Prison time is the most serious barrier to employment for Wisconsin male workers, making ex-offender populations the most difficult to place and sustain in full-time employment. When driver’s licensing history is also considered, transportation barriers make successful labor force attachment even less likely.
Well from the critical thinking mind and using the basic Socratic method of question asking, first we need to ask ourselves and members from the state of Wisconsin “Why” are these barriers to entry so difficult to obtain?
To assist in local workforce investment planning, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute examined two decades of state Department of Corrections and Department of Transportation files to assess employment and training barriers facing African-American men with a history of DOC offenses and DOT violations.
The results were alarming.
We want to note that the overly emotional language simply will not cut it within this article. “The results are alarming,” is the kind of story we would expect to read in the National Enquirer, or any other sensationalized media. Quite seriously a bright organization recently ran into trouble because people simply do not need to read that type of rubbish.
State DOC records show incarceration rates at
epidemic levels for African-American males in Milwaukee County. More than half of African-American men in their 30s and half of black men in their early 40s have been incarcerated in state correctional facilities.
Wisconsin’s prison population has more than tripled since 1990, fueled by increased government funding for drug enforcement (rather than treatment), investments in prison construction, three-strikes rules, mandatory minimum sentence laws, truth-in-sentencing replacing judicial discretion in setting punishments, concentrated policing in minority communities and state incarceration for minor probation and supervision violations. Particularly affected were African-American males, with 40% of black male prisoners showing drug offenses.
The above paragraph is the nexus point for me. There are reasons why blacks are forging ahead with these kind of numbers. Again to our inconsiderate writer, when government funding for drug enforcement is considered we believe they are talking about cartels, border efforts to stop these machinations from continuing.
Furthermore, to go further into investments in prison construction, (policy matters) three-strike laws, mandatory minimum sentence laws and any other usurpation from courts into state mandated laws in truthfully unfair?
Our point reenacts the question Why? We are not pointing any fingers here — however, the expression of “don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the tine” certainly is raising its ugly head.
The following consideration and recommendations to see an adjustment at current levels are: Technical violators of probation rules should be diverted, whenever appropriate, to community supervision to allow employed ex-offenders to continue working.
Transitional jobs programs for released inmates and for offenders diverted from incarceration are needed in communities with high unemployment and job gaps.
Restoration and repair of the driver’s license for current prisoners and released ex-offenders with fixable problems should be a priority. Those unable to secure or repair their license should be given assistance obtaining a state photo ID. This is out of the realm of (1) The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 1868, 1920, and any more from the 1950s and 1960s.
Black male youth approaching adulthood should be a top priority for employment training, job placement and driver’s license programs. Without such investments, the population incarcerated will likely only increase and public safety problems escalate in the future.
This notion in the above paragraph is clearly discrimination, and certainly not well-received by the readers of the source materials in Baltimore county.
Just a short note to bring matters full circle. It is not any single thing that the authorities have done without first gaining approval from the citizenry of the U.S. Nowhere in the writer’s article did he have anything to offer other than by giving something away — at an expense costly to others.
We do not believe that there is anything going on that could be construed as corruptible. The writer who wrote this article is Mr. John Pawasarat.