker who is currently providing mental health diversion services to system impacted individuals. Ms. Fox graduated in 2020 with a bachelor’s in social work, and in 2022 with a master’s in social work, both from California State University (CSUSB), San Bernardino. While completing her education at CSUSB, Ms. Fox worked at a re-entry program on campus, Project Rebound, providing advising and supportive services to system impacted college students. Ms. Fox has also worked in a number of mental health settings, including crisis, outpatient, and forensic services. Ms. Fox’s research interests include the impact of social stigma on economic advancement among minority communities and the efficacy of programs designed to ameliorate economic barriers. Some of Ms. Fox’s personal interests include gardening, reading, and spending time in nature.

Jesse Rodriguez earned a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and a Master’s in Social Work (MSW), both degrees were completed at California State University San Bernardino. Mr. Rodriguez is a Clinical Social Worker in a mental health setting. Although Mr. Rodriquez is not currently involved in conducting research, his research interests revolve around the negative outcomes of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Mr. Rodriguez enjoys hiking and exercising and finds that hiking in the outdoors and exercising overall gives him a disconnect from my job and gives me time to engage in my self-care.

Rigaud Joseph is a social work scholar who currently works as an associate professor at California State University San Bernardino (CSUSB). Dr. Joseph graduated from Florida Atlantic University with both a BSW and MSW between 2010 and 2012. He subsequently spent two consecutive years working in the social work field as a wraparound family therapist. Dr. Joseph joined the Florida International University School of Social work in 2014 for doctoral studies. After graduating in 2017, he joined CSUSB where he focuses on teaching, research, service, and administration. Dr. Joseph has authored/co-authored more than two dozen peer-reviewed articles.

Dr. Annika Anderson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology where she teaches classes on deviant behavior, criminology, re-entry, and race and ethnic relations. She received her B.A. in Public Relations from Pennsylvania State University and her M.A. and Ph.D. in Sociology from Washington State University. Since 2016, Dr. Anderson has served as the Executive Director of Project Rebound, a campus-based re-entry program that supports the higher education and successful reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals wishing to enroll and succeed at California State University, San Bernardino. Her research interests are in developmental and life-course criminology, re-entry, social stratification, and race and ethnic relations. She has presented her research at numerous conferences and has several publications on crime and re-entry based on research conducted in San Bernardino. In her spare time, Dr. Anderson enjoys dancing and developing circus routines with her daughter, Avehlin.

References

Abreu

R. L.

Gonzalez

K. A.

Lindley

Capielo Rosario

Lockett

G. M.

Teran

(2021). Why can’t I have the office jobs?”: Immigrant Latinx transgender peoples’ experiences with seeking employment. Journal of Career Development, 50(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211062951

Anderson

A. Y.

Jones

P. A.

McAllister

C. A.

(2019). Reentry in the Inland Empire: The prison to college pipeline with project rebound. In Middlemass

K. M.

Smiley

C. J.

(Eds.), Prisoner reentry in the 21st century: Critical perspectives of returning home (pp. 232–246). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019). Official unemployment rate was 3.9 percent in December 2018. U.S. Department of Labor. U-6 was 7.6 percent https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/official-unemployment-rate-was-3-point-9-percent-in-december-2018-u-6-was-7-point-6-percent.htm

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (2022). Fair chance act: Guidance for California employers and job applicants. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/fair-chance-act/

California State University Chancellor’s Office (2022). CSU report: Project rebound. California State University Chancellor’s Office. https://www.calstate.edu/impact-of-the-csu/government/Advocacy-and-State-Relations/legislativereports1/Project-Rebound-Report-2022.pdf

Cantora

Miller

White

(2020). Implementing Pell: Challenges and successes of implementing the U.S. department of education’s second chance pell experimental sites initiative. Journal of Correctional Education, 71(1), 2–17.

Cerda-Jara

Elster

Harding

D. J.

(2020). Criminal record stigma in the college-educated labor market. Institute for Research on Labor Employment. https://irle.berkeley.edu/criminal-record-stigma-in-the-college-educated-labor-market/

Clarke

Braun

(2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

Coppedge

R. H.

Strong

(2013). Vocational programs in the Federal Bureau of Prisons: Examining the potential of agricultural education programs for prisoners. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(3), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.03116

10.

Couloute

Kopf

(2018). Out of prison & out of work: Unemployment among formerly incarcerated people. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html

11.

Donaldson

Viera

(2021). College after prison: A review of the literature on barriers and supports to postsecondary education for formerly incarcerated college students. John Jay College Institute for Justice and Opportunity.

12.

Duwe

Clark

(2014). The effects of prison-based educational programming on recidivism and employment. The Prison Journal, 94(4), 454–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885514548009

13.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2021). NGI monthly fact sheet: Next generation identification. Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/ngi-monthly-fact-sheet/view

14.

Hanks

(2017). Ban the box and beyond: Ensuring individuals with a criminal record have access to the labor market. The Center for American Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2017/07/26130154/FairChanceHiring-report.pdf

15.

Kinash

Crane

Judd

M. M.

Knight

(2016). Discrepant stakeholder perspectives on graduate employability strategies. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(5), 951–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1139555

16.

Labra

Castro

Wright

Chamblas

(2019). Thematic analysis in social work: A case study. In Nikku

(Ed), Global social work-cutting edge issues and critical reflections. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/69520

17.

Livingstone

D. W.

(1999). The education-jobs gap: Underemployment or economic democracy. Garamond Press.

18.

Lockwood

Nally

(2016). Race, education, employment, and recidivism among offenders in the United States: An exploration of complex issues in the Indianapolis metropolitan area. International Journal of Criminal Justice. Sciences, 11(1), 57–74.

19.

Mangan

(2021). The expanding role of colleges in prison education by Ascendium Education Group. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc. https://connect.chronicle.com/PrisonPopulation.html

20.

McKee-Ryan

F. M.

Harvey

(2011). I have a job, but…”: A review of underemployment. Journal of Management, 37(4), 962–996. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311398134

21.

Mitchell

(2015). National summit on collateral consequences. American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminaljustice/cc_national_summit_report.pdf

22.

Murillo

(2021). The possibility report: From prison to college degrees in California. The Campaign for College Opportunity. https://collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Possibility-Report.pdf

23.

Nellis

(2016). The color of justice: Racial and ethnic disparity in state prisons. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/

24.

Owens

C. D.

Jr (2009). Social symbols, stigma, and the labor market experiences of former prisoners. Journal of Correctional Education, 60(4), 316–342.

25.

Pelletier

Evans

(2019). Beyond recidivism. Journal of Correctional Education, 70(2), 49–68.

26.

Prison Fellowship . (2020). Mythbusters: Pell grant eligibility for incarcerated students. Prisonfellowship.org. https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/PellforIncarceratedStudents_MythBusters_Nov18_v10.pdf

27.

Runell

L. L.

(2017). Identifying desistance pathways in a higher education program for formerly incarcerated individuals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(8), 894–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15608374

28.

Silbert

Mukamal

(2020). Striving for success: The academic achievements of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated students in California community colleges. Stanford Criminal Justice Center. https://law.stanford.edu/publications/striving-for-success-the-academic-achievements-of-incarcerated-and-formerly-incarcerated-students-in-california-community-colleges/

29.

Society for Human Resource Management (2012). Background checking—the use of criminal background checks in hiring decisions. SHRM.org. http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/pages/criminalbackgroundcheck.aspx

30.

Stafford

(2006). Finding work: How to approach the intersection of prisoner reentry, employment, and recidivism. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Poverty, 13, 261–281.

31.

Sugie

N. F.

Zatz

N. D.

Augustine

(2020). Employer aversion to criminal records: An experimental study of mechanisms. Criminology, 58(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12228

32.

Tesfai

(2014). California’s in-prison vocational education: An analysis of program access and alignment to labor market demand. California Senate Office of Research.

33.

Thompson

M. N.

Cummings

D. L.

(2010). Enhancing the career development of individuals who have criminal records. The Career Development Quarterly, 58(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2010.tb00187.x

34.

Tietjen

Burnett

Jessie

B. O.

(2020). Onward and upward: The significance of mentorship for formerly incarcerated students and academics. Critical Criminology, 29(3), 633–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09507-3

35.

United States Commission on Civil Rights (2019). Collateral consequences: The crossroads of punishment, redemption, and the effects on communities. United States Commission on Civil Rights. https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2019/06-13-Collateral-Consequences.pdf

36.

Widra

Herring

(2021). States of incarceration: The global context 2021. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html