Should Congress abolish the Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission (EEOC) Guidelines ?
Introduction of the Social
Problems
Steven Gordon, was convicted in 2000
on aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault charges. He was sentenced
to 10 years in prison. Once he was released from prison, he found he had a
chance to start over, but it was at an expensive cost. He lost his wife in a
divorce, he lost his house, he lost all of his money and his pension, he lost a
relationship with his daughter and son, and as a result he lost a relationship
with his grandchildren. He now lives with his elderly parents, spending most of
his time taking care of them while working a part-time job in the food
industry, and trying to repair the relationships with his children. He has
learned first-hand that reentering society as an ex-convict isn’t easy, “a slap
in the face and back to reality” as he calls it. He would replay in his mind
what he would routinely hear on his job search, “We can’t hire people who have
been convicted of a felony. It’s the law”. In his blog he writes, “Isn’t it
funny how one bad thing can overshadow an entire life of doing good things?”
This is a perfect example of someone who has been convicted of a crime, served
their time, and is struggling trying to reenter society. One of the most
important parts of “re-entry” is finding employment, however having a criminal
record could be a significant barrier. The greatest barrier felons have when
seeking employment is the fact that 80% of all employers use background checks
when conducting hiring decisions (Ford, 2009). Seeing any type of crime on
someone’s background check can quickly result in tossing out their application.
Many ex-convicts have a hard time finding not only a good job, but a job in
general. Employers are reluctant to hire an ex-felon out of fear of legal
liability and safety. Now employers risk facing civil lawsuits and charges of
discrimination if a criminal background check rules out someone who is
qualified thanks to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) new
Guidelines. This prompts the debate regarding whether or not Congress should
abolish the United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC)
Guidelines on employers accessing criminal records of job seekers.
The United States has the highest
incarceration rates in the world. According to Ross and Richards (2009) in
their book Beyond
Bars: Rejoining Society After Prison, over
7 million juvenile and adults are in correctional custody. Out of those 7
million people, 2.3 million are incarcerated and 4.2 million are on probation,
with around 785,000 people on parole. Every year in the United States, about 15
million people are arrested and spend at least one night in jail (Ross and
Richards, 2009). These statistics show
large amounts of people flow into the criminal justice system every year and as
a result, many will also come out. There are real concerns for the public
safety when felons get released from prison because they are likely to fall
back into crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2007, about
1.2 million people were at risk for being reincarcerated, when in fact about
16% of them were rearrested. Among the 300,000 released individuals from 15
states, 67% of them were incarcerated within 3 years (Bureau Justice of
Statistics, 2013).
High
incarceration affects millions of people, however these rates across the United
States are unequal. High incarceration rates are usually concentrated in urban
impoverished communities, inhabited by minority populations (Clear and Tonry,
2008). Although anyone has the possibility of being arrested, records show
minority men most often finds themselves behind bars. About 90% of men are
currently behind bars and men are 10 times more likely to be arrested than
women (Ross and Richards, 2009). The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates
that 9% of all men will spend time in a federal or state prison at some point
in their lives and this estimate is increasing. According to the Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission (EEOC) imprisonment rates for African American men are 7 times
higher than white men and almost 3 times higher than Hispanic men (Bovard, J.,
2013). African Americans only make up 13% of the general U.S. population, but
African American men and women make up almost 50% of those incarcerated. These
rates have shed light on the criminal justice system and has many questioning
the racial stereotypes that might drive their practices. Thompson (2008)
believes that this is an alarming statistic and it is unfortunate that the
incarceration of these individuals is undermining the development of their
communities and their potential of being responsible members of society.
High incarceration rates don’t only
affect those who are imprisoned, but can actually have serious consequences on
those who may never be imprisoned themselves (Clear and Tonry, 2008). High
incarceration rates can have devastating effects on the children and families
of those behind bars and even the safety and infrastructure of a community.
There are estimates of about 2.3 million children, or almost 3% of the under-18
population has a parent in prison (Clear and Tonry, 2008). Several studies have
found that a child who has a parent in prison are three to four times more
likely to become a delinquent and two and a half times more likely to develop a
mental disorder (Clear and Tonry, 2008). Researchers also suggest a connection
between parental incarceration and school failure, underemployment, and illegal
drug use (Clear and Tonry, 2008).
One-fourth of juveniles arrested and convicted of a crime have children at the
time of their incarceration (Clear and Tonry, 2008). In addition, there is
evidence that “high rates of incarceration destabilizes families, increases
rates of delinquency, increases rates of teenage births, foster alienation of
youth from prosocial norms, damages social networks, and weakens labor markets”
(Clear, and Tonry, 2008)
Another population of people
affected by high incarceration rates who don’t live in the urban communities
most prone to high arrest rates is the taxpayer. Even the average person is
affected by high incarceration rates because they give taxes to the state and
federal governments which contribute to incarcerating the criminal population.
The average cost per inmate in 2001 was $22,650 or $62.05 a day (Stephan,
2004). In just one fiscal year in 2001, the Bureau Justice of Statistics (BJS)
reported that correctional authorities spent over $38 billion. Although that
doesn’t seem like much, the millions of people incarcerated becomes costly
especially overtime. In fact, a large part of federal spending includes
maintaining prisons. According to BJS, the top state expenditures in 2001 are
education ($374.5 billion), public welfare ($260.3 billion), health ($43.7
billion), total corrections ($38.2 billion), prisons ($29.5 billion), natural
resources ($17.3 billion) (Stephan, 2004). As a result, supporting the prison
systems is something that many money, taxes, and resources will be dedicated to
decades to come.
As you can see these social problems
of high incarceration rates, overrepresentation of minorities incarcerated,
government spending, and its negative impacts on families, relationships and
the future of communities are a cycle and each deeply affects the other. High
incarceration rates of minorities negatively impact their communities in
economic ways but it also precipitates their children to follow in their
criminal footsteps. Objective harm is affecting those incarcerated, their
children, families, communities, and society at large. Everyone has known
someone behind bars are will be incarcerated at some point in their lives. “As
many as 700,000 families have a loved one behind bars on any given day” (Clear
and Tonry, 2008). Their harm still continues once released through social
stigma, the public’s perceptions, and discrimination regarding their criminal
record that will always follow them. This concerns many researchers and
advocates are concerned because they fully understand the barriers the recently
released will face.
The last social problem is
recidivism rates. Imprisonment as punishment is meant to teach those
incarcerated a lesson. They are supposed to learn that what they did was wrong
and they should not commit another crime. Being incarcerated should prompt a
change in the offenders’ assessment of the benefits and costs of crime so they
weigh the costs of crime more heavily and it should increase their favoring of
legitimate work instead of illegal means to live (Freeman, 2003). However, not
many people learn that lesson. “About one third of those who are imprisoned
once, get imprisoned again; of those who go a second time, four-fifths will
return repeatedly” (Clear and Tonry, 2008). Prison was intended to get people
out of a life of crime, but sometimes it turns people into a life with crime.
For many men released between the ages of 20-40, prison becomes a revolving
door (Freeman, 2003). Research data shows the vast majority of prisoners are
recidivating back into a life of crime, meaning they are not being properly
rehabilitated (Freeman, 2003). About two-thirds of prisoners released from
prison are re-arrested and one-half are re-incarcerated within three years of
their release from prison (Freeman, 2003). After three years, rates of
recidivism rise to a 75%-80% chance of likelihood to be rearrested, and this
number doesn’t increase until the men hit their mid-forties (Freeman, 2003). As
you can see, recidivism remains to be a huge problem. However, the key to a
successful reentry into society for a ex-felon is to find housing and a stable
job.
Causes
of High Incarceration Rates
According the Michael Tonry (1999)
there are five explanations to why United States incarceration rates are so
high. The first reason is empirical. It states that crime rates in the U.S.
aren’t higher than any other country’s in the world. Incarceration rates have
increased because it because the most desired strategy politicians enacted as a
means to lower crime rates. (Tonry, 1999). The second explanation is that
public opinion has largely controlled incarceration rates. Once city surveys
show the American public believe crime and drugs are the most pressing
problems, city leaders express that sentencing guidelines are too lenient and
demand tougher penalties (Tonry, 1999). As a result, elected officials respect
the public’s wishes and enact tougher laws (Tonry, 1999). The third is the
journalistic explanation which refers to the mass media’s over-reporting of
sensational news stories such as crime in order to show that crime is occurring
more than it actually is, creating a crime myth (Kappeler and Potter, 2005). It
is the mass media, the government, and reform groups who lobby their interests
that are the most powerful myth makers because they select what the public
should see as a crime problem in order to garner the type of support they want
to pass certain laws (Kappeler, and Potter, 2005). The forth reason is
political. Crime and punishment have always been a priority on American
political agendas since the Civil Rights movements (Tonry, 1999). The
Democratic and Republican parties have disagree on issues of crime control,
welfare, and affirmative action (Tonry, 1999). Once one of these parties are in
office, policies are enacted or change to become more harsh or loose depending
on what they think will be effective, causing fluctuations in incarceration
rates (Tonry, 1999). The last explanation is historical. Although it is
complex, it is “interaction between crime trends, public attitudes, and policy
that shape our thoughts, our policy debates, and our policies, creating a
predictable result” (Tonry, 1999).
Definitions
The most important terms in this
paper are “ban the box”, “reentry”, and “recidivism”. “Ban the box” is a
movement counties, cities, and even some states have been taking on. It is a
nationwide effort to remove the box on an employment application that asks if
those job-seeking have ever been convicted of a crime. This process delays the
inquiry until later on in the interview process that way a person with criminal
record is not immediately screened out before the employer sees how qualified
they are for the job (Henry, 2008; United States Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission, 1987). It should be clear that background screening can be
conducted as well as questions regarding their criminal history. However, this
could depend on what the city agrees upon. The main purpose behind ban the box
is to give felons more opportunities at being considered for a job. However,
ban the box is not obligating employers to hire ex-convicts. It is simply
giving ex-convicts who are qualified for a job a more fair chance at being
evaluated based on their skill level and not their past. “Reentry” refers to
the release of the ex-convicts from prison and their transition back into a
normal civilian life. Lastly, “recidivism” occurs when a prisoner engages in
criminal activity within the first three years of their release and they were
either arrested, convicted, and/or sent back to prison (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2013).
Limitations
For the purpose of this paper, I
will be focusing on felons and ex-convicts overall, but I might go into
specific types of crimes and the differences in the treatment by society as it
becomes relevant. An issue that comes up in the research alongside criminal
background checks is credit checks. This is something I will not be discussing
because I am not interested in the financial plight of reentry. I will also
limit discussing the obstacles of employment regarding those of mental illness,
substance abuse history, and sex offenders. I will include points regarding
housing but only as it is relevant to discussing successful reentry into
society as it would provide stability for felons. Housing is just as important
as finding employment for felons but for the focus of the paper, it is best not
to include another topic as it would make my paper too broad and much longer.
History
To further understand the causes of
high incarceration rates and recidivism we must examine the history behind this
social problem. Incarceration as a form of punishment has always been a part of
civilized society. Although imprisonment has been a part of early colonial life
in the United States, it wasn’t until the 20th and 21st centuries that dramatic
changes took place. From 1970 to 2010, the United States has the highest
incarceration rate than any other country in the world (Thompson, 2010). In
2006 alone, over 7.3 million people were involved in the criminal justice
system either by being in jail, prison, or on parole or probation (Thompson,
2010). In the most recent years, soaring incarceration rates have become
problematic as they have had devastating costs on taxpayers, the millions of
felons themselves and their families, the economy, policymakers, and society as
a whole. But how did it get this way?
In the 1800s and 1900s, the United
States was undergoing their Industrial Revolution. Many immigrated from all
over the world looking for a new life settling into large cities where work
could be found in factories. Larger cities, or urban areas, became crime
hotspots because the population was both dense and diverse. After WWII, the
urban cities that were once the livelihood of the U.S. soon experienced deep
racial and political conflicts, enormous distress from “economic
disinvestment”, and inevitable poverty (Thompson, 2010). “Criminalization of
urban space” began to occur and produced mass incarceration. This is the
process of minority urban dwellers [both men and women] become increasingly
supervised, regulated, and oftentimes apprehended (Thompson, 2010). However,
law enforcement’s focus or ‘scrutiny’ on urban African Americans had roots in
earlier decades because of previous prejudices (Thompson, 2010). Researchers
and social scientists at the time, collected census data trying to ‘prove’ that
African Americans were apt to be criminally deviant and therefore needed more
surveillance (Thompson, 2010). In addition, the white working class was no
longer associated with criminality as they had new citizenship and a new class
position. Instead, society began shifting its attention to the poor urban
African Americans and oftentimes blamed them for all new crime issues occurring
in America. As a result, Caucasian Americans were becoming concerned for their
safety and called for more policing (Thompson, 2010).
The civil rights movements of the
1960s, also called the “Second Reconstruction” symbolized the rebirth of the
United States via social activism (Thompson, 2010). Revolutions and social
protests demanded equality and an end of discrimination for marginalized
groups, such as ethnic minorities, women, prisoner’s rights, and lesbian, gay,
transgender and bisexual people. The United States Congress then passed the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law made it illegal to discriminate against
someone based on their race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. It also
made it illegal to retaliate against anyone who complained, filed, or was
involved in a case regarding discrimination (United States Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission, 1987).
Even though laws granting equality
were passed, that doesn’t mean people were treated equally. This is especially
true regarding drug legislation the 1970s. In 1973, New York State passed the
Rockefeller drug laws, named after the previous governor Nelson Rockefeller.
These laws enforced stricter penalties on all criminals, but particularly those
who engaged in the use, possession, and distribution of illegal drugs
(Thompson, 2010). Consequently, by the mid-1970s, New York’s prison population
soared. By the 1990s, over 30% of those in prison were convicted of drug
offenses (Thompson, 2010). The nation followed suit, and the incarceration
rates of the urban populations skyrocketed (Thompson, 2010). Law enforcement
nationwide raged their new war on drugs specifically towards cities and
minority communities (Thompson, 2010).
By beginning of the 1980s, the
prison population was high. The data began showing how a large number of the
prison population included individuals of color, this prompted the United State
Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to take action. In November of 1985
at a commission hearing, the commission approved of a policy modification that
deemed necessary in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under Title VII, the law
prohibits any employer that discriminates against a person because of his or
her criminal record, particularly concerned with the discrimination against
minorities with a record. If an employer was alleged to be discriminatory against a potential employee
based off of their record, they must prove that their decision was justified
by: “(1) the nature and gravity of the offense(s), (2) the time that has passed
since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence, and (3) the nature of
the job sought or held” (United States Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission, 1987). The EEOC’s reasoning behind this law was that simply
screening out applicants with a record will result in a discriminatory effect
on African-Americans and Latinos because of their overrepresentation in the
prison population. As a result, in 1987, the EEOC ruled that only records that
lead to convictions, not arrests, would be reasonable grounds in hiring
decisions (United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, 1987). Ever
since these guidelines have been passed, the EEOC has been investigating cases
regarding criminal record discrimination.
A few decades later, in the early
2000s the numbers of released prisoners were beginning to climb. In 2004,
Boston had become the first city to pass “ban the box” legislation (Rodriguez,
and Emsellem, 2013).
According to the
Formerly Convicted Citizens Project website, “banning the box will allow
qualified people with criminal history records to more fairly for employment,
will contribute to increased public safety, will decrease recidivism, and will
bring economic benefits to their families as well as their community”. Over the
next eight years more than 43 jurisdictions across the United States have
passed ban the box legislation. Currently, ban the box legislation isn’t
nationwide, it is typically enacted at a city or county level, however some
states have passed ban the box legislation, such as Colorado and New Mexico
(Rodriguez and Emsellem, 2013). Proponents of ban the box would love to see it
eventually passed at a federal level.
As of April 2012, the EEOC passed
its first Enforcement Guidelines regarding employers’ use of arrest and
conviction records when making hiring decisions (Lessack, 2013). They made it
clear that if employers had any criminal convictions policies that had a direct
impact on race and/or national origin, they would have to defend their policies
before the EEOC (Lessack, 2013). The Guidance does recognize that denying
employment of someone with a criminal record cannot be a violation of Title VII
unless it relates to discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin (Lessack, 2013). However, it can fall under Title VII if there
is a charge of intentional discrimination or if it can be proven that an
employer treated applicants with comparable criminal records differently
(Lessack, 2013). The EEOC strongly advises that employers not use blanket
policies against convictions for criminal records, encourages employers to
disregard arrests that didn’t lead to convictions, and highly encourages
employers to conduct individualized assessments of applicants with criminal
convictions (Don, 2013). Next, the EEOC
says when conducting an individualized assessment they should consider factors
such as: the nature or gravity of the offense in relationship to the duties of
the job and the time since the conviction or completion of the sentence,
relationship between the person’s records and the duties of the job, the age of
the person when they were convicted, and evidence of rehabilitation and use
these to determine whether they are a good fit for the company and the job
(Don, 2013).. They should also allow the prospective employee the chance to
discuss and refute any information found in a background check. Some states
such as Maryland and Virginia have passed laws prohibiting an employee seeking
a job to disclose any criminal charges in an interview when they have been
expunged from their record or those that did not result in a conviction (Don,
2013). Sometimes federal and state level jobs are exempt from the ban the box
legislation. Jobs that are federal, or public such as transportation, and jobs
exposing ex-convicts to vulnerable populations such as the sick, the elderly,
or the young are exempt from ban the box as background screenings are necessary
to make sure vulnerable populations are taken advantage of (Roberts, 2004).
Some opponents of the new EEOC guidelines are not happy about the guidelines,
especially because they mainly impact private businesses. Let’s examine these
controversies a little further.
Opponent and Proponent
Stakeholders
Opponents believe the EEOC was
correct in placing restrictions on employers’ access to criminal records
throughout the application process and the EEOC Guidelines should not be
abolished by Congress. Some general opponent stakeholders includes academia
involved in researching criminology, criminal justice, and sociology. Some other
general opponents might include civil rights groups and advocacy groups that
focus on issues of race, discrimination, and prisoner’s rights, etc. Some
specific opponent stakeholders include the United States Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission, the National Law Employment Project, and the National
H.I.R.E. Network. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is
the government’s authority for the enforcement of federal laws making it
illegal to discriminate against a job applicant. Businesses and companies with
at least 15 employees are subject to the EEOC’s laws. The EEOC is currently
investigating cases and administering their federal guidelines employers should
consider during the hiring process (United States Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission, 2013). The National Employment Law Project is an advocacy group
that partners with national, state, and local allies, to promote programs for
economic equality, security, and opportunity. They support programs that create
good jobs, enforce workers-rights, and help those unemployed regain their
footing (The National Employment Law Project, 2013). The National H.I.R.E.
Network is an advocacy group whose goal is to increase the amount of good job
opportunities to those with criminal records by promoting changes to public
policies, employment practices, and pubic opinions. They often collaborate with
other advocacy groups, practitioners, policymakers, and those in the criminal
justice system (The National H.I.R.E. Network, 2013).
Proponents believe the EEOC
Guidelines should be abolished by Congress. The EEOC should not place
restrictions or any guidelines on their private business practices, and they
should have full access to the criminal records of those seeking employment
with them. Some general stakeholders may include independent, small, private,
corporate, or organizational business owners. Other general stakeholders may
include people employed in the human resource department of the federal, state,
public, or private sector. Lastly, some general stakeholders may include
lawyers that represent business owners best interests and background screening
companies. Some specific proponent stakeholders include the National
Association for Professional Background Screeners, the Heritage Foundation, and
Carco Group, Inc. The National Association of Professional Background Screeners
is an organization dedicated to representing the interests of companies by
providing tenant, employment and background screenings. They also provide
standards and the promotion of ethical business practices as well as a reliable
and competent screening practice (National Association of Professional
Background Screeners, 2013). The Heritage Foundation is a research, educational
and think tank who constructs and advocates conservative public policies based
around individual freedom, limited government, free enterprise, traditional
American vales, and a strong national defense. They are one of the nation’s
largest public policy research organizations (The Heritage Foundation, 2013).
Carco Group, Inc is a company dedicated to supplying their employer clients
with a reliable, stable, and accurate means of with “critical information” in
order maximize risk mitigation. They pride themselves on their leadership and
integrity and professional services to the companies they serve (Carco Group,
Inc, 2013).
Opponent and Proponent Arguments
The main three arguments that both
proponents and opponents of keeping the EEOC Guidelines touch on include:
discrimination of ex-felons, workplace and public safety, and legitimacy of
using criminal records in hiring decisions. Let’s
first start with the opponent’s perspectives. Once ex-felons are released, they
face a number of structural barriers including, employer discrimination and
legal limitations of what types of jobs they can obtain (Henry, 2008).
Opponents of abolishing the Guidelines believe they help prevent discriminatory
hiring practices. They claim that some employers not only discriminate against
ex-felons because of their criminal record, but they could possibly racially
discriminating too. They cite evidence from Devah Pager’s experimental results
showed out of the white job seekers without a criminal record they received
twice as many calls back (34%) from employers compared to their white
counterparts with a criminal record (17%). While on the other hand, African
Americans without a criminal record only received 14% calls back, which is
almost three times more than the African Americans with a criminal record (5%)
(Henry and Jacobs, 2007). It
is the preconceived notion that blacks are “dangerous” and “criminal” that
become rationals for employers to discriminate during the hiring process
(Sampson and Laub, 1993). As mentioned previously, other structural forms of
discrimination include high incarceration rates. The EEOC backs up these claims
using research from Bovard’s study in 2013 that African American men were 7
times higher than white men and almost 3 times higher than Hispanic men. In
November of 1985, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission believed
businesses denying individuals’ employment because of their conviction records
is becoming increasingly problematic. The members of the EEOC agreed that an
employer’s policy or practice of excluding individuals from employment on the
basis of their conviction records has an adverse impact on African Americans
and Hispanics in light of the high incarceration rates. As a result, the EEOC
upheld and still upholds that such practices and policies are discriminatory in
nature, and therefore violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title VII, in
the absence of justifying business necessity (United States Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission, 1987).
Another claim opponents make is that having a stable
job increases public safety by reducing recidivism rates. Criminologists are in
a universal agreement that ex-felons are less likely to drift back to criminal
activity if they lack employment opportunities (Henry, 2008). Lockwood, Nally,
Knutson & Ho’s results (2012) have shown that “post-release employment is
the single most important predictor of successful reentry or recidivism because
it provides former prisoners with a consistent source of funding for food,
shelter, clothing, transportation and increases feelings of self-efficacy and
self-sufficiency, while building confidence in released prisoners that they can
support themselves without needing to resort to criminal activities and serves
as a protective factor against future criminal activity ”. Cities in the U.S.
have realized when ex-offenders lack employment prospects they are at risk for
increased rates of recidivism, as well as public safety, social, and economic
costs. As a result various U.S. cities and counties have begun experimenting
with legislation to help provide more employment opportunities for felons and
what they came up with was “ban the box” legislation (Henry, 2008). Lockwood,
Nally, Knutson, & Ho also found in their 2012 study that 53% of offenders
found a job in less than a year, while the other 47% took at least one year or
more to find a job. This becomes scary because two-thirds of prisoners are
rearrested and one-half are reincarcerated within three years after their
release (Freeman, 2003). Thus by ex-convicts finding stable jobs their
communities become a safer place. Without legislation such as ban the box it
makes it harder for felons find work and a place to live making them ever
closer to homelessness (Simmons, 2010).
The last main argument opponents and proponents
disagree on is whether or not accessing and viewing criminal records is
legitimate enough to be considered in hiring decisions. Opponents believe
ex-felons have already paid their debt to society and served their time in
prison and therefore deserve a chance at starting over. Opponents do not
believe criminal records provide legitimate grounds to reject an ex-felon job
application. There are millions of people every year getting arrested and
convicted of minor charges. For example, back in 2004, a company on Wall Street
was prepared to hire a candidate for a high-level position when they had found
on the FBI database he was arrested for breaking and entering (which he forgot
to mention) in Atlanta a few years earlier (Roberts, 2004). When asked to
explain his record, the investigators discovered he had broke and entered onto
his own property when he was checking on it after the previous tenants moved
out without paying rent. The charges were dropped, but the arrest stayed on his
record (Roberts, 2004). Ken Springer, the investigator of this case and
president of Corporate Resolutions Inc, a background screening company, said he
had to dig deep to confirm these charges were dismissed. He also claims relying
only on online databases is one of the worst practices, because even the FBI
database (which is considered the gold standard) is often incomplete (Roberts,
2004). “Many of the people in these databases never go to jail. So if you find
a record, talk to the candidate. Don’t have an inquisition, have a
conversation”, says Springer (Roberts, 2004). In a 2010 poll from the Society
for Human Resource Management, found organizations and agencies that are hired
by businesses check for criminal records in 73% of all job candidates (Roberts,
2004). Bill Kesser, the assistant director of HR in the city of Boston even
states that criminal backgrounds do not matter for a large number of jobs, but
by keeping the question on application we are saying it does. Upon passing ban
the box legislation, he says Boston doesn’t want to create an underclass of
people out of work (Roberts, 2004). As a result, you cannot always trust that
background checks will be accurate, therefore it is not a legitimate and
reliable means of justifying the refusal to hire someone with a record.
In contrast, proponents do not agree that they are
discriminating against ex-felons because of their criminal records. Proponents
of abolishing the EEOC Guidelines acknowledge the data proving the prison
inmate population is highest among African Americans and Hispanics. However,
they say the result of most prisons being made up of minorities is not because
of structural discrimination in the criminal justice system and policing
practices, but it is simply because African Americans and Hispanics are the
ones committing more crime (von Spakovsky, 2012). Other refutes against the
opponent discrimination argument include the fact that there is no federal law
against turning away someone seeking employment from a business if they have a
criminal record (von Spakovsky, 2012). Proponents say that the EEOC Guidelines
are built on “faulty premises” because felons are not a protected class under
federal law. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protected classes
against discrimination are on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin (von Spakovsky, 2012). As a result, employers are not racially
discriminating against ex-felons seeking employment. But they are entitled to
the right to turn away someone with a criminal record and they are not legally
liable. Furthermore, the proponents say EEOC Guidelines in place actually
backfire and make it harder for African Americans and Hispanics to find
employment. They claim that because employers overestimate the likelihood that
African American and Hispanic job applicants have prior felony convictions,
background checks that show they have a clean record may actually increase the
likelihood that they will be hired (von Spakovsky, 2012). Results of a survey
data in 2009 collected from the Multi-city Study of Urban Inequality, showed
that out of the 600 establishments surveyed, the hiring rates of black men
increased once employers performed background checks during the hiring process
(von Spakovsky, 2012). In conclusion, proponents raise the question that the
EEOC Guidelines might contribute to workplace discrimination.
While opponents of abolishing the Guidelines point
out that employing felons can increase public safety while reducing recidivism,
proponents refute this. They believe opponents are ignoring data on recidivism
of felons. Proponents believe that a felon cannot be “judged to be less or
equally likely to commit a future violent act than individuals who have no
prior violent history. It is possible that those differences are small but
making such predictions is extremely difficult and the criminological
discipline provides no good basis for making predictions with any assurance
they will be correct” (von Spakovsky, 2012). However, proponents’ main concerns
revolve around workplace safety. It is the job of the business owners, the
human resource departments, and background screening companies to keep
workplaces safe and free of harm. If employers are nott careful they can not
only bring about harm to their employees, but harm to economic prosperity as
well. Proponents point to a scary example. In 2010, a biology professor at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville shot and killed three of her colleagues and
wounded three others after she was denied tenure (von Spakovsky, 2012). The
university didn’t conduct a criminal background search because if they did they
would have found she was convicted in 2002 for a misdemeanor assault and
disorderly conduct. Proponents said that under the EEOC’s Guidelines, such a
misdemeanor conviction wouldn’t have been enough for the university to refuse
to employ her. However, the propensity for violent conduct revealed by the
conviction on her record “manifested itself tragically at the school eight
years later” (von Spakovsky, 2012). It is the dangers such as these that
companies, business owners, human resource departments, and background
screening companies are so desperately trying to prevent. Furthermore, the EEOC
Guidelines are putting employers at risk for financial harm exposing them to
serious liabilities. Employers are at risk of facing civil lawsuits for racial
discrimination by the EEOC and for negligent hiring lawsuits filed by their
current employees which are now becoming commonplace (von Spakovsky, 2012). By
taking these matters to court, employers could suffer their economic success through
the loss of customers and valuable time and money spent in court.
Lastly, proponents of abolishing the
Guidelines believe using criminal histories are a legitimate means to justify a
hiring decision. They strongly believe that criminal records should remain
public record for anyone to be able to view every time. By the EEOC placing
restrictions on employer’s access to viewing criminal records, the companies
and employees are now at risk. Employers believe that it is their right to be
able to access criminal histories because it is public record and it is
essential to know in order to assess the risk of hiring a prospective employee.
An example of the potential liability employers are exposed to when hiring
convicted felons is a case that reached the Indiana Court of Appeals in March
2012. A motel was successfully sued by the estate of one of its guests when
they were robbed and murdered by a prior employee who obtained the motel’s
master key. The motel had not done a criminal background check on the employee,
which would have shown their prior criminal history that included juvenile
battery, criminal trespassing, burglary, theft, and stolen property (von
Spakovsky, 2012). As a result, opponents believe there should not be any
federal guidelines placing restrictions on their ability to access a
job-seeker’s criminal records during the hiring practices. Business owners and
human resource departments should have the right to make their own best
judgement calls especially when it comes to deciding who is best for the open
position at their company. Legal guidance is the answer, not censorship (von
Spakovsky, 2012). Furthermore, employers feel like they are being forced into
hiring people they don’t feel comfortable employing and they are put into a
situation they aren’t happy with.
Current Plans and Actions
As for what is happening currently,
there is no policy currently being lobbied at the federal level. Various cities
and counties across the United States could be lobbying for ban the box to pass
through their city council, but for the most part everyone is going at their
own pace. It only seems to get brought up if there is a special group lobbying
for it or if a city political leader decides they want to pass it. At the
federal level, the EEOC continues to try to enforce their Guidelines and they
are actively investigating cases that come to their attention and pursue them
to court. For example, in January of 2012 Pepsi paid $3.1 million to settle the
EEOC’s charges over screening out applicants who had arrest records and vowed
to take a more individualized approach regarding the consideration of an
applicant’s background (Katel, 2012). For the most part, opponents of the EEOC
guidelines are doing their best to consider the guidelines regarding the hiring
processes. Some human resource departments are educating their hiring staff on
the EEOC guidelines and making sure they are familiar with the policies.
Interestingly enough, my interviews with experts in hiring and background
screening were not familiar with either the EEOC Guidelines or the Ban the Box
legislation. On the other hand, some Human Resource departments are trying to
find loopholes in the EEOC guidelines as well. Nixon and Kerr in their book Background Screening and
Investigations: Managing hiring risk from the HR and security perspectives (2008) wrote about the issue
regarding discrimination against previously incarcerated individuals seeking a
job. They said employers could have “ a solid defense if you have previously
classified a job as sensitive and identified the criminal offenses that would
preclude a person from consideration for the position”. Other stakeholders such
as the National Association for Professional Background Screeners are
constantly involved in educating its members to empower themselves to better
serve their employer clients. Another group that currently lobbies is the
Formerly Convicted Citizens Project. They are are dedicated to educating the
public on the issues associated with felon reentry by spreading personal stories
of ex-convicts and trying to get volunteers to sign a petition, and encouraging
citizens to call their city council in support ban the box legislation. If
invited, the FCCP will also come out and speak to a group about these issues.
Essentially, there hasn’t been a large current social movement regarding felon
re-entry and ban the box legislation because it only concerns city ordinances
and counties at a time. So when support or opposition occurs, it doesn’t ripple
across the rest of the United States, but instead stays in that region with
people divided among the issue.
Critical Analysis of Opponent
Arguments
As mentioned earlier, opponents
contested that employers were discriminating against not only ex-felons but
also colored ex-felons. They used Devah Pager’s results highlighting that even
whites with criminal records (17%) get more calls back from employers in
comparison to African Americans with a clean record (14%). Devah Pager, is a
credible academic, receiving her Master’s degree in conducting Sociological
experiments from Stanford University. Her study was a field experiment which is
the most valuable and credible research design that can be carried out because
a variable that is manipulated in the natural environment making the results
more reliable. Her results were published in a peer reviewed journal, showing
more strength in their field results and credibility because her methodology
was carefully scrutinized by her fellow professionals in the field of
Sociology. This study’s results were published in 2003, making these results
ten years old. If someone were to repeat her results in the present-day, she
would have more credibility. She also duplicated the findings that Schwartz and
Skolnick found in the 1960s, so that says something that at least 4 decades
later that racial discriminatory hiring practices was still occurring. There is
possibility racial discrimination in hiring practices still exists. Lastly,
regarding Pager’s study, her results might not be completely sufficient. The
job-postings her research subjects responded to where within a very limited
geographic location. They only replied to job postings to interview for that
were within a 25-mile radius from downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In addition,
Milwaukee’s 2000 census data records show it over 60% of it’s inhabitants were
Caucasian and 30% were African American in the 1990s. Towards the present day
the demographics are 45% Caucasian and 37% African American (City of Milwaukee,
2013). This goes to show, that perhaps this city might have engaged in more
biased or have discriminatory behaviors towards minorities that carried over
into their hiring practices. The last piece of evidence opponents cite in the
discrimination debate, is research reported and cited by the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, showing African American men get
incarcerated at seven times the rate of Caucasian men. The EEOC is a very
credible source because they are a branch of the federal government committed
to boosting employment of protected groups (Bovard, 2013). The EEOC’s funding
comes from the federal government which conducts research on social issues.
Their research has also been more current, releasing their findings in 2012.
Their evidence found from their studies support the claim they are making that
some discrimination is taking place, therefore their argument is warranted.
Opponents next claim is that
employment is the single-most important factor in predicting recidivism rates
(Lockwood, Nally, Knutson, and Ho, 2012). They used evidence from Lockwood, Nally, Knuston, Ho and Freeman.
Lockwood, Nally, Knutson and Ho’s study was important in showing felons finding
employment made them successful at reentry. Their study was published in The Peer
Reviewed Journal of the American Correctional Association in Spring 2012.
Therefore, their research is current which strengthen their arguments. Susan
Lockwood, John Nally, Katie Knutson, and Taiping Ho all work in the Education
Division of the Indiana Department of Corrections, making them very credible
and reliable sources of information. Their
research study used in the proponents arguments was a longitudinal study
that followed a little more than 6,560 offenders upon release from five
counties in Indiana that lasted five years (from 2005-2010). Their research has
a very large data sample, includes a relatively large geographic area, follows
their subjects for five years with recent publications on their results all
contribute to a very sufficient argument. Richard Freeman’s journal article was
published in 2003. Although this makes the article a little outdated, his
credibility makes up for it. His article was a The Urban Institute Reentry
Roundtable Discussion Paper. Richard Freeman works for Harvard University and
the National Bureau of Economic Research, ultimately publishing his article in
the New York University Law School Journal. Although opponents believe and have
researched to some extent that having a job significantly reduces recidivism, I
have concluded there needs to be more research done on this matter. There are
many other factors needing to be considered when determining if it is the job
that makes an ex-felon successful and not likely to recidivate. Such factors
include: addictions, mental illness, education levels, skill sets, a supportive
family to return to, or even the essentials of clothing, shelter,
transportation, identification, and money. Research should further examine just
how these factors combined play a role in their gaining of employment.
The last argument opponents make
regarding the legitimacy of using criminal records in hiring decisions is
somewhat weak because there is a lot of heresy and lack of statistical evidence
or hard data that prove their arguments because it is mainly based off of
beliefs and emotions. However, these arguments don’t necessarily need hard
evidence to support their claims. They
use an example of one man who had an arrest charge that later caused
problems for him when he was applying for a wall street job. Examples like
these occur often, but I haven’t found any data showing how frequently this
actually occurs. Therefore, we don’t know just how problematic it is. Ken
Springer, although credible because he is an investigator and president of
Corporate Resolutions, Inc, a background screening company, is not enough to
prove this argument. The same goes for Bill Kesser. He is also credible because
he is the assistant director of Human Resources in Boston, but it is not
enough.
Critical Analysis of Proponents
Arguments
Proponents of abolishing the EEOC
Guidelines, don’t use evidence against the discrimination argument made by
opponents and instead use reasoning. They appeal to the use of U.S. traditions
by having constitutional bodies of law to cite whether or not they are legally
responsible for discrimination. They refer to the Civil Rights Act that plainly
states who are the protected populations against discrimination, and since
felons are not included, they can’t be legally responsible for refusing to hire
someone with a record. This argument is certainly logical and valid because it
is written in the U.S. Constitution. I see this as an appeal to authority. Both
sides of a controversy can point to a body of law to support their argument,
which is exactly the problem. Laws are written to be broad and can be very
subjective in the eye of the interpreter. Bodies of law can often be tweaked to
support any claim someone wants backed-up. This is certainly true regarding the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Whether they have a moral obligation to
give ex-felons second chances is a different story. They do acknowledge
incarceration rates are highest among minorities but claim that is because they
commit more crimes. Lastly, the Multi-city Study of Urban Inequality study that
tries to support the claim that if employers who performed background checks on
African Americans are more likely to hire them, was published in the University
of Chicago’s Journal of Law and Economics in 2006. It was funded by the Russell
Sage Foundation. However, this may seem credible, I wasn’t able to further
investigate their methods due to the paid accounts these results were published
on.
Opponents next argument against
recidivism seems to have logic. A lot of the data in this argument came from
the same source. Hans A. von Spakovsky, is a writer for the Heritage
Foundation, which is a conservative think-tank. He wrote many articles for
them, of which are biased and has limited amounts of hard evidence proving
their points. One piece of evidence he uses is a story about a biology
professor killing and injuring six people because she was not screened
properly. He blames the EEOC for this incident, saying even if a criminal
background screening showed her propensity for violence, it still wouldn’t be
enough for the University to refuse to hire her. This is a weak argument and is
a hasty generalization. This occurs when a conclusion is drawn from a
relatively small sample and generalized to the rest of the population (St.
Edward’s University, 2013) . In other words, by using this example of harm
coming from not screening an applicant for a criminal record, does not mean
this will happen every time or all the time. As previously mentioned, this
topic should be further researched. Although these stories are often compelling
to read, they are anecdotal pieces of evidence making the argument
significantly weaker.
Regarding the rest of the argument
on recidivism and the third argument debating whether or not viewing criminal
records is a legitimate means to conduct a hiring decision. The proponents have
strong claims and strong belief systems that are logically valid. However, yet
again, all they are are strong beliefs. The third argument also is a hasty
generalization when they used a story about a stolen motel key contributing to
the death and lawsuit of a motel in Indiana to prove their point that hiring an
ex-felon causes too much liability for companies. The same biased article,
written by von Spakovsky was also used, further contributing to a weak
argument. They do make excellent points about them being the only one who knows
who is the best fit for a position at their company, and protecting their
company from harm. But we need to make sure that the screening and hiring
processes companies are used with integrity and are legitimate. Unfortunately,
based off of evidence presented which supports the opponents have stronger
arguments, but proponents do have strong claims.
Moral Analysis of Opponent and
Proponents’ Arguments
Obligations
Opponents primary obligations is towards
ex-felons seeking jobs. They believe by helping ex-felons, it could affect the
population overall thereby having a profound effect on themselves as
individuals, their children, families, and communities. But their primary
objective is to help ex-felons get back on their feet in order to decrease
recidivism rates. Opponents believe the nature of the obligation should be to
give others a second chance and this should come from the government. It is
their job to develop a system that helps the underrepresented populations get
back on their feet and have a fair chance at finding a job. Academics also have
an obligation to continue their research and to publicize the hardships felons
face upon reentry.
On the other hand, proponents
primary obligations is towards their employees and to their customers. The
nature of their obligation is to help ensure the safety of a space they can
control. They believe they have a duty to protect their business, family, and
customers from harm. Many employers don’t believe it is their obligation to
right the wrongs of society. It is only their obligation or duty to make the
best and most well-informed decisions they can make regarding what they are a
part of. Oftentimes their obligations will conflict when they feel like they
have both a duty to give someone a chance at being a good worker versus
protecting their work environment.
Values
The opponents like prisoner’s rights
groups and the EEOC’s main focus seem to be around creating equal opportunities
for all, eliminating structural and institutional discrimination, in addition
to concerning themselves with civil rights, and having a huge emphasis on
second chances. Their main value is equality but they also value compassion,
tolerance, health, and open-mindedness. Opponents are working towards giving
felons a fair chance at getting a job in a fair way via ban the box
legislation. By not having to check the box (regarding whether you have ever
been convicted of a felony) ex-felons who are trying to find a job, have a fair
chance at making it through all the way to the interview process instead of
being immediately turned away before their application is viewed. They are also
concerned with improving the lives of felons, their families, their
communities, and society at large. They are asking tolerance of employers who
are close-minded about hiring an ex-felon to not only promote society’s health
but also to provide equal opportunities to the basic essentials of survival in
the civilian world.
Proponents of abolishing the EEOC
Guidelines such as business owners and background screening companies values
are primarily concerned around freedom of business practices and decisions,
privacy, self-reliance/independence, and safety. Many private business owners
don’t want the federal government telling them who they can and can not hire,
or who is best for the position they have open. Business owners value making
their own private decisions regarding what they think is best for them, their
employees, and their growth as a business. They are always going to be
concerned with the safety of their business and their employees because any
harm could be a serious deficit. As a result, I would say the core value of
opponents would be security; security regarding the safety of their employees
and the security of knowing their business is a healthy environment.
Consequences
Opponents seek to obtain felons
given equal opportunities and more opportunities regarding finding a job. Ban
the box legislation envisions employers actually interviewing felons for a job
which they are qualified for and have a chance of getting the job. They also
hope to see felons go further in the interview process and have the chance to
discuss and defend their record.
Opponents
want to avoid no one giving felons a second chance, or no one hiring a felon
because that can be very bad for felons, their families, their communities, and
society at large. Opponents also don’t want to see felons getting immediate
refusals on job applications because they checked the box.
Proponents seek to obtain the
capability of being able the make independent decisions on what they think is
best for their companies. They also seek to obtain a healthy environment for
their staff, for themselves, and their business that is free of harm.
Proponents want to avoid being told they should hire ex-felons when they don’t
know if they are telling the truth or if they can trust them. The certainly
want to avoid being pressured into hiring someone they don’t want to hire and
not feeling confident that they are the best person for the job. They also want
to avoid lawsuits from felons and the EEOC claiming racial discrimination or
lawsuits regarding negligent hiring practices. And the number one thing they
want to avoid is something bad happening to themselves, their employees, or
their business after they took the risk of hiring a felon.
Normative Principles
Opponents main normative principle
is the respect of persons. This basically means humans have a duty to honor
others, their rights, and their responsibilities. Perhaps felons deserve the
right to a fair hiring process for a job. Proponents main normative principle
is the principle of least harm. This states that if we must choose between two
evils, we should choose the one that does the least amount of harm. Refusing to
hire a felon could cause harm to either the felon or the staff already
employed. But if they have the decision of harming less people, they would have
to pick the felon.
The main normative ethical theory
that applies to opponents is the social contract theory (St. Edward’s
University, 2013). This principles emphasizes an individual’s moral obligations
rooted in contracts or agreements individuals make with each other when they
form societies. Following an individual’s best interests are the laws chosen to
guide and insure social order. Rational human beings will accept these rules on
the condition that other follow them as well. This is applicable and
representative of citizens who break the law. But really applies to the proponents
perspective is the principle of equality and the principle of paternalism. The
principle of equality states that every person is entitled to treatment as an
equal, “to be shown the respect and concern of which any moral being is worthy”
(St. Edward’s University, 2013). This is what opponents believe; that once they
have served their time and debt to society, they then deserve to be treated
with respect and equal opportunities. The principle of paternalism states that
a legitimate goal of public authority is minimizing needless human suffering
(St. Edward’s University, 2013). Opponents believe it is necessary and the
responsibility of the federal government, specifically the EEOC, to minimize
the suffering of ex-felons, their families, their communities, and society by
helping them find more employment opportunities.
Proponents main normative ethical
theory is Utilitarianism. This theory is based on the principle that the
standard of moral judgement is based from the greatest amount of good or the
most happiness that occurs from it. The central idea is that the wrong or
rightness of any actions is determined by the consequences of the action.
Proponents believe that by denied an ex-felon employment they are causing the
greatest amount of good for the most amount of people because they are putting
themselves and all of their employee’s needs above those of the single felon
applying for a position. This is in direct accordance with the principle rule
of utilitarianism. This states a rule is morally right if it produces the
greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people long term, ensuring
each individual act produces the greatest good (St. Edward’s University, 2013).
In order to ensure the security of their work environments and companies,
business owners would strive to ensure the greatest amount of good happens
forever.
Final Position and Solution
Something that brought me clarity
was conducting field research on my topic. I conducted six interviews: two with
previously incarcerated felons, two with representatives of Goodwill Industries
of Central Texas, and two interviews from the perspective of background
screening and hiring. The felons I interviewed had the combined crimes of
aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, murder, and engaging and
organizing criminal activity. The major takeaway points from these interviews
included just how important having a strong family system was to go back to
upon release, the importance of finding work within the prison and keeping
their skills sharp so they can quickly apply them once in the civilian world,
and perhaps the most important thing is the felon being fully ready to change
their life. Lt. Josh Wiener, who is Operations Manager and Sales at Top Gun
Security and Investigations of Austin, TX as well as David Leining Sr., founder
and owner of Santa Fe Archery in Santa Fe, TX, discussed the various types of
concerns they would have when considering hiring a previous felon. They would
be concerned of their trustworthiness, bringing the past with them or what
they’ve learned in prison. They might also be concerned about their demeanor
especially around families and children, what types of crimes were committed
and how long ago. Lt. Wiener recognizes there are some misconceptions about
felons such as “once a criminal, always a criminal” and a self-fulfilling
prophecy that felons sometimes fall into. Both Leining and Weiner did not
support the EEOC Guidelines, but were open to the idea of Ban the Box. Leining
understands that it is unlikely to find a uniform solution to this problem as
many people commit different types of crimes. Lastly, my interviewers from
Goodwill, Zubin Segal, the Communications Manager at Goodwill Industries of
Central Texas and Roberto Perez Jr., Master Mentor at Goodwill Peer Support in
Central Texas, emphasized the importance of spreading the word about the
services Goodwill has to offer felons including supplying them with wrap around
services. They emphasize a communal environment and the willingness to give
people a second chance to turn their life around because they most likely will.
They also believe once employers give ex-felons a chance at a job, they will
have some of the most dedicating and hard working employees because felons have
more to lose than the average person, especially since their job search is
significantly harder than average person’s.
As for my civic engagement I
attended a mandatory offender reentry course at the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Federal Probation Office. I sat in on a class surrounded by
those recently released from federal prison. The purpose of the class was to
discuss the various services Goodwill and other local organizations had to
offer the felons aiding in their reentry. Many of the probationers came
prepared for class, engaged in the class by asking questions, participating in
simulations, joked with the other classmates, were friendly to one another, and
seemed driven to prevent this lifestyle from affecting their families,
especially their children. An overwhelming majority, (I would say about
90%) in the class had children and were
aware that their life choices as well as getting back into trouble can further
contribute to their children following in their footsteps.
For entire length of this research
paper, I haven’t changed my position. Although I am very respectful and fully
understanding of where employers are coming from regarding the use of criminal
records during the hiring process, I believe the EEOC Guidelines are a step in
the right direction and I don’t think they should be abolished by Congress. If
they are abolished, the struggle of felons finding a job would be increasingly
problematic than it already is. There is overwhelming amounts of evidence
proving that high incarceration rates have devastating effects in every aspect
of life within the United States ranging from the average taxpayer to a direct
family member to the individual themselves being incarcerated. There is also
irrefutable evidence that structural discrimination is taking place within the
criminal justice and the court system. It is extremely important that
politicians and the American public figure out some way to aid in felon
employment upon release or do more for them while they are in the system. All
of this combined has convinced me that some type of policy needs to be put in
place to help felons receive more employment opportunities. I think at this
point, the best solution and is a comprise for all parties, would be to pass
Ban the Box legislation nationwide.
Ban the Box legislation can get
employers and business owners more comfortable with the idea of reviewing an
applicant who had something on their criminal record. This could lead to them
seeing the applicant as a worker and judge them based off of their skill sets
in relationship to the job instead of their past mistakes. This could give
ex-felons a fighting chance to fairly compete for a job based off of who is the
best fit for the position. On the other hand, employers still have a chance to
fully address their concerns with the applicant and go over their inquiries
about their record. It is important for the felon to also discuss their record
with their potential employer so trust and rapport can be established as the
basis for a healthy working relationship if they were to be hired on. I think
if we were to give employers the opportunity to view criminal records or ask
questions regarding their records, there won’t be much opposition against the
bill. Ban the box seems like a feasible plan. The main issue with passing it
would be creating something uniform for the entire nation. That can be
problematic as various jurisdictions already have ban the box that is unique to
their city’s needs and the community’s wants. It wouldn’t necessarily cost too
much money to enforce. The money would go into creating and enforcing the
guidelines and creating information packets that can be distributed.
Unfortunately, I think legislation such as this will only become more popular
in years to come. Americans have yet to really care about prisoner’s rights.
Their stigmas and preconceived notions of what a criminal is really like
(thanks to mass media) will further impede a wave of prisoner’s rights
movements.
However, I definitely don’t think
everything will be solved by passing Ban the Box nationwide. I believe it is
also incredibly important for felons to have more resources given to them to
aid them in reentry, like what Goodwill of Central Texas is doing. They have
workshops, resume builders, reentry classes, academic conferences, certificate
training, GED classes, partnerships with counseling services, case workers, and
job fairs. I believe many more felons in the nation would be successful if they
had access to a program as successful as the Goodwill of Central Texas. One of
my felon interviewees brought up a great point. He thinks there should be some
type of recommendation system or contract work inside the prison that can help
the felons slowly transition into civilian life. The most important next step
is to spread awareness about this issue. Felons and their struggles are often
ignored by society because they group them all together and assume they are all
bad people. I believe a mistake doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person.
Besides there are many people in jail that did misdemeanor crimes, was in the
wrong place at the wrong time, did something accidental, or was wrongfully
accused. There is all too often the adolescent male who got mixed up with the
wrong people and it has cost him ten years or more in prison.
My Personal Moral Analysis
What I value the most regarding this
topic is second chances, growth, and responsibility. I do believe it is every
human’s right to get a second chance at something; to right their wrong. Humans
are not perfect beings, and we have hundreds of thousands of years of some
pretty awful mistakes. But if no one was given a second chance, where would we
be in life? Second chances don’t have any meaning unless there is a growth
period in-between. Humans most often make their mistakes because they lack
growth and development. Although we grow in many different ways grow is a vital
part of life as it is ensures our survival as a race. The last value that is
deeply connected to second chances and growth is responsibility. I don’t think
people deserve second chances at things unless they have grown and taken
responsibility. It is extremely important for everyone in society to take
responsibility over our actions that have directly or indirected contributed to
this problem. Whether that is to take responsibility for our mistakes, take
responsibility to care for our families, our children, our communities, and our businesses, and a
responsibility to be honest with yourself about what you can do to help solve
one of our nation’s largest social issues.
I believe my obligations are to the
education and growth of my peers. The nature of my obligations are
understanding and informative in nature. I believe it is my duty to spread
knowledge to society about what I have learned. I believe I have a duty to try
to make this world a little more equal and fair.
The consequences I intend to come
out of this paper and from the solution is to inspire those around me to take
action. I want felons to want to prove that they are ready to change their life
and be fully committed to their job. I never want a felon to recidivate back
into crime, ruining his chances with his employer and further damaging his
social relationships. I also don’t want one felon’s fallout to be
representative of the rest. I hope employers don’t think every felon is like
the last one because they aren’t.
The main philosophy theory that
guided me in this issue is the John Rawl’s Principle of Distributive Justice.
This states that basic goods should be distributed so that society’s least
advantaged members benefit as much as possible (St. Edward’s University, 2013).
There is no debate that felons are the least advantaged members of society when
it comes to job searching. They’ve often been incarcerated for decades, loosing
all of the job skills and social skills they had and many walk out of prison
with absolutely nothing. In comparison, they have to compete for jobs against
people who have a clean record, business attire/work uniform, contact
information, a phone, a car, a family, education, job experiences, and recommendations.
As a result, the criminal justice system and the federal government has a
responsibility to figure out a way to help the millions of people that tango
with the criminal justice system every year. As Eddie Winslow, a Texas
Department of Criminal Justice Parole Officer puts it, “At the end of the day,
I just try to treat them like people”.
Appendix A: Interview Questions
1. Name
2. Type
of crime committed
3. Age
and location at which the crime was committed
4. What
happened?
5. What
were your charge(s)?
6. How
long did you spend in prison?
7. What
was prison like?
8. What
are some significant barriers you faced upon release?**
9. What
was the hardest challenge you faced upon release?**
10. Are
there any programs in prison that helped you re-enter society?**
11. And
if not, what type of program do you think that would've been in place
would have helped you? and in what way? How would it have helped, etc.?*
12. Do
you think all ex-felons deserve second-chances?**
13. Do
you think businesses should be capable of turning away ex-felons if they've had
a criminal record?*
14.
What do you think predicts recidivism in ex-felons? (or in other
words..... what are some reasons for why ex-felons get back into crime
after they've been released from prison?) **
15. What
do you think can be done about high incarceration rates and recidivism? *
16. In
your opinion, what are some possible solutions to the criminal justice system?
1. What types of programs that
Goodwill offers to help ex-felons?
2. What are some reasons that
Goodwill hires ex-felons?
3. In what ways has Goodwill
benefited from hiring ex-felons?
4. Do you support the EEOC
Guidelines regarding hiring decisions of those with criminal records? and do
you also support Ban the Box legislation that was passed here in Austin?
5. Do you have any concerns when
hiring ex-felons?
6. Do you think felons face any
particular challenges in the workplace?
7. How would other businesses and
business owners benefit from hiring felons?
8. What do you think is a solution
to helping those recently released become successful in finding employment?
1. Briefly state your role with
Goodwill. What exactly do you do?
2. Do you believe Goodwill’s
programs are successful in helping ex-felons find employment? Which programs
are the most successful and how/why?
3. Since you are a mentor in
Goodwill Peer Support, you are often working with felons on a daily basis. What
seems to be the main challenges they face upon reentry?
4. What are some misconceptions
business owners, hiring professionals, or people in general have regarding
felon reentry and employment?
5. In what ways would businesses and
business owners benefit from hiring ex-felons?
6. Do you agree with the EEOC
Guidelines released in April 2012 and the Ban the Box legislation passed in
Austin? Do you believe this is a successful solution? If not, what is a
successful solution to helping those recently released find employment (and
housing)?
7. What do you think are some
reasons why released felons recidivate back to crime?
8. If you could educate the public
to help them understand felon reentry, what are some main points you would
cover and why?
1. Explain the process of businesses
hiring Top Gun to perform criminal background searches.
a. What is that process like?
b. What are some common things you
find?
2. How do you feel about businesses
hiring ex-felons?
3. What are some main concerns
businesses have regarding the hiring of felons?
4. What are some types of risk
assessments or assessments in general employers conduct when considering
someone with a criminal record?
5. Do you support the EEOC
Guidelines that were released in April 2012? Do you also support the Ban the
Box legislation that passed in Austin?
6. What are your thoughts on the
argument that the EEOC Guidelines actually make it harder for a person of color
to get hired if they aren’t screened for employment?
7. What do you think is a solution
to helping ex-felons become successful in finding employment?
1. Briefly explain what your
business is and your role in that business.
2. What is the process like of
hiring individuals at your place of business?
3. What specific factors do you
consider during the hiring process? Are there certain types of risk assessments
you perform when considering hiring someone? Are those factors different when
considering someone with a criminal record?
4. What are some misconceptions
people normally have regarding the hiring process?
5. Have you ever had anyone apply to
your place of business that had a criminal record? if so, what did you do?
6. Do you support the EEOC
Guidelines that were released in April of 2012? Do you support the idea of Ban
the Box legislation that is present here in Austin? Why or why not?
7. What do you think is an
appropriate tentative solution that can help ex-felons become more successful
in finding employment?
Appendix B: Proof of Civic Engagement
Attended a mandatory offender reentry course from
10-12pm on Friday, July 26, 2013 at
Texas Department Criminal Justice Federal Probation
Office
1616 Headway Circle, Austin, TX 78754
Was with Goodwill’s Master Mentor Roberto Perez, Jr.
OWDS
Goodwill Peer Support
2001 Rosewood Bldg. B 2001
Austin, Texas 78702
512-748-0767 (C)
Purpose of this offender reentry class: mandatory
for all of those on federal parole, unless they have found employment. Class
topics include helping them with reentry, specifically having various groups in
Austin come to speak to them about the services they provide to help them find
employment. The organizations that spoke today included: Project Fresh Start,
Goodwill, and Travis County Criminal Justice Planning.
Project Fresh Start provides counseling for the
newly released regarding substance abuse. They expressed that PFS provided a
safe environment to release any stress related to: the court, finding a job,
partner stress (“baby-mama-drama”), finding a car, and finding housing, etc.
Offenders work with a case worker to help ex-felons
one-on-one find a job. Items that go in their portfolio with their case worker
include: resume, any/all certificates, and a letter of explanation. A letter of
explanation is given to the employer that discusses what they did to get into
prison, what they did while they were in prison, where they want to work, and
their goals for employment.
Case workers such as Roberto Perez from Goodwill and
Sandra Treviño from TCCJP, often go to worksites where they have sent felons
for employment and monitor the environment. They want to make sure employers
aren’t taking advantage of the felons by making them do things that aren’t in
their job description. They also check in with both the employer and the
employee to see how things are going and to make sure both the employer’s and
the employee’s needs are met.
Oftentimes employers misinterpret the criminal
background screening [because of police jargon]. An employer can look at a
criminal background check that was sent to them by a screening company and see
on someone’s record that they were convicted of “released bodily fluids on a
federal/state police officer”. An employer would automatically think the worst,
when really the felon only spit on them. It’s important that employers don’t
misinterpret records and the case worker (as well as the letter of explanation)
can help clear that up.
Some businesses do support the hiring of ex-felons,
but that information is kept confidential with the case-workers because they
don’t want people to not want to be involved or hired in their business.
Oftentimes these companies also are given financial incentives for hiring
ex-felons. Most often these occurs as tax credits up to $2,400 and they also
get incentives such as more monitoring of the case worker over the felon.
At the end of the day, “I just try to treat them
like people”. -- parole officer
I ask them, do you know someone with a criminal
record? Everyone usually does. It easily could have been anyone else that got
caught. They are accepting responsibility for their actions and are wanting to
move on.
Walked in:
intimidated.
Walked out:
thinking these were good people. They were funny and caring. I noticed in class
that they don’t want their children to follow in their footsteps, and they want
to be there for their children. They don’t want them to grow up without a
father. Many of them seemed happy, and ready to find employment, make money,
and start a new life.
Eddie Winslow
TDCJ Parole Officer
512-908-9390
Appendix C: Slides from Oral Presentations
Pr
esentation 1: Social Problem
Handout
esentation 1: Social Problem
Handout
Presentation 2: A Critical and Moral A
nalysis on an Argument
nalysis on an Argument
Presentation 3: F
inal Presentation
inal Presentation
References
Bovard, J.
(2013). Making the workplace friendly for felons; U.S. demands ‘no questions
asked’ of job applications. The
Washington Times. Opposing
Viewpoints in
Context.
Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS): Recidivism (2013). Office of Justice Programs: Bureau
of Justice Statistics.
Carco
Group, Inc. 5000 Corporate Court, Suite 203, Holtsville, NY 11742;
1-800-969-2272; www.carcogroup.com.
(Con Stakeholder).
City of
Milwaukee. (2013). 2000 Census Summary: City of Milwaukee general population
data.
Department of City Development. 1990
and 2000 Census Files.
Clear, T. R.
and Tonry, M. Ed. (2008). The effects of high imprisonment rates on
communities. The University of Chicago:
Crime and Justice.
Don, E. L.
(2013). Background checks: when and how to use them. CPA Practice
Management Forum, 9(6), 17-20.
Freeman, R.
(2003). Can we close the revolving door?: recidivism vs. employment of
ex-offenders in the U.S. Can We Close the Revolving
Door?: Recidivism vs.
Employment of Ex-Offenders in the
U.S., 19.
Ford, M.
(2009). Jobs
for felons: how to find employment if you have a criminal record.
Camarillo, CA: Elite Minds, Inc.
Formerly
Convicted Citizens Project (2013). “Ban the Box”. Formerly Convicted
Citizens Project.
Henry, J. S.
(2008). Criminal history on a “need to know” basis: employment policies that
eliminate the criminal history box
on employment applications. Justice
Policy
Journal, 5(2).
The Heritage
Foundation. 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington, DC, 20002; (202)-546-4400; www.heritage.org.
(Con Stakeholder).
Kappeler, V.
E. & Potter, G. W. (2005). The
mythology of crime and criminal justice: fourth
edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press,
Inc.
Katel, P.
(2012). Criminal Records and employment. CQ
Researcher, 22,
349-376.
Lessack, S.
K. (2013). Considering arrest and conviction records in employment
decisions. Employee Benefit Plan
Review, 67(7), 5.
Lockwood,
S., Nally, J., Knutson, K., & Ho, T. (2012). A comprehensive study on post-
release employment among offenders
in Indiana. Corrections
Compendium, 37
(1), 1-7.
National
Association of Professional Background Screeners. 1901 N. Roselle Road, Suite 920, Schaumburg, IL 60195;
888-686-2727; www.napbs.com. (Con Stakeholder).
National
H.I.R.E. Network. 225 Varick St., New York, NY 10014; 212-243-1313; www.hirenetwork.org.
(Proponent Stakeholder).
National
Employment Law Project. 75 Maiden Ln, Suite 601, New York, NY 10038; 212-285-3025; www.nelp.org.
(Proponent Stakeholder).
Nixon, W.
B., & Kerr, K. M. (2008). Background
screening and investigations: managing
hiring risk from the HR and security
perspectives.
Burlington, MA: Elsevier, Inc.
Roberts, B.
(2004). Close up on screening: Use of criminal records and credit histories in
hiring decisions is coming squarely
under the legislative and policy-making microscope.
Society for Human Resource Management:
shrm.org.
Rodriguez,
M. N. & Emsellem, M. (2013). Ban the box: major U.S. cities and counties
adopt fair
hiring policies to remove unfair
barriers to employment of people with criminal records.
National Employment Law Project.
Ross, J.I.
and Richards, S.C. (2009). Beyond
bars: rejoining society after prison.
New
York. The Penguin Group, Inc.
Sampson,
Robert J. and John H. Laub. (1993). Crime
in the Making: Pathways and Turning
Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Simmons, D.
(2010). Former felons feel boxed in by crime question. The Washington
Times. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context.
St. Edward’s
University. (2013). The
Capstone Handbook: Second Edition.
Austin:
OneTouchPoing-Ginny’s Printing.
Stephan,
J.J. (2004). State prison expenditures, 2001. U.S. Department of Justice:
Office of Justice Programs.
Thompson,
A.C. (2008). Releasing
prisoners, redeeming communities: reentry, race, and politics.
New York and London: New York University Press.
Thompson, H.
(2010). Why mass incarceration matters: rethinking crisis, decline, and
transformation in postwar american
history. Journal
of American History, 97(3),
703-734.
Tonry, M.
(1999). Why are U.S. incarceration rates so high? Crime and Delinquency,
45(4), 419.
United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 131 M St., N.E., Washington, DC 20507; 202-663-4900; www.eeoc.gov.
(Proponent Stakeholder).
United
States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (1987). Conviction records:
Policy
state on the issue of conviction
records under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The United States Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission.
von
Spakovsky, H. A. (2012). EEOC’s protection of felons could hurt minority
hiring.
The Heritage Foundation.
von
Spakovsky, H. A. (2012). The dangerous impact of barring criminal background
checks: Congress needs to overrule
the EEOC’s new employment
guidelines. The Heritage Foundation.
