Phladelphia Inquirer, Monday, March 28, 2011

JANE M. VON BERGEN / Staff

Steve Gordon of Southampton hasn't secured a job since his release from prison despite decades of work experience.

Ex-offenders hope Philadelphia passes 'ban the box' bill this week

By Jane M. Von Bergen
Inquirer Staff Writer

Sometimes the facts are easy:

A 39-year-old mother of four raising her family on welfare and food stamps finds a check next to a Dumpster. Her monthly welfare payment is days away, and there is no food in the house. She signs it, committing fraud.

"I went home and told my kids, 'God sent me a piece of paper that says we're going to eat tonight.' "

That happened to Evelyn Houser, now 70, of North Philadelphia in 1981. In 2010, that conviction - her only brush with the law - meant she wasn't considered for a temporary U.S. Census job.

"It's like a slap in the face," she said.

Sometimes, though, the facts are hard:

Distraught over his dissolving marriage, a man flips out when his estranged wife visits. He ties her up, beats her, and tries to rape her before slashing himself with a knife. That was in 2000, a repeat of a less serious offense in 1972.

In May 2010, Steven Gordon, now 64, was released from prison, and no one will hire him despite decades of experience in food service that includes managing cafeterias providing hundreds of meals a day.

"I'm living with my parents," said Gordon, of Southampton, Bucks County. "If it weren't for them, I'd probably be living in a refrigerator box under a bridge somewhere.

"I put myself in this position. I recognize that. But I have the skills. I know how to do things, but I can't get my foot in the door."

The foot in the door is what City Council is hoping to accomplish Thursday, when it will likely pass a "ban the box" ordinance.

The box is the one on applications that candidates check when asked about arrests or convictions. The box would have to disappear, whether on paper or online.

Also, most employers in the city would no longer be able to ask applicants about their criminal backgrounds until after the first interview. After that, employers could run any checks and ask any criminal history questions they wished.

If Council passes the ordinance, Philadelphia will join many other cities - including Boston, Chicago, and New Haven, Conn. - with similar laws.

Philadelphia's proposed ordinance "doesn't force employers to hire to anyone," said William Nesheiwat, director of legislation for Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, a Democrat, the sponsor.

"It requires the employer to give candidates the opportunity to be judged strictly on their merits during the application and the first interview, because everyone understands the value of a first impression," he said. "Our goal is to create something that helps the individual with a record but does not hurt businesses and their clients."

Groups such as Community Legal Services and the National Employment Law Project favor the measure. The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce opposes it.

"Our members remain concerned that the legislation still poses significant challenges for employers," chamber vice president Joseph W. Mahoney Jr. wrote in a letter to Miller. "The bill presents liability problems for potential employers who may become targets for antidiscrimination litigation."

Michael Aitken, director of governmental affairs for the Society for Human Resource Management, the nation's largest professional HR group, said employers should have the right to do criminal checks. But, he said, most wait until later in the hiring process because those checks are expensive.

Philadelphia's proposal is broader than those in other cities because it is the only one that would apply to most private employers. Elsewhere, the laws apply primarily to city employees, and sometimes to companies that do business with the city.

But some cities provide more protections to ex-offenders.

Boston sifted through its jobs to determine which ones required background checks. It determined that criminal checks would be necessary for government jobs involving money-handling or caring for the young, but not for collecting trash.

The applicant's criminal history is usually not checked until after a conditional offer, and if the applicant is turned down due to the record, there is an opportunity for appeal.

"Where we need a criminal-background check, we're going to run that background check," said Boston's assistant director of human resources, William Kessler. "Then we look at the nature of conviction, how old the conviction is, any evidence of rehabilitation, and we'll make a determination."

Pennsylvania already has a law, rarely enforced, requiring employers to consider only relevant convictions when hiring. New Jersey is considering ban-the-box legislation.

Meanwhile, Rob Hill, 30, of Philadelphia, hopes the city's proposal passes. He grew up in a chaotic home with a dying mother and two younger siblings. As a teen, he became addicted to drugs and then sold them, winding up in jail. "I remember feeling a sense of accomplishment that I could give my mom money when she needed it."

Hill was released in 2006. Now he's a college graduate with a degree in sports management who can't get a job.

"No one is giving me a chance," he said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact staff writer Jane M. Von Bergen at 215-854-2769 or jvonbergen@phillynews.com.

To learn more about this issue, read Von Bergen's "Jobbing" blog: www.philly.com/jobbing

Interview

By Steve Gordon

Today (3-21-11) I got a phone call from Jane Von Bergen of the Philadelphia Inquirer. She wanted to interview me about the recent proposed legislation in Philadelphia to eliminate the box on job applications that asks if you were ever convicted of a crime.

Of course I had an opinion and spoke my peace as I kept her on the phone too long and potentially made her late for a meeting. My apologies Jane.

My position is basically that this is a good thing but only a first step to ex-offender employment. It creates a better opportunity to get a job interview on a more level playing field without the stigma being in place and having the job application tossed without the applicant being given a chance to present himself or herself. It shouldn't matter whether it is a job for an entry level blue collar job or something more advanced.

At this point I refer you to the March issue of Graterfriends as published by The Pennsylvania Prison Society. There is an article I wrote earlier this year and they felt it was relevant to publish in the issue.Employment is a problem all over, but it is more of an issue with those who may not even have enough money for their next meal let alone a place to sleep and call home. Can you spell potential for re offending?

The article published reiterates a lot of what I have written before, but now it is getting out for more people to read. I would like to think it instigated the legislature but this has been a problem long before I came on the scene. However if it helps push along the issue then perhaps I have made a mark for positive reform for ex-offenders.

Back to the legislation that Mayor Michael Nutter has said he will sign. Why just Philadelphia? Why not other cities like Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Scranton, or Allentown to name a few? The problem with that is it is just thinking small. This should be statewide and put in front of Governor Tom Corbett. NO, NO, NO. That is still thinking small. This is a national problem. This should be national. No job application anywhere for any kind of job should have that box on it. It should go the way of the question of a persons date of birth.

Further, no first interviewer should be able to ask the question. The problem there is that in a first interview when work history is talked about there will be a gap in the work history that will have to be explained.

One reality is that there will always be discrimination. A criminal history, black, white, asian, man, woman, young, old, etc. It is a long list. However, how much of this discrimination is relevant to any particular job? It is supposed to be who is most capable of doing the best work for the job being hired for. I am willing to bet that there a plenty of HR people out there second guessing hiring the best dressed, sweet talking applicant with the best resume when someone else, perhaps even an ex-offender, would have fit into the company and done the job better.

Look at it from another point of view if you are an employer. Here is a chance to put an ex-offender back to work and allow that individual to prove themself and then the company can lay claim to helping the community by helping this part of it be productive and useful.

I pursued an issue I had with Applebees managed by a company called The Rose Group. Eventually I got a name and number for someone in HR. I phoned  Paul Trzaska and we had a nice conversation about all of the above. I have seen flyers on employment boards that Applebees is ex-offender friendly so I pursued a job as a Host. One facility is within walking distance from my reisdence.

The bottom line is that there is no hard definition except for some restaurtants in certain areas. The ones I applied to are not in those kind of areas. Your neighborhood bar and grill with a family atmosphere is in some way ex-offender friendly. It does get stickey when you get into the area of felony convictions, but again there is not a no hire policy. It seems to be a store-by-store decision. It is a gray area loophole, but at least on paper this company is open to the idea.

The legislation in Philadelphia needs to be expanded and in the process employers need to see that as a group, ex-offenders have a lot to offer and can be productive. A friend who has position in the county calls my offence "a moment in time" and says it does not define who I am. As I try to move on with my life I think the nations employers, big and small, need to do the same and look beyond the glitter and to the meat and potatoes of what a potential empoyee can do for them.

Hire an ex-offender.