Opening employment opportunities to people with prior convictions, often called “second chance hiring,” can be an economically savvy way for firms to make a social impact. But despite good intentions, second chance programs are often crippled by another common hiring practice: drug screening.
A study recently published in the journal Socius illustrates how subjecting prospective hires to drug screenings knocks many people with past justice-system involvement out of the running. Drawing on interviews with dozens of formerly incarcerated people who use drugs, the authors report that drug screens discouraged applicants from applying to high-quality jobs—and led many to abandon their job search altogether.
At first, the researchers were studying barriers to employment among people with criminal records in general. But after conducting 140 interviews across central Ohio, they noticed that interviewees with a history of substance use faced unique challenges.
“[T]here is an enormous overlap between having a criminal record and having a substance use disorder,” lead author Mike Vuolo, professor of sociology at the Ohio State University, told Filter. “So [drug screening] became another mechanism that we thought was important.”
“I’m overly confident, right? Regardless of my record, let me tell you what my skills are. But it also said you have to submit to a urine test …. so, I didn’t do it.”
To understand how drug screens factored into applicants’ job search strategies, Vuolo and his team focused on 43 interviewees who had faced challenges related to substance use. They found that these jobseekers exhibited two main reactions to drug testing: continuing their job search but restricting their aspirations, or dropping out of formal employment entirely.
The first reaction, deciding not to apply for a job due to the potential for drug screening, was common across the substance use spectrum. Whether using drugs recreationally or experiencing a substance use disorder, 65 percent of interviewees reported hesitating to apply for jobs where their substance use history might disqualify them.
“There are examples of people who are ready to overcome their criminal record, but select out anyway because they saw the drug screen,” Vuolo explained. “And sometimes it was simply for cannabis.”
One jobseeker described going in for an interview at an automotive chain, feeling confident that despite his background, having the skills to do the job well would count for more.
“I’m overly confident, right? Regardless of my record, let me tell you what my skills are,” he said, noting that he immediately hit it off with the hiring manager. “So, but nevertheless it also said you have to submit to a urine test. [I was smoking] weed real heavy at the time …. so, I didn’t do it.”
Situations like these, where an applicant got relatively far in the hiring process but quit once the employer required a drug test, were common. For some jobseekers, however, fear of employers’ reactions to their substance-use history prevented them from even applying.
Job applications “don’t give you a chance to explain yourself,” one interviewee explained. “I was intimidated by filling out applications because of that. I know that a lot of employers, and I’ve been told this, [are not] hiring me because of any type of drug conviction.”
Seventy percent reported having abandoned their job search at least once.
Besides writing off certain opportunities, the second common response to drug screening was to leave the formal labor market entirely. Many interviewees alternated between these two strategies, and 70 percent reported having abandoned their job search at least once.
“Their main reason is that addiction is all-encompassing at that point in their lives,” Vuolo said. “And so the idea of working is simply out of the realm of possibility, either because they just don’t feel it’s possible, or because they fear working while under the influence.”
While only a minority of the sample (11 interviewees) replaced their formal job search with under-the-table work, those who did felt that the money was more reliable. One applicant waited to hear back from prospective employers, but after receiving no response, “found another way to make money” in order to cover his daily needs.
“Selling drugs is what my other option was,” he told the interviewers. “It was quick money. Dollars every day.”
Whether avoiding certain jobs, giving up the job search, or cycling through both strategies, formerly incarcerated people who use drugs must contend with unique barriers to employment—barriers that conventional second chance employment policies have not adequately considered.
One proposed solution is to promote “recovery-ready” workplaces, which aim to “[d]evelop and implement innovative approaches for recruiting and onboarding people in or seeking recovery,” according to the Department of Labor, which currently endorses the approach.
“The US Department of Labor actually is suggesting that the recovery-ready workplace should be part of the second chance framework for criminal records,” Vuolo said. “We basically can’t separate them.”
Some states have already made attempts to integrate these two approaches. In 2018, Indiana created its Workforce Recovery Employer Guidelines, as one example of how employers could seek to incorporate recovery-friendly policies that might complement second chance hiring initiatives. Employees or job applicants who test positive for drugs are not automatically terminated or ruled out, but are instead offered connections to treatment and the opportunity to return to work—at least in theory.
“If we’re gonna have efforts like ‘Ban the Box,’ we need to also account for the fact that people have substance use disorders.”
The continuation of drug screens, the potential for treatment being coerced, and a return to work being conditional on abstinence are among the barriers that could persist under this model. Nonetheless, it’s one potential first step towards equalizing employment opportunities for people who use drugs.
“People would be able to get their foot in the door,” Vuolo said. However, he questioned whether the bureaucratic guidelines were effective. “[E]ven though Indiana has this, I don’t know how often it’s being used, to be completely frank.”
In future research, Vuolo hopes to assess whether employers implement recovery-ready workplace guidelines, and whether such initiatives actually succeed in promoting employment opportunities for people who use drugs.
For now, however, he hopes that his study will shed light on the employment barriers erected against formerly incarcerated people who use drugs, even as progressive employment policies claim to give them a second chance.
“If we’re gonna have efforts like ‘Ban the Box’ for criminal records, we need to also account for the fact that people have substance use disorders or past substance use disorders,” Vuolo concluded.
Photograph (cropped) by Amtec Photos via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0
