by Marc Morris

In a state where employers still struggle to find dependable workers, we have an opportunity to strengthen the workforce, support public safety, and reduce long-term taxpayer costs by making it easier for formerly incarcerated people to get back to work.

I have become increasingly convinced that too much talent is being left on the sidelines.

At a time when our economy continues to post historically strong labor-force numbers, many employers are still searching for reliable workers in logistics, construction, manufacturing, food service, maintenance, health support roles, and other front-line jobs. 

On April 2, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced that the unemployment rate for January 2026 was 3.5%, while the state also reached record highs in labor force and employment. That is good news. But it also means the margin for solving workforce shortages the old-fashioned way is getting smaller. Employers that want to grow still struggle to find capable people.

One of the largest underused talent pools is made up of people with criminal records, including many who are formerly incarcerated and ready to return to the workforce. The case for hiring them is not merely charitable or compassionate. It is economic. It is operational. And, done correctly, it is sound public policy.

Supporting second-chance employment does not mean going soft on crime. It means recognizing a basic principle: once a person has paid their debt to society, we should remove unnecessary barriers to lawful work and economic success. If we do not, we should not be surprised when we keep seeing the same outcomes. If a person cannot find work, obtain the necessary credentials, or get a fair chance to rebuild – the risks to public safety and long-term government dependency will only grow. Helping the right people get back to work is not only the right thing to do; it is the fiscally sound thing to do.

The business case is stronger than most people realize. Employers across the country report that workers with criminal records often perform as well as or better than other employees and frequently demonstrate strong loyalty, motivation, and retention. This is not simply a social-services conversation. It is a workforce strategy that assists employers to fill jobs, helps families regain stability, and contributes to reducing long-term dependence on taxpayer-supported systems.

Fortunately for Georgians, our state is not starting from scratch. Important legal and policy pieces are already in place. State law limits the admissibility of certain criminal-history information in civil proceedings against employers when that history is not relevant, was sealed or restricted, involved a pardon, or involved an arrest that did not result in conviction. Our laws also provide a rebuttable presumption of due care in some negligent-hiring cases involving those who have earned a Program and Treatment Completion Certificate or received a pardon. These protections matter because one of the biggest objections employers cite is risk of liability. Georgia has already gone farther than many others in addressing that concern.

That is one reason some employers here are benefiting today. However, they might have more room than they realize to make individualized hiring decisions instead of relying on blanket exclusions. The policy framework is already leaning in the right direction. The problem is that too few business leaders know how much of it already exists.

The real bottleneck now is not whether second-chance hiring should be allowed. It is whether we will make it practical.

For many formally incarcerated people returning to the workforce, the biggest barriers are not willingness or ability to work. Their barriers are licensing rules, record visibility, transportation, documentation, and the lag between release and job placement. Our reentry infrastructure reflects that reality. The Department of Corrections (DOC) says reentry planning should begin while a person is still in the system, and the DOL “Walking the Last Mile to Reentry” program is designed to connect returning workers in metro Atlanta to employment readiness, job placement, and community partners. That is exactly the right concept, but it needs broader scale with a stronger connection to employer demand.

Occupational licensing remains one of the clearest places for improvement. Jobs which require some type of credential or license, and for someone leaving incarceration that can mean spending extensive time preparing for a career path without knowing whether an old conviction will ultimately block the license. At the same time, old records can remain visible long after the debt to society has been paid. continuing to block otherwise qualified people from work.

Recommendations to Lawmakers & Workforce Agencies

Make the transition from incarceration to employment faster, clearer, and more practical. Create predictable occupational-licensing preclearance processes so applicants can learn early whether their record is disqualifying. This will mean further streamlining record restrictions and sealing where the law already allows relief, thus reducing unnecessary delay and paperwork. Equally important, DOL and DOC should expand and regionalize reentry-to-employment programs so people leave custody with identification, job readiness support, training aligned to employer demand, and direct employer connections already in hand.

If public officials are serious about reducing recidivism, supporting law enforcement, and strengthening the labor force, they should treat reentry employment as a workforce-development and public-safety priority, not as a side program. Work is one of the most practical anti-recidivism tools available. A person who quickly secures lawful employment is more likely to gain stability, support a family, build routine, and avoid falling back into destructive patterns. Putting people back to work quickly reduces repeat offenses, lowers correctional and social-service costs, eases the burden on taxpayers, and helps interrupt the cycle of poverty that so often passes from one generation to the next.

Recommendations to Employers

Stop treating a criminal record as an automatic disqualifier and begin treating second-chance hiring as a disciplined business strategy. This does not mean lowering standards. It means evaluating applicants individually, matching people to the right roles, using the legal protections already available, and taking advantage of tools such as tax credits, bonding programs, workforce partnerships, and structured onboarding.

Many employers say they want dependable workers. This is one of the most overlooked labor pools available, and many companies that have tapped it report strong motivation, loyalty, and performance. Companies should not hire blindly, but they should be willing to hire thoughtfully. When employers give qualified people a fair opportunity to work, they are not only filling jobs; they are helping families regain stability, reducing dependence on public systems, and creating a path away from generational poverty. They are also helping lower recidivism. A steady paycheck, workplace accountability, and the dignity that comes with earned success can be powerful incentives not to return to crime.

There is also a broader point here that lawmakers, business leaders, and public-safety advocates should all be able to agree on: work is stabilizing. Employment brings income, structure, accountability, and a reason not to return to old behaviors. When we help a rehabilitated person get back to work faster, we are not lowering standards. We are increasing the odds of long-term stability for that individual, for families, and for the broader community. Resulting in fewer people cycling back into the system, fewer taxpayer dollars spent addressing preventable failure, and more households with a real chance to build upward momentum.

Our state has a chance to lead because we are already closer than most. We have a strong economy, and have employers who need workers. Legal protections are already in place that reduce some of the hiring risk. We have reentry infrastructure that can be built on. We are well positioned to close the remaining gap between release and work.

My view is simple: if a person has paid his debt to society, gained skills, and is ready to work, we owe it to that person — and to those who bear the cost of failure — to remove unnecessary barriers to economic success. Otherwise, we should expect more of the same: higher recidivism, greater dependence, and more public expense. 

Helping people return to work is not only the right thing to do. It is the fiscally sound thing to do.