The Punishment Ends & the Consequences Persist: Employment Challenges for The Formerly Incarcerated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizational scholars have shown interest in understanding how individuals with stigmatized identities navigate the labor market, in addition to the ways that organizations generate, perpetuate, and normalize inequalities in labor market opportunities. Nevertheless, such studies have predominantly focused on inequalities across race and gender. Nearly 600,000 adults reenter society from incarceration annually, yet 67 percent will be unable to secure employment in their first year at home. However, management journals have not adequately addressed the formerly incarcerated population's interaction with organizations, as well as their marginalization in the labor market. In the spirit of “Putting the Worker Front and Center,” we draw attention to formerly incarcerated workers and their ever-widening inequalities. We share research highlighting some of the difficulties this population faces: balancing the demands of post-incarceration community supervision, stigmatized identity disclosure at work, labor market socialization and sense-making, and barriers to entrepreneurship. This symposium has three goals: offer theoretical and practical implications about the work-related challenges faced by a marginalized and disadvantaged group of individuals, expand the current understanding of formerly incarcerated individuals’ challenges as they seek, gain, and persist in employment, and contribute to the literature on institutions’ and organizations’ roles and responsibilities in reducing inequality. The Punishment Ends & the Consequences Persist: Employment Challenges for The Formerly Incarcerated Author: Taryn D. Williams; UC Irvine Author: Jan Stephen Lodge; Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus U. Author: Wesley Helms; Brock U. Author: Audrey Holm; HEC Paris Author: Kylie Jiwon Hwang; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".