by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Sep 12, 2013
Recently, the Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) conducted its second working group meeting on the issue of prisoner reentry. Working group members traveled from across the metro-Atlanta area to convene with like-minded professionals who desire to see prisoners succeed in reentering society. The members come from a variety of professional backgrounds, including criminal justice agencies, various non-profits, addiction recovery, research, and reentry consulting (not to mention one member is a former prisoner himself).
Employment is the first area of focus that we chose to address as a working group. This was a logical place to start because of the critical role employment plays in the successful reintegration of offenders. For starters, having a job enables ex-offenders to meet their basic needs for food, housing, clothing, and transportation. Secondly, it affords them the means to meet various obligations that they may have, including paying child support, court fees, damages, and restitution. Last but not least, work provides offenders with an important sense of purpose, accomplishment, and worth which are essential for human thriving. For all of these reasons, having a job and maintaining it is one of the strongest antidotes for recidivism.
However, getting a job is not that easy for a person coming out of a prison. One of the main reasons for this is due to the fact that he carries an unattractive criminal record.
Each time an ex-offender seeks a job, he must face the dreaded question “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”
It is precisely his response to this question that will most likely disqualify him from the job that he seeks. It is not likely that he will get a chance to explain his arrest or conviction to the employer before he is screened from the pool of applicants. All the ex-offender wants is the opportunity to demonstrate that he is the right man for the job, but the box on the application keeps him from showing the employer the extent to which he is qualified.
It would be easy to condemn employers for not hiring more ex-offenders, but we also must consider their point of view. Employers desire to hire the best possible candidates for positions that they are trying to fill, and they may reasonably feel that a college graduate better suits a given position than a 30-year-old ex-offender with no prior work experience. Employers want workers who have demonstrated success, who have proven their reliability, who will represent their company well, who are effective at managing their time, and who can appropriately handle stressful situations. They want problem-solvers, and they have little patience for problem-creators. If they have reason to believe that an ex-offender may create issues in the workplace because of her history, it is understandable why they would show reserve in hiring her.
However, without considering an ex-offender’s qualifications, the obstacles she has overcome, and the potential that she offers, an employer is cutting both himself and the ex-offender short.
In automatically screening those with a criminal history from the pool of applicants and labeling them as a liability to the company, an employer could be passing up his best employee. Many offenders are itching to prove themselves to employers, to their families, and to the community, and they will go to great lengths to do just that. They want to demonstrate that their lives have been turned around; they want to show that they can provide for the needs of their families; they want a shot at redemption.
In discussing this reality, the working group agreed that employers should take three things into consideration in order to ensure a fair hiring process. These include the nature of the crime committed and its relation to the position sought, the amount of time that has elapsed since the crime, and the qualifications of the ex-offender in reference to the job. By taking these criteria into account, the employer can assess the risk that the ex-offender may pose to her company, while also evaluating the value that he would bring.
Finally, the group discussed the benefits that could occur by an employer postponing the question about criminal history until after the interview is conducted. This policy would be good for several reasons: It would allow the ex-offender to put his best foot forward during the job interview; it would enable the employer to critically evaluate the applicant’s qualifications independent of his record; and finally, it would give the ex-offender a chance to explain his felony conviction in person. This process would promote fairer hiring practices and would greatly enhance an ex-offender’s opportunity of getting a job.
And in a world of seemingly insurmountable odds, ex-offenders need all the opportunity that they can get.
Related links:
• Roberta Meyers, Ray P. McClain, and Lewis Maltby, “Best Practice Standards: The Proper Use of Criminal Records in Hiring,” The Legal Action Center, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and National Workrights Institute, 2013, http://www.lac.org/doc_library/lac/publications/Best_Practices_Standards_-_The_Proper_Use_of_Criminal_Records_in_Hiring.pdf.
• Paul Samuels and Debbie Mukamal, “After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry. A Report on State Legal Barriers Facing People with Criminal Records,” A Report by the Legal Action Center, 2004, http://www.lac.org/roadblocks-to-reentry/upload/lacreport/LAC_PrintReport.pdf.
• Margaret Colgate Love, “Relief from the Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Conviction: A State-by-State Resource Guide,” Prepared with support from an Open Society Institute fellowship, October 2005, http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/4cs/files/2008/11/statebystaterelieffromcccc.pdf.
• “How to Cut Prison Costs” New York Times, November 10, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/how-to-cut-prison-costs.html.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Sep 9, 2013
As a delivery consultant with Georgia Center for Opportunity I have recently been engaged with an inspirational organization named Every Woman Works (EWW), located in Sandy Springs, Georgia. EWW can technically be described as an organization that provides training in a safe, therapeutic and supportive environment where women who are recovering from addictions, in transition from the penal system, recovering from domestic violence, living in poverty, or homeless, have an opportunity to develop solid, transferable work skills to strengthen their sense of self confidence and to obtain financial independence. However, it is so much more than that.
When you walk through the door of EWW, you are warmly greeted by staff members who wear yellow and black, the colors of their bee logo, and a lovely bee brooch. Multiple affectionate hugs are bestowed upon you, as employees have a daily hug quota. Each day’s training begins with an “Hour of Empowerment”, a blend of inspirational speaking, singing and dancing; and yes, you will sing and you will dance. The positive energy is intoxicating.
Then there are the “students”, the vulnerable women who are served by EWW. As you begin to hear their stories of struggle and triumph, one after the other, your heart softens and often weeps. EWW changes the hearts, minds and ultimately the lives of so many women who come, desperate to be free of their pain and insecurity. The process is initiated through love and acceptance and ends in accomplishment and confidence.
Miss Tillie, EWW’s Executive Director, asked me to participate in their annual fundraising event, Stars Dancing to Change Lives. How could I say “no”? Although I am no star, I am currently training with a professional dance partner, Buddy Stotts, and will dance on Saturday, October 5th. Each dancer is raising funds for EWW through donation “votes”, sponsorships and event ticket sales. If you would like to support this incredible organization, please visit starsdancingtochangelives.org and vote for your favorite dancers by offering a donation. In fact, a vote for Linda Newton and Buddy Stotts would be much appreciated.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Aug 26, 2013
The Supreme Court has established that well-designed school choice programs are constitutional at the federal level. However, this has not stopped school choice opponents in Alabama from asking a federal court to block the state’s new law that gives tax breaks to families who transfer from a failing public school to a non-failing public or private school to help offset tuition and transportation costs.
The challenge is based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs argue that poor and rural students are unable to benefit from the law and are thus trapped in failing schools.
The claim that it will be difficult for poor and rural students to benefit from the program has merit. Many rural families live too far from a good public or private school, and the $3,500 tax credit may not be enough to help some poor families afford private school tuition.
However, this is not a valid reason to strike down the law. With so many challenges to ensuring that all students are attending a quality school, it is impossible for one solution to help all students. That should not mean that students who can benefit from this law should remain stuck in failing schools.
What it does mean is that policy makers need to find additional ways to help poor and rural students who may not be able to benefit from the current law. To help poor students, school choice programs should ensure that scholarship amounts are high enough to help the poorest students afford school options, such as including a sliding scale to provide the greatest help to those with the greatest need.
One way to help rural students is to provide high quality virtual learning. This would help students access classes they otherwise might not have access to, such as physics or foreign languages. Policy makers could also create charter schools that serve multiple counties. Pataula Charter Academy in southwest Georgia is a great example of this type of school.
Students and schools face different challenges that require a variety of solutions. While Alabama’s new school choice program might not help all students escape failing schools, it’s a good start.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Aug 22, 2013
Last week the parents, teachers, and administrators of the Druid Hills High School cluster overwhelmingly voted to become a charter school cluster. The 92 percent vote for approval was well above the 60 percent threshold required by the untested state law.
Supporters expressed dissatisfaction with bloated administrative budgets, the DeKalb school board’s troubled history, and threats to accreditation.
If the petition is approved by the DeKalb school board and the state, the cluster of seven schools serving 5,000 diverse students would have its own governing board with authority over staffing, pay, and curriculum.
Neighborhoods around the state are watching to see how the process plays out. If the Druid Hills High cluster successfully implements the changes, expect to see other neighborhoods – especially those with troubled school boards – pursue this new tool to expand parental power and school autonomy.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Aug 13, 2013
On Monday the Atlanta school board unanimously approved the Atlanta Classical Academy, a K-8 charter school scheduled to open for the 2014-15 school year. With about 10 percent of APS students attending locally approved charter schools, the district continues to be a leader in offering public school options.
The board approved the new charter school despite objections from Superintendent Erroll Davis, who argued that the board should reject all charter applications until the Georgia Supreme Court rules on whether charter schools should have to contribute toward payment of the district’s pension liability of more than $500 million. Atlanta charter school teachers do not receive benefits from the district’s pension system, but the district is withholding $2.8 million from the district’s charter schools in an effort to force them to pay part of last year’s unfunded pension.
While Davis recommended denial, the district’s review committee found that the petition was worthy of approval based on the quality of the application. Davis’s opinion is another example of public schools placing the needs of adults over students.
Commendably, the board prioritized providing students with high quality options and approved the school.
