Prisoner ReEntry Initiative a better solution to helping former inmates find work
As high as the unemployment rate is in Michigan, no one has to be told how hard it is to find a job. That’s particularly true for someone who has a felony on his or her record.
Concern over the difficulties that ex-felons face in finding work - and how the lack of employment can contribute to recidivism - has led to a national movement that seeks to ban employers from asking about criminal history on job applications.
Mary King is the community coordinator for the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative of Washtenaw County.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
This so-called “ban the box’’ effort has made its way to Washtenaw County. The county Board of Commissioners has been asked to approve an ordinance that would prevent the county from putting a box on employment applications that people must check if they have a criminal history. That restriction would apply to the county’s vendors, suppliers and contractors as well.
Similar bans already have been approved in Battle Creek and Kalamazoo, as well as in other cities across the country, including Boston, Chicago and San Francisco. It appears likely that Washtenaw County will join the effort, though this particular effort strikes us as more as a distraction than a solution when it comes to helping ex-cons become productive citizens.
Certainly, the motive behind “ban the box’’ is a good one. It can be incredibly difficult for someone with a criminal history to find employment, and joblessness only increases the chance of that person returning to a life of crime. Given that we spend an average of $35,000 a year to incarcerate someone in Michigan, even small investments in programs that help former felons establish themselves in society can pay dividends.
Washtenaw County is fortunate to have a Prisoner ReEntry Initiative that is a model for helping parolees transition back into society. The program emphasizes a holistic approach that considers the former inmate’s need for housing, employment, literacy and social adjustment - not to mention treatment for mental health or substance abuse issues. The assistance begins before they leave prison and continues well after their release.
This kind of comprehensive approach makes great sense, and offers benefits that won’t be achieved through a naïve, simplistic solution like telling employers that they can’t ask about criminal history on a job application.
While the ban the box movement has become cause célèbre in certain circles, it’s more about making a point than making a real difference. More than 80 percent of employers now do background checks on job applicants, so not being able to ask about criminal history on a job application only delays the stage in the process at which the employer learns of the applicant’s past.
Supporters of ban the box are absolutely right in pointing out that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from refusing to hire based solely on criminal history. Ideally, an employer should consider how recent a conviction is, and how related or unrelated the crime was to the nature of the work being applied for. We understand many employers may not go to those lengths.
Employers already know there are factors they can’t consider in hiring, such as the age of an applicant, or the possibility that a female job applicant may be considering having a baby. Still, there is a fundamental difference between factors like this, and the reality that an applicant has committed a serious crime in the past. Mandating that information remain hidden until well into the hiring process is not a reasonable restriction to place on employers.
Educating employers on the issue would be a better approach. We also see great value in offering businesses an incentive to hire parolees, such as the “Job Try-Out and Training’’ program, in which the local Prisoner ReEntry Initiative acts as the employer and pays the wages of a worker receiving a tryout with a business. The business also receives a tax credit of up to $2,400 for each hire.
It is disturbing to know that anywhere from 60 percent to 75 percent of the people released from prison into our community end up back in jail again. Breaking this cycle of criminal behavior is a complex challenge. A “ban the box’’ ordinance would allow people to feel good about getting something enacted, but it’s not a real solution. Here in Washtenaw County, we’re lucky to have a comprehensive program like the Prisoner ReEntry Initiative, and that’s where we should be focusing our
Comments
jcpd
Sun, May 30, 2010 : 8:46 a.m.
To MPRI and the community. "60 to 75 percent of of people released from prison soon returned". True, but not any more. "MPRI programs have reduced this recidivism rate 32 percent". Untrue. Here we go again, the numbers game, or smoke and mirrors as I have heard it called many times. MPRI cannot take credit for this. Basically, the only reason the number of parolees not being returned to prison is down is because prisons are being shut down. There is no place to put a parole violator. The majority of violators are diverted to programs such as, Lake County Residential Reentry Program, Tuscola Residential Reentry Program or IDRP. (These programs are NOT part of MPRI). I have seen this happen on many occasions. I should know, I'm a Parole Agent. MPRI freely uses this data to bolster their numbers, puff of their chest and hold out their hands for money that pays their salaries, offices or whatever. MPRI is NOT Working. However, MPRI will throw out numbers and studies conducted from across the country that it does work. Just remember where all those studies and numbers come from. How can MPRI be working when the economy is in disarray. MPRI isn't getting parolees jobs. They are not getting them permanent housing (30 days, sometimes longer, then you're out), and all counseling (substance abuse, aggression management, sex offender, and several other types) are all state funded or paid by the parolee. In my opinion, and many of my colleagues, MPRI is just a middle man sucking funds that could be used elsewhere. Unfortunately because there has been so much money dumped into MPRI for the past few years, to terminate the program now would be a black eye for all those that sang it's praises. Hopefully, when we get a new governor this program will receive a long hard look and will be put in the trash where it belongs. Now don't get me wrong. Yes, something needs to be done to help parolees. I wish I had an answer for this but I don't though. What I do know is MPRI is not working and it's not the answer.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 7:48 p.m.
"The proposed ban would NOT eliminate the employers ability to do a background check. As the editorial indicates, it would simply delay the background check until later in the hiring process, giving more of a level playing field for all, and allowing an ex-felon to be considered." In this state in this economy, the HR process is already overwhelmed by legitimate and overqualified workers swamping each and every opportuniity for a job. It so bad that HR personnel aren't even sending no thank you letters anymore. So we should force the county to waste time and tax payer dollars during this to give an ex felon a chance to be rejected later in the process??? Really? For each felon that would've been rejected sooner and now WILL be later, how are they NOT taking away opportunities from other law abiding job seekers and wasting county time, money and resources? Great, more "feel" good legislation on the backs of the law abiding tax payers.
tinkerbell
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 12:56 p.m.
Unfortunately, not all offenses show up in a background check. If the felon is honest on the application, he/she is more likely to be considered for a job. There are opportunities for first time offenders such as Holmes Youthful Trainee status, 7411 status as well as opportunities to have one felony expunged. Someone with a long rap sheet should not be hired unless the employer is aware of the record.
drosefree
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 : 10:15 a.m.
The proposed ban would NOT eliminate the employers ability to do a background check. As the editorial indicates, it would simply delay the background check until later in the hiring process, giving more of a level playing field for all, and allowing an ex-felon to be considered. If filling out an application is the first thing one does in the interview process, and an ex-felon checks the box indicating they have a criminal history, they will not get to the next phase of the interview process in a majority of cases. The proposed ban only delays the background check. You would NOT have people teaching your kids, handling your banking or driving a bus with the convictions mentioned. I think this is a great step in helping ex-prisoners get on their feet and reducing the recidivism that currently exists in our county. Their are many jobs where a criminal history is not an issue at all. I volunteer with a ministry that helps individuals with housing and other issues when they are released from prison, and just the passing of such a proposal would give them a sense that their community has not given up on them. I hope is passes!
tinkerbell
Mon, Apr 19, 2010 : 8:15 p.m.
If there are no background checks on prospective employees, then don't be surprised if you have someone convicted of felonious assault teaching your high school student, a check fraud case handling your banking or a a sexual predator driving the school bus.