If they’re not already, many of Florida’s 393,000 employers may soon become familiar with a criminal justice reform that continues to gain momentum.
“Ban the box.”
The phrase refers to the removal of the check-box on job applications referring to whether an applicant has ever been convicted of a crime.
For obvious reasons, many employers would rather avoid the risk of hiring someone with a criminal history. It’s estimated that when checked at least half of all applicants are automatically rejected.
While sensible, the practice is ultimately shortsighted, according to a growing number of reform advocates.
“We should seek the best talent period — with or without a record,” Mark Holden, general counsel and senior vice president at Koch Industries, wrote in a widely circulated opinion column this week.
The oft vilified Koch Industries does not preclude jobseekers from employment if they once committed a crime. Holden took to Sunshine State newspaper editorial pages to encourage other Florida businesses to do the same.
“Over the years at Koch, individuals hired with a past record have been dedicated employees who have succeeded at the company. They are valuable contributors, and more importantly, they are on a path towards a productive and fulfilling life,” Holden said.
Business giants Walmart, Home Depot, Target and Bed Bath & Beyond also look past the stigma of criminal convictions when considering new hires.
As far as left-leaning social justice groups are concerned, the more the merrier.
The Ban the Box initiative began as an anti-discrimination movement in California in 2004, when ex-offenders and social justice advocates organized to challenge “stereotypes of people with conviction histories.”
Of those struggling to find work, black and Hispanic Americans with criminal records — many being incarcerated as part of the “war on drugs” — have struggled the most.
The California movement has successfully spread to two dozen states, and gained the support of organizations like the National Employment Law Project, a well-funded, labor-friendly economic research organization.
“Removing questions about convictions history from job applications is a single policy change that eases hiring barriers and creates a fair chance to compete for jobs,” NELP says.
The Florida chapter of the Service Employees International Union has adopted the same position, using the exact same language.
According to the initiative, banning the box doesn’t mean ignoring past criminality. It only delays consideration of past infractions until later in the hiring process — after a candidate has been evaluated on job-specific criteria.
Certain jobs are exempt, such as teaching, child care and law enforcement.
The sheer volume of individuals who might benefit could spur positive social and economic change, proponents say. Nationwide, 70 million to 100 million Americans have some kind of documented arrest or conviction in their past.
While it’s difficult to determine the extent criminal history plays in failing to secure a job, it’s almost certainly significant.
According to a Kaiser Family Foundation/New York Times/CBS survey, one third of prime working-age unemployed men have criminal records.
Economists estimate the lost labor productivity associated with unemployed ex-offenders is in the billions.
Socially, helping formerly incarcerated people land work “goes a long way to help unite families and allow parents to maintain child support,” NELP maintains.
Employment is also a leading factor in keeping inmates from committing new crimes and returning to prison. Florida releases about 33,000 inmates every year, and nearly one in four are currently expected to return within three years, according to the Florida Department of Corrections.
A recent Florida TaxWatch study reports that jobs can reduce the revolving door of prison recidivism by as much as 50 percent.
“Employment keeps people out of our prisons,” said Kenneth Bell, co-chairman of the nonpartisan institute’s Center for Smart Justice.
At $50 a day, or $18,000 a year per inmate, removing automatic barriers to employment would save taxpayers millions. But volunteering to alter job applications is decidedly different than being compelled to do so.
“We recognize that banning the box may not make sense for every business, which is why a government mandate isn’t the solution,” said Holden.
At least a dozen Florida cities and counties have dropped the box and related questions from government job applications. Jacksonville, Orlando and Miami-Dade are the largest. None these jurisdictions requires private employers to comply — yet.
Tampa’s city council tried, and failed, to force companies vying to do business with the city to omit criminal history questions from their job applications. Other cities are a step ahead.
San Francisco’s Fair Chance Act ordinance includes banning the box, and applies citywide to private sector businesses.
New York City passed a version of the Fair Chance Act last year requiring businesses with at least four employees to not only abstain from asking any criminal history-related questions until after a conditional job offer, but it also forbids employers from conducting background searches for publicly available criminal information.
Questions and background checks are permitted after a conditional offer is made, but if the offer is withdrawn a rigorous written explanation is required.
The Obama administration is also in the process of adding “banning the box” regulations to the federal registry in regard to federal employment, with the exception of national security and law enforcement positions.
NELP wants the administration to go a lot further.
“While more private employers are voluntarily embracing fair chance hiring, there is no adequate substitute for requiring the 170,000 federal contractors that employ nearly 25 percent of the nation’s workforce to adopt ban-the-box in return for the $700 billion they receive to provide taxpayer-subsidized goods and services,” the group said in a letter addressed to President Barack Obama.
According to the Society for Human Resources Management, critics of private-sector ban-the-box measures say the laws open the door to lawsuits and penalties, and erode safety and security.
“From a risk mitigation and due diligence perspective, employers need to be informed about job applicants’ past history as it is important to maintaining a safe work environment, especially if there is a criminal past,” Montserrat Miller, a partner at Arnall Golden Gregory, a Washington D.C.-based business law firm, told the HR organization.
“Employers are in the best position to assess their hiring needs,” added Melissa Sorenson, executive director of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners.
Right on Crime, a project of the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, agrees that a one-size-fits-all government mandate is not the best solution.
“While it is indeed important to facilitate a less burdensome environment in which those with criminal histories can return to lives of productivity and fulfillment… there is need for more nuanced consideration beyond simply eliminating a question on an application.”
Instead of adding new requirements to businesses, ex-offenders in good standing should have their records sealed — for most offenses — from public records, the group says. It also asserts that employers should be indemnified, or protected, from potential lawsuits.
The American Legislative Exchange Council, a free-market nonprofit, has developed model legislation that addresses employer liability.
A bill attempting to ban the box for all statewide public employers died in the Florida Legislature earlier this year. A similar bill is expected to be filed for the 2017 legislative session.
Private-sector reform will likely grow as employers feel more protected, and the associated benefits are better understood.
“No one should be judged forever based on what they did on their worst day — and everyone deserves a second chance,” said Holden.
The phrase refers to the removal of the check-box on job applications referring to whether an applicant has ever been convicted of a crime.
For obvious reasons, many employers would rather avoid the risk of hiring someone with a criminal history. It’s estimated that when checked at least half of all applicants are automatically rejected.
While sensible, the practice is ultimately shortsighted, according to a growing number of reform advocates.
“We should seek the best talent period — with or without a record,” Mark Holden, general counsel and senior vice president at Koch Industries, wrote in a widely circulated opinion column this week.
The oft vilified Koch Industries does not preclude jobseekers from employment if they once committed a crime. Holden took to Sunshine State newspaper editorial pages to encourage other Florida businesses to do the same.
“Over the years at Koch, individuals hired with a past record have been dedicated employees who have succeeded at the company. They are valuable contributors, and more importantly, they are on a path towards a productive and fulfilling life,” Holden said.
Business giants Walmart, Home Depot, Target and Bed Bath & Beyond also look past the stigma of criminal convictions when considering new hires.
As far as left-leaning social justice groups are concerned, the more the merrier.
The Ban the Box initiative began as an anti-discrimination movement in California in 2004, when ex-offenders and social justice advocates organized to challenge “stereotypes of people with conviction histories.”
Of those struggling to find work, black and Hispanic Americans with criminal records — many being incarcerated as part of the “war on drugs” — have struggled the most.
The California movement has successfully spread to two dozen states, and gained the support of organizations like the National Employment Law Project, a well-funded, labor-friendly economic research organization.
“Removing questions about convictions history from job applications is a single policy change that eases hiring barriers and creates a fair chance to compete for jobs,” NELP says.
The Florida chapter of the Service Employees International Union has adopted the same position, using the exact same language.According to the initiative, banning the box doesn’t mean ignoring past criminality. It only delays consideration of past infractions until later in the hiring process — after a candidate has been evaluated on job-specific criteria.
Certain jobs are exempt, such as teaching, child care and law enforcement.
The sheer volume of individuals who might benefit could spur positive social and economic change, proponents say. Nationwide, 70 million to 100 million Americans have some kind of documented arrest or conviction in their past.
While it’s difficult to determine the extent criminal history plays in failing to secure a job, it’s almost certainly significant.
According to a Kaiser Family Foundation/New York Times/CBS survey, one third of prime working-age unemployed men have criminal records.
Economists estimate the lost labor productivity associated with unemployed ex-offenders is in the billions.
Socially, helping formerly incarcerated people land work “goes a long way to help unite families and allow parents to maintain child support,” NELP maintains.
Employment is also a leading factor in keeping inmates from committing new crimes and returning to prison. Florida releases about 33,000 inmates every year, and nearly one in four are currently expected to return within three years, according to the Florida Department of Corrections.
A recent Florida TaxWatch study reports that jobs can reduce the revolving door of prison recidivism by as much as 50 percent.
“Employment keeps people out of our prisons,” said Kenneth Bell, co-chairman of the nonpartisan institute’s Center for Smart Justice.
At $50 a day, or $18,000 a year per inmate, removing automatic barriers to employment would save taxpayers millions. But volunteering to alter job applications is decidedly different than being compelled to do so.
“We recognize that banning the box may not make sense for every business, which is why a government mandate isn’t the solution,” said Holden.
At least a dozen Florida cities and counties have dropped the box and related questions from government job applications. Jacksonville, Orlando and Miami-Dade are the largest. None these jurisdictions requires private employers to comply — yet.
Tampa’s city council tried, and failed, to force companies vying to do business with the city to omit criminal history questions from their job applications. Other cities are a step ahead.
San Francisco’s Fair Chance Act ordinance includes banning the box, and applies citywide to private sector businesses.
New York City passed a version of the Fair Chance Act last year requiring businesses with at least four employees to not only abstain from asking any criminal history-related questions until after a conditional job offer, but it also forbids employers from conducting background searches for publicly available criminal information.
Questions and background checks are permitted after a conditional offer is made, but if the offer is withdrawn a rigorous written explanation is required.
The Obama administration is also in the process of adding “banning the box” regulations to the federal registry in regard to federal employment, with the exception of national security and law enforcement positions.
NELP wants the administration to go a lot further.
“While more private employers are voluntarily embracing fair chance hiring, there is no adequate substitute for requiring the 170,000 federal contractors that employ nearly 25 percent of the nation’s workforce to adopt ban-the-box in return for the $700 billion they receive to provide taxpayer-subsidized goods and services,” the group said in a letter addressed to President Barack Obama.
According to the Society for Human Resources Management, critics of private-sector ban-the-box measures say the laws open the door to lawsuits and penalties, and erode safety and security.
“From a risk mitigation and due diligence perspective, employers need to be informed about job applicants’ past history as it is important to maintaining a safe work environment, especially if there is a criminal past,” Montserrat Miller, a partner at Arnall Golden Gregory, a Washington D.C.-based business law firm, told the HR organization.
“Employers are in the best position to assess their hiring needs,” added Melissa Sorenson, executive director of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners.
Right on Crime, a project of the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, agrees that a one-size-fits-all government mandate is not the best solution.
“While it is indeed important to facilitate a less burdensome environment in which those with criminal histories can return to lives of productivity and fulfillment… there is need for more nuanced consideration beyond simply eliminating a question on an application.”
Instead of adding new requirements to businesses, ex-offenders in good standing should have their records sealed — for most offenses — from public records, the group says. It also asserts that employers should be indemnified, or protected, from potential lawsuits.
The American Legislative Exchange Council, a free-market nonprofit, has developed model legislation that addresses employer liability.
A bill attempting to ban the box for all statewide public employers died in the Florida Legislature earlier this year. A similar bill is expected to be filed for the 2017 legislative session.
Private-sector reform will likely grow as employers feel more protected, and the associated benefits are better understood.
“No one should be judged forever based on what they did on their worst day — and everyone deserves a second chance,” said Holden.
No comments:
Post a Comment