Employers, Give Ex-Offenders a Chance
By: Justin Nolan
Tags: Reducing Recidivism, Inequality, Criminal Justice Reform, Hiring, Ban The Box

=

Criminal justice reform has been top of mind for many Americans in recent months. While thinking through how to contribute to the conversation, my experience as a recruiter interviewing candidates with criminal records came to mind. As Americans debate police reform, mass incarceration and racial inequities in the criminal justice system, we should also contemplate the reentry obstacles ex-offenders face. Specifically, that many organizations make it so difficult for ex-offenders to get jobs.

Early in my recruiting career, I worked for a staffing agency that specialized in placing temporary and temp-to-hire employees at call centers. The hourly rate ranged from $9 to $13 per hour depending on the client. Although the pay was often lower than the candidates hoped for, these temp-to-hire opportunities represented their foot in the door at large companies. If the temp performed well, the call center would convert their employment into a full-time position, meaning a raise and benefits. At the time, I thought that system worked well because the employer took on less risk and the candidates had more opportunities. More recently, I realized the system screened out equally-qualified job seekers that needed those opportunities the most.

At my temp agency, my role was primarily serving as a gatekeeper. I screened applicants based on punctuality, professional attire, communication skills and prior experience. The goal was to submit as many candidates to the client as possible thereby increasing the chances to make a placement and earn a commission. While there was potential for unconscious bias in the process, at the time it seemed like a fair approach. The process incentivized recruiters to give the candidate the benefit of the doubt.

Often, during an interview with a qualified candidate, I would decide midway through that I wanted to submit their resume to the client. Sometimes, I would even tell the candidate we were moving forward before realizing my mistake: I did not check the criminal history section of the application. Typically, clients did not want to interview candidates with felonies on their record. Other times, the requirement was no candidates with violent offenses. Sometimes, the client and the recruiting agency had this written into a formal agreement, but other times the two parties had an “understanding.” The recruiting team knew better than to send a candidate with a criminal record. The client justified this understanding by claiming it could not hire the person on a permanent basis, even if they performed well. At least that was the explanation given by the internal Account Manager to the recruiting team and not necessarily grounded in contractual terms.

Upon learning that a candidate had a criminal record, I did not always respond with compassion or empathy. Instead, it led to feelings of selfish frustration: I’m missing out on a placement because of a criminal record again! I wasted a half hour on that interview! At the time, I blindly accepted the norm of not submitting candidates with felonies as an unwritten rule of the industry. Of course, we would not submit a candidate with a drug conviction in their past. As I interviewed more people, I began to anticipate the exasperated sighs and the resigned facial expressions from folks that were hoping this temp agency would be different. The interview was going so well until…

Fast forward several years to present day, a time when inequality and injustice garner much greater scrutiny. I have begun to wonder how ex-offenders are supposed to make a living if so many doors are closed to them. The United States has around 5% of the global population and 20% of its incarcerated people. That statistic is known to many Americans. How to tackle mass incarceration or make change is more difficult. Following George Floyd’s death and the ensuing protests, activists demanded police reforms and a reevaluation of the criminal justice system to decrease racial inequities. If building a more just society is our aim, then we also need to reexamine our employment practices toward ex-offenders. If employers add obstacles that prevent ex-offenders from getting a steady job, then we have added another massive hurdle to their reintegration into society.

One of the main roles of a temp agency is for clients to “try before you buy,” meaning the employer can gauge the temporary employee’s performance, and hire the person based on the merit of the work. Yet if the candidate is an ex-offender, the opportunities to prove one’s worth are limited. Even if half the area’s call centers, factories and distribution centers will hire ex-offenders, the other half will not. Any job seeker would find it dispiriting if half of their career opportunities disappeared.

Two years ago, at a local unemployment office, I listened to a distraught man ask the instructor how to find work when so many employers refused to hire him due to his criminal history. The instructor suggested being persistent and networking in the local community, which was good advice. Both are important steps in finding employment, but it seemed clear to me that he had heard this advice many times before to no avail. Again, the same questions crossed my mind: Why do we make it so difficult for ex-offenders to reintegrate into society? Wouldn’t it benefit us all to give them more of a foothold to rejoin the workforce?

The career obstacles to ex-offenders go beyond getting a job. Federal student aid is limited for those currently incarcerated or with drug and sex convictions. The Small Business Administration asks Paycheck Protection Program loan applicants about felony convictions in the past five years. The loan application indicates the small business is not eligible for the loan if the answer is yes. Thus, if an ex-offender had been arrested within five years, beats the odds to grow a small business, they could be denied a loan that would help keep the business afloat during the pandemic. Again, why do we make it so difficult for ex-offenders to succeed?

Job seekers have gained leverage over the past several years. Many states can no longer require an applicant to disclose salary history. As a result, wages have increased because the employer must offer a competitive salary based on its need, the candidate’s skill set and the available talent pool versus basing it on previous compensation. If we applaud non-disclosure of current salary as a victory for workers, then why wouldn’t we applaud non-disclosure of criminal history? Is it framed as a safety or workplace culture issue? If so, is that an outdated way of thinking if employers truly want to make their hiring policies and practices more equitable?

Thirteen states have passed “ban-the-box” legislation for both public and private employers. This prevents employers from asking about criminal history prior to making a conditional offer of employment. Then, if the company runs a background check and finds a criminal offense, it cannot rescind the offer based on the offense alone. It must make an individualized assessment, ideally entailing an opportunity for the candidate to explain the circumstances and increase the employer’s understanding. Would that be a more fair approach for all states to take?

Bottom line, employers should dispose of the “once a criminal always a criminal” mindset. People make mistakes but can change, grow and adapt. We should make it easier for ex-offenders to earn a living and contribute to society, instead of increasing the likelihood of repeat offenses. Many Fortune 500 companies issued statements supporting Black Lives Matter during the protests. These statements posted on Twitter and Facebook are great and all, but companies can actually take steps to fix inequities through reevaluating hiring practices. Black males are disproportionately arrested, incarcerated and thus are most affected by these hiring restrictions. If state governments are too slow, then take up the mantle for them. Otherwise, these statements regarding Black Lives Matter and diversity ring hollow. If corporations just signal an intent but do not follow through or act, then they are treating the protests as marketing material for their brand. Nothing more.