BACK ISSUES
| Volume 35 Number 126 Thursday, October 09, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 125 Thursday, October 02, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 124 Thursday, September 25, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 123 Thursday, September 18, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 122 Thursday, September 11, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 121 Thursday, September 04, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 120 Thursday, August 28, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 119 Thursday, August 21, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 118 Thursday, August 14, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 117 Thursday, August 07, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 116 Thursday, July 31, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 115 Thursday, July 24, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 114 Thursday, July 17, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 113 Thursday, July 10, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 112 Thursday, July 03, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 111 Thursday, June 26, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 110 Thursday, June 19, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 109 Thursday, June 12, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 108 Thursday, June 05, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 107 Thursday, May 29, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 106 Thursday, May 22, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 105 Thursday, May 15, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 104 Thursday, May 08, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 103 Thursday, May 01, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 102 Thursday, April 24, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 101 Thursday, April 17, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 100 Thursday, April 10, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 99 Thursday, April 03, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 98 Thursday, March 27, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 97 Thursday, March 20, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 96 Thursday, March 13, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 95 Thursday, March 06, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 94 Thursday, February 28, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 93 Thursday, February 21, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 92 Thursday, February 14, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 91 Thursday, February 07, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 90 Thursday, January 31, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 89 Thursday, January 24, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 88 Thursday, January 17, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 87 Thursday, January 10, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 86 Thursday, January 03, 2008 | | Volume 35 Number 85 Thursday, December 27, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 84 Thursday, December 20, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 83 Thursday, December 13, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 82 Thursday, December 06, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 81 Thursday, November 29, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 80 Thursday, November 22, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 79 Thursday, November 15, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 78 Thursday, November 08, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 77 Thursday, November 01, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 76 Thursday, October 25, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 75 Thursday, October 18, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 74 Thursday, October 11, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 73 Thursday, October 04, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 72 Thursday, September 27, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 71 Thursday, September 20, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 70 Thursday, September 13, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 69 Thursday, September 06, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 68 Thursday, August 30, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 67 Thursday, August 23, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 66 Thursday, August 16, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 65 Thursday, August 09, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 64 Thursday, August 02, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 63 Thursday, July 26, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 62 Thursday, July 19, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 61 Thursday, July 12, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 60 Thursday, July 05, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 59 Thursday, June 28, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 58 Thursday, June 21, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 57 Thursday, June 14, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 56 Thursday, June 07, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 55 Thursday, May 31, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 54 Thursday, May 24, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 53 Thursday, May 17, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 52 Thursday, May 10, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 51 Thursday, May 03, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 50 Thursday, April 26, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 49 Thursday, April 19, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 48 Thursday, April 12, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 47 Thursday, April 05, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 46 Thursday, March 29, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 45 Thursday, March 22, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 44 Thursday, March 15, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 43 Thursday, March 08, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 42 Thursday, March 01, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 41 Thursday, Febuary 22, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 40 Thursday, Febuary 15, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 39 Thursday, Febuary 08, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 38 Thursday, Febuary 01, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 37 Thursday, January 25, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 36 Thursday, January 18, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 35 Thursday, January 11, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 34 Thursday, January 04, 2007 | | Volume 35 Number 33 Thursday, December 28, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 32 Thursday, December 21 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 31 Thursday, December 14 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 31 Thursday, December 14 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 30 Thursday, December 7 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 29 Thursday, November 30 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 28 Thursday, November 23 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 27 Thursday, November 16 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 26 Thursday, November 9 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 25 Thursday, November 2, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 24 Thursday, October 26, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 23 Thursday, October 19, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 22 Thursday, October 12, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 21 Thursday, October 5, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 20 Thursday, September 28, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 19 Thursday, September 21, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 18 Thursday, September 14, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 17 Thursday, September 7, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 16 Thursday, August 31, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 15 Thursday, August 24, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 14 Thursday, August 17, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 13 Thursday, August 10, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 12 Thursday, August 3, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 11 Thursday, July 27, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 10 Thursday, July 20, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 9 Thursday, July 13, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 8 Thursday, July 6, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 7 Thursday, June 29, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 6 Thursday, June 22, 2006 | | Volume 35 Number 5 Thursday, June 15, 2006 |
|
Home
|
More U.S. Cities Removing Criminal Record Questions from Job Applications |
|
|
|
Thursday, 12 July 2007 |
|
RIALTO/ SAN BERNARDINO
By Chris Levister
“Ban the Box” Effort Rejected in San Bernardino
Michelle Freeman is no stranger to the pulls, prods and humiliation of finding a job.
In less than a month she filled out more than 30 applications. Freeman, who has an associate degree in business, is bright, articulate and driven to reenter society after serving 11 months in prison for possession of a controlled substance. "Walking out of those prison gates was the beginning of the rest of my life. So I thought."
As she fills out an application, she comes upon the fatal question: "Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony by a criminal or military court? List all convictions. Attach additional sheets if necessary."
"To a person with a conviction in their past, the question might as well read "ex-cons need not apply," says the 40-something mother of two sons.
After being released Freeman eagerly entered the San Bernardino based Time for Change Sober Living program. Within days she was beating the pavement looking for work.
"I had all these plans. I started putting in applications for jobs. Suddenly there was this wall. Everytime I went to fill out an application I would break out in a cold sweat. Checking the yes box was like being stabbed repeatedly in the back," Freeman says fighting back tears.
Last year Freeman -- desperate to find work - lied on an application. "I crossed my heart and checked no. To my surprise I not only got an interview - I got the job."
 Michelle Freeman and Tasha Banken want fairness for law abiding ex-offenders, who are often barred from employment, housing, student loans and public assistance because of youthful mistakes, and minor crimes committed in the distant past. Freeman says after disclosing the truth, she posed a telling question to Redlands employer Primeline Products. "If I had checked yes would you have considered the application? The lady was very honest, she said no." Freeman worked at Primeline a year. She was laid off recently due to a slowing economy. A spokesman for the company called Freeman, "an exemplary employee."
Found on an increasing number of applications for jobs, housing, scholarships, loans, and even public assistance, "the box" has become one of the most significant barriers facing the more than 50 million people in the United States who have a criminal record that will show up on a routine background check.
Even after having paid fines, completed community service and time served in prison or jail people like 36 year old Tasha Banken, convicted of commercial burglary are forced to disclose the past over and over.
"It's like you walk out of one prison cell into another," Banken says. "When I check a box revealing a prior conviction on an application I am almost never called back by the employer."
Last week the San Bernardino City Council rejected a proposal to remove questions about job seekers' criminal history from municipal job applications. Instead, council members voted to move questions about convictions to the end of the city application form.
San Bernardino was the first Inland government agency to consider "Ban the Box," a nationwide effort to remove criminal background questions from employment applications.
Kim Carter, lead organizer for the San Bernardino chapter of All of Us or None/Ban the Box, criticized a report on the subject by the city's personnel director Linn Livingston.
"The report to the council was politically motivated, incomplete and inaccurate." Carter insists banning the box does not require the employer to hire anyone, nor does it prohibit the employer from conducting a background check prior to the job offer. "We are not attempting to keep employers from doing background checks. We agree a person with a drug abuse history should not be considered for a job in a pharmacy. However, to systematically bar an applicant from consideration because of a criminal past is morally wrong." said Carter who served prison time for drug use.
Livingston defended the city's long standing application procedures, pointing out that current hiring practices consider how long ago an offense occurred, the seriousness of the crime and its relevance to the position sought.
Carter predicted the council's decision will come home to roost. "San Bernardino
locks up more people per capita than any other city in the state. The consequences are huge - eventually 75 to 80 percent of those people will be released back into the community."
Across the country cities and counties are undoing the stigma and discrimination that follows people with criminal records. Major U.S. cities (including Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis,
San Francisco, St. Paul and Alameda County California) are calling the dreaded question - hypocritical and discriminatory. As Mayor Richard Daley explained when he announced Chicago's new hiring policy. "Implementing this new policy won't be easy, but it's the right thing to do....We can not ask private employers to consider hiring former prisoners unless the City practices what it preaches."
Other big cities like Philadelphia, Newark, N.J., Indianapolis and Los Angeles - all currently considering the "Ban the Box" measure - are ground zero for the record numbers of people with a criminal record who are now struggling to find work and contribute to their communities. The U.S. locks up more people than any other nation, and therefore releases more people from prison each year - more than 650,000 per year (120,000 per year in L.A. County alone). And with a job market that increasingly locks out people with criminal convictions experts say it is no wonder that nearly 70% of people who come home from California prisons return within one year of their release.
"How can we in good conscience expect people with past convictions to turn their lives around when we force them to wear shackles," said Supervisor Yvonne Burke. Her motion called the Fair Employment Resolution would remove the criminal conviction question from L.A. applications. The measure has widespread city council support including recommendations from former police chief Bernard Parks and the city's personnel department.
"After putting in so many applications," says Freeman, "You feel numb, discouraged and humiliated. Then the survival mode kicks in and signs of the old criminal behavior reemerge."
Freeman's message to employers: "Give me a job paying $15 an hour and help me contribute to my community or deny me a job and pay my health care costs plus a minimum of $100,000 a year to incarcerate me."
|
|
 |
October 2008 |
 |
|
|
|