My company operates/ed a job board and a staffing business. Both ran like traditional job boards (Indeed, Zip Recruiter, etc) and staffing companies (Kelly, Adecco, etc.), except being focused entirely on the formerly incarcerated. This is how large employers source many, many employees.
The staffing business was much larger. In this model, we serve as the hirer-of-record, and essentially lease out the workers to our client employers, who cover all our costs (wages, unemployment insurance, taxes, etc.) plus our mark-up (profit). It's a high volume, low margin business.
During the Great Resignation, we found it took 10x the time and effort to get someone placed, eroding our already thin margins. Plus, if a worker left (which they began doing at a great rate), we're obligated to replace them. All of this made it pretty much impossible for us to make money. (Again, we're a for-profit business). I hope this clarifies things.
Did this have any impact on recidivism?
Is it possible that these employees found better jobs? If so, could it have theoretically been possible to retain them had you offered better wages, benefits or assignments?
I just don’t fundamentally understand the position of “I had a group of people that truly needed my business, but a phenomenon called The Great Resignation changed the world in such a way that they… didn’t need it anymore (?)”
Is it possible that your business model of (in your parlance) leasing out convicts maybe had some sort of innate flaw unrelated to covid?
I think in the more nuanced view staffing agencies allow people with irregular rhythms to still have a job. And of course helping people actually get a foot in the door! But if you're going to work full time anyways, and there's more open-ness to you being hired, why go through a staffing agency? I think the reasons end up being limited to "could not get hired yourself".
Why would a person make $14.50/hour when they could make $15/hour applying directly to places?
The issue may be that so few people are looking for work right now that it's easier for convicted felons to be hired, perhaps not worrying about or taking on whatever vetting process that may or may not happen through an agency for people with a criminal record.
Yeah, the generally wouldn't, which is why you have to conclude that they don't have the option.
> maybe that negotiated difference leads to the profit slice
Of course.