And what are you thankful for?

I'm thankful for stories like this one that demonstrate that sometimes things do work out and people do get second chances.  Mario Rocha served 10 years  in prison for a  murder he didn't commit, but got out in 2006. Three years later, he's a freshman at  George Washington University studying writing. 

I'm thankful that in his case people like sister Sister Janet Harris who discovered his talent in the juvenile hall writing program and  doubted he was a killer. Ditto  the attorneys at Latham and Watkins who worked on  his appeal pro bono and were open-minded enough to understand a conviction doesn't make someone "bad."

I'm thankful that there are people working in re-entry programs like OAR, and  in community service or addiction treatment to help people get back on their feet again. I'm also thankful that there are business owners who need good employees and are willing to give someone with a record a second chance.

And I'm supremely thankful that so many of the ex-offenders I've worked with have been willing to take responsibility for their pasts and do the truly hard work to turn their lives around.  It's been inspiring to see the changes people have made in their lives.  And I know I'll see much more.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Expungement alert: more seeking to wipe out convictions

If  you've every considered trying to get an expungement, you might want to check out this article in today's Wall Street Journal.   Apparently, a tough job market combined with the fact that the vast majority of exmployers now do background checks  is prompting more ex-offenders to try to clear their records.

I'm still not sure I'd recommend this route, unless you've got the most minor of convictions and were charged in a more lenient state.  (You can check out the rules for your jurisdiction here ).  As the author rightly points out, sometimes even after you go through all the hassle and cost to get your record cleared, employers can find out about it  in other ways: through  arrest records, police reports, news stories and even, sadly, Google. 

That said, the article contains some data worth remembering:

 Background checks have become more commonplace in the years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and cheaper. More than 80% of companies performed such checks in 2006, compared with fewer than 50% in 1998, according to the Society for Human Resource Management, an association of HR professionals.

And this: 

Even 10 years ago, background checks tended to be cursory or expensive. Now, database providers can quickly access information from the country's approximately 3,100 court jurisdictions, charging $10 or less for simple checks.

There's another great reminder in the piece about why honesty about your record -- as painful as it is, and no matter how long it's been -- is still the best policy. One man, arrested more than 20 years  ago on a questionable assault charge, didn't disclose this on his application and was denied work after his record was discovered in a background check.

"If someone has a criminal history, we can work with them," said the company's general counsel Mike. Lehman. "But if they have one and lie to us, that's pretty ominous."

What's most interesting to me: the  fact this issue has come to front burner precisely because people who have been working for years -- some  at jobs they got  before background checks were so universal  -- are only now finding their records coming back to haunt them. That these are ex-offenders with steady work records, who really have put their pasts behind them and lived productively until the economy tanked, could be good news.  It shows that people can change and could lead to greater sympathy and reform.
Not unlike the renewed focus on discrimination that I wrote about here.  As a side note, it's interesting the WSJ poll seems to be running 2 to 1  in support of non-violent ex-offenders being granted expungements.

What do you all think?

Reining in background checks

Given that Americans tend to go for extremes, you knew tons of people would have to have their job prospects quashed by employment background checks before something would change.

Now it appears we might be getting close to that point. Why? Ten percent unemployment means more people looking for work and finding that even arrests or convictions far in the past can come back to haunt them.  Some recent articles (here , here and here), plus conversations I've had with legal and regulatory folks suggest that sympathy may be tilting towards the re-entering job seekers.. 

The EEOC, for example,  is "much more interested in focusing on the effect of criminal records on employment," says EEOC assistant counsel Carol Miaskoff. "To the extent that issues are front burner here (at the agency)," she continues, " this one is." So far this year, the agency has brought two major cases:

• On March 26, the EEOC settled a case against Franke Foodservice in which the company had not hired a black applicant who disclosed a felony conviction on his record even though it hired a white applicant who made a similar disclosure a year earlier. 
• More recently, on October 1, the EEOC filed a case against Freeman Companies, a Baltimore-based events and convention planner, charging that the company had engaged in "a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination by refusing to hire a class of black, Hispanic or male applicants across the United States.

Civil rights law doesn't specifically protect people with criminal records, of course. But the  EEOC has found that policies that exclude individuals based on arrests and convictions that have nothing to do with the job may have a disparate impact on certain populations and therefore constitute discrimination.  So in the Freeman Companies case, for example,  barring people with criminal records from employment was determined to be illegal as it would have more impact on blacks and Hispanics.

Miaskoff was barred from talking about ongoing investigations, but emphasized the if there is proof of systemic discrimination the agency isn't afraid to pursue it. While ex-offenders shouldn't get their hopes up, because these things take awhile, this is not "fantasy."

The EEOC is currently working on new guidelines for employers, as a follow-up to a meeting late last year.
Gabrielle Delagueronniere with the  Legal Action Center in Washington, DC. also recommends individuals encountering discrimination check with the specific laws in the city of state where they live.  Some states such as New York and Wisconsin specifically ban discrimination  based solely on a criminal record, except in cases where the charge is substantially related to the job. For more information check out LAC website, or regulations in your state here.