Rob then break it down. If your argument is so great then make the case and convince the members of the community and the elected officials.
Eric J,I am open to be wrong. There is some language usage that didn't seem original - especially the flip back and forth to we but like I said, I am open to being wrong on this and will acquiesce from that thought process.However, in response to "what I really wanted to say then and what I'm thinking" ---- Imagine how I have felt for years as I have been embarrassed by the Fluctuation in what you write. How about that for a though? Also, imagine how much I want to laugh but my laughter often gets caught in disbelief and I am forced to think how to help folks bypass the rhetoric and come back to reality!!Like I said, I will take your response as you wrote it and stand corrected on my comment.Anyways, here is a thought that you might want to consider relating to this statement that you made --"Originally protected classes were individuals who were part of groups which they usually were born as. Not something that has stemmed from their own actions. Outside of religion and certain fiscal appearance issues many still agree that this was the catalyst for the protected class movement and should continue to be".
Not all Homosexuals are born Homosexuals but yet they all have the privilege of being in the protected class. How do we know that no one is "born" a criminal? We know that one can become a criminal because of many reasons just like one can become a homosexual/bisexual -- for various reasons.Now follow this -- some people have a criminal background because of a mental issue that was there when they were born (that went undiagnosed) or like some Homosexuals, the reason for becoming a criminal was because of of an outside force or choice. How do we protect those who are mentally challenged for whatever reason from birth that has not been diagnosed. Hence, it is very easy to say that we may be discriminating against "mentally challenged" when we do a criminal background -- not knowing the reason for their criminal behavior.While there is no test for gauging "born" homosexuals, the argument can be made that there are tests to gauge Mentally Challenged individuals -- but then again, how do we know if there was no test to determining capability or even to validate to the finite reality that this diagnosis (if a test was performed) didn't miss lots of criminals. As you may know, there are folks walking around who have challenges that most/all of us can't tell they have and no one ever would know.So, while Mr. Barry may not be arguing or putting forth what can be voted on to satisfy some of the "lawsuits" and "insurance" issues, at a quick glance -- that particular argument that you put forth -- if it was utilized by other CM's -- is not a valid one as presented.I can break apart some more of it but I really don't as you have done a good job in your advocacy of your side and I don't want to discredit you when you did such a good job -- minus the part where I thought and still feel that you had some input. So you know, when you use the word "there economy" in the beginning, I have never seen you write "THERE" when it is should be "THEIR" and then your use of "WE" helped with my confusion. Like I said, I will acquiesce from that thought process.Rob RamsonOn Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Eric J. Jones <ejjones.threed@gmail.com> wrote:
Rob,
If you or then truly knew me they would know what I really wanted to say then and what I'm thinking in addition to laughing at your response.
Also had you actually been following this issue more than a few weeks you would have realized that I quickly put together some of testimony which I have provided for the last six or so years on this issue. By the way I always have and always will draft my testimony.Have a good day.
On Dec 10, 2012 6:21 PM, "Rob" <indianrob@gmail.com> wrote:--WOW!! WOW!! WOW!!Eric -- this is so not your writing style. UNBELIEVABLE!!! Ironically, I was just talking to someone earlier about how some of the thoughts don't mesh and it is almost like someone gives you bits and pieces. Now, it seems like someone wrote this for you.RobOn Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Eric J. Jones, MSF <ejjones.threed@gmail.com> wrote:
Commissioner,
The Problem With Barry's Bill (Bill 19-0017)
The problem with you posting this report is that Councilman Barry's original legislation actually predates this report. Councilman Barry has been pushing this effort which was originally brought to his attention as part of the ban the box movement. I had originally posted information to your last inquire but I think that much like many other emails that it has been caught in one of the filters. With that in mind I will try to address some of your concerns while getting ready for my next meeting.
The issue with Councilman Barry's Legislation which came out of Mark-up (which is attached) is that it does not allow businesses to obtain the much needed information in the manner which best allows business to operate. While we understand how such amendments have worked in places such as NYC and Philly there economy is not has heavily based on government work and contracts as this region is. An example of this would be a construction contractor who is doing work required on a secure site. These companies have usually 2 – 4 weeks to develop a team or hire additional staff to work on a project. In this instance these companies are not able to have individuals who won't pass a background check which will include the majority of individuals with felony convictions from working on a project. For this reason the company must be able to know prior to hiring an individual if they have items which will prevent them from passing the required background check. Not only from the standpoint of being able to find individuals who meet all of the qualifications to work on the job but also because the cost of a background check is a cost that the employer must cover and which can be very expensive. If a company knows prior to that an individual will not be able to pass this is an additional cost which must be covered by a company not the person providing them the contract in most cases. In addition in many professions companies must obtain certain types of insurance and otherwise for their company and projects they may be working on. If a company hires someone who may cause them to lose their insurance coverage because they were unable to inquire about the past or ask questions which will help identify potential red flags this can cause companies great issues.
As it relates to legal cases you asked how a company would be open to expanded legal cases well if an individual feels that the only reason that they were not hired for a job is because of their criminal background this legislation gives the person the right to demand a case which must be brought by the Government. The individual doesn't have to provide anymore information other than the fact that they weren't hired or that they were hired and then let go when it became apparent that they were an ex-offender. In the majority of cases where employers release employees because of this the company would win the case but the legal cost at an average of $500 - $700 an hour for doing the correct thing again is a cost which a company can't pass along to a client or the government. Further the company can't pass it on to the individual who filed the complaint.
These examples were explained in detail by several individuals who previously worked on the DHS project. Many individuals who had previously worked as Journey Person Electricians were forced to leave the job site because after they started their backgrounds came back and they failed the clearance process. Likewise there were many examples from the Pentagon rebuild after 9/11 and subsequent improvements for Electricians and Plumbers. In some cases companies were forced to leave job sites or faced penalties and fines related to delays for not completing the jobs in the time agreed upon because they had to go out and hire increased staff.
The issue from this standpoint isn't about not hiring ex-offenders as testimony has stated time and time again but about which information employers are able to obtain prior to. In many cases and in many areas this isn't an issue and having a criminal background isn't an issue. You can see this on projects such as Dunbar Senior High School (in Ward 5), the O Street Market Project (where several ex-offenders are working) and the Sheridan Station Project in Ward 8 for which WCS Construction (a Ward 8 based General Contractor) was named First Source Employer of the Month for several months in a row because it worked with the subcontractors on the project to set local hiring goals. The majority of the individuals hired were from Wards 7 & 8 and the nearly half were ex-offenders. This effort not only allowed them to reach the required first source goals for new hiring but in many instances surpass them greatly.
The Alternative
You asked about an alternative which was being offered and pushed by the business community well Councilman Mendelson's bill actually encompasses the majority of them and very much mirrors a great deal of the recommendations in the report from the NY bar which you presented (again thank you for posting that). The business community has recommended models such as this for the last three legislative session but was only able to get it through this time. The falsehood is that many of the businesses in the city don't hire ex-offenders which isn't true. Certain industries are flush with ex-offenders and will continue to be. The issue is what is required for them to do so. As Kenny from Miller and Long always states there are different hurdles which must be addressed but when the companies are able to do so in many cases ex-offenders make some of the best employees in certain trades.
At the same time the business community has continued to encourage the city and local training groups to look at models which has worked in other areas such as the Delancy Project. I mean in years past the group has tried to work with Councilman Barry to remove liability in certain areas for companies for the actions of employees who may have criminal backgrounds which he was willing to do but that is where he has ended it. The community as a whole fundamentally disagrees with making them a protected class and I personally also agree. Originally protected classes were individuals who were part of groups which they usually were born as. Not something that has stemmed from their own actions. Outside of religion and certain fiscal appearance issues many still agree that this was the catalyst for the protected class movement and should continue to be.
This is not to say that you should discriminate against our returning citizens because not one group has stated as such. It is just where they stand on the issue of how to best deal with it. When making a group a protected class the legal cost of dealing with any issue escalates and this is only a hindrance on having businesses come to or stay in our city. We feel that instead of again working to pass legislation to mandate that you postpone asking a question which in most cases will eventually be asked and cause that person the job that we should work to create more opportunities for this population much as what is done for veterans and long term employed who have been laid off.
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: wardfive@googlegroups.com [mailto:wardfive@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gigi Ransom
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:57 AM
To: wardfive@googlegroups.com; Ward5
Subject: Re: [WardFive] CSOSA Article: "The Struggle for Employment-Ex-Offenders
Jerry,
You touched on another important issue related to ex-offenders who would be considered "untrained". We are well aware from years of extensive private and public commissioned studies, reports, also on State/City levels, that illiteracy, prior abuse, poor training before and after incarceration; not able to pass the required testing while in prison to qualify for an on-site training program; or a desire not to, which could also be directly influenced by knowing they lack having the basic educational foundation and other matters; hinder some ex-offenders from being considered in the job market after release.
Conversations on the "have-nots" is good, but distracts from getting to the heart of the matter pertaining to the problems of prejudice/discrimination confronted by our returning citizens, though having paid their debts to society, the many who have worked towards and obtained job skills, are still given a negative permanent classification, which comes from the focused, conditioned, accepted mantra (definition #2-an expression or thinking that is repeated, often without thinking about it, and closely related to something), "once a criminal, always a criminal." Again, studies have proven this form of thinking and classification on all of the individuals who paid their debt, are remorseful, has shown efforts to be rehabilitated by self-determination and/or training and have a strong desire to become a productive, contributing member of society are rooted in this form of conditioned thinking to classify all who offended, without exception.
An analogy of this is the expression, "a white man is in a bar, has too much to drink and falls of the stool. He is picked up, considered to have drunk too much and will get over it, with all forgiven. A Black man is in a bar, has too much to drink, and falls off the stool, and all Blacks are considered drunks." Flat out discrimination by race classification.
These deficiencies has been taken into consideration; however, the focus of both bills is directed at those returning citizens who do have the skill sets, or close to them, which is what I really was trying to get out of Eric since he has stated he is a lobbyist for the industry, which is what are the differences in the legislative bills that caused the concern of the Chamber about CM Barry's bill, along with what was the Chamber's recommendations to protect their interests in Cm Barry's bill if any.
In an EM, Ms. Lang described CM Barry's attempt to have ex-offenders placed in a protected class as, "
"Two bills are currently in front of the Council, both of which have the laudable goal of easing re-entry into society for ex-offenders, and helping them find gainful, meaningful employment. One of these bills, the "Re-entry Facilitation Amendment Act of 2012" (B19-889), sponsored by Council Chair Phil Mendelson, is well thought out and based on comprehensive research done by the Council for Court Excellence. Unfortunately, the other bill, the "Returning Citizens Anti-Discrimination Act of 2012," sponsored by Councilman Marion Barry, is based less on research than on emotion, and would have disastrous effects on our local businesses, universities, hospitals, and the District government itself."
Well, let's see now. CM Barry's bill lacks research, and is based on emotion. Mr. Barry's bill is based on research which I have confirmed from researching the topic. Also, seems legislative bills on all levels are passed around our country every day which posses some kind of emotional attachment, for we are human beings, be it the need for compassion on the part of the bill writer/introducer, and co-sponsors because they can either identify with and/or understand the need to provide protection to their citizens in a specific area or classification, or in essence, do the right thing to better the situation for the requestor be it business related or otherwise.
I am an admirer of Ms. Lang, and for her efforts on the part of those she represents. However, Ms. Lang and many of the business owners (and their workers) she represents seem to have forgotten how they have benefitted from the DC Human Rights Act under some or all of the protections provided against discrimination due to their:
"race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, or political affiliation of any individual."
Remember, there was a time when it was unheard of, unthinkable, forbidden for a woman, period, to be the head of an organization such as hers or a business, much more due to the race and color of the woman's skin. The struggle, full of emotion, desiring compassion, pride, wanting to end being continually denied recognition and advancement because of these negative, demeaning classifications was fought and won through the 1964 Civil Rights Act, other Acts to protect Woman Rights; those with disabilities, etc, to correct these situations.
Yes, there have been incremental legislative steps to correct this discriminatory treatment of ex-offenders, however, after decades of these incremental steps which in some way still allows the business community to find loopholes that allows for barriers to be put in place to deny a qualified ex-offender employment, it is fitting, timely and cost effective to consider including ex-offenders as a protected class in the DC Human Rights Act, for the final destiny of this effort is to bring an end to this travesty of post incarceration injustice.
I commend CM Barry, Alexander, Brown, Graham and McDuffie for their sincere compassion, understanding in this matter, working to protect the interests of this underserved, under appreciated, demeaned, discriminated against special population. I also hope the other CMs will finally see the "Light" for the importance of Bill 19-0017 "Human Rights for Ex-Offenders Amendment Act", based also on pure logic. I'm sure CM Barry will re-introduce in the next legislative session. With his heartfelt compassion, along with the needed patience and understanding, Mr. Barry will continue working to gain the full support from his colleagues and the business community that Mayor/CM Barry played a vital role in helping our business community become what it is today.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963
Albrette "Gigi" Ransom
Commissioner, ANC 5C12
From: Jerome J. Peloquin <jeromepeloquin@fastmail.fm>
To: wardfive@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WardFive] CSOSA Article: "The Struggle for Employment-Ex-Offenders
Friends ...
Ransom,McCormick et al
Issues of human performance on the job are a part of my skill set. I served as Technical Training Manager for Honda America Manufacturing. I was responsible for technical training for 12,000 employees in three plants located in Marysville, Oh. I am also an Organizational Psychologist with 30 + years of experience in workforce issues. Permit me to make a few comments relevant to this issue.
1. In many cases the issue of "qualification," has the principal objective of creating an arbitrary barrier to employment. Because people are poor and ignorant does not mean they are not smart and very capable of learning given the opportunity.
2. The problem is often with the training and not the trainee. In addition, training courses designed to provide basic skills are often sub standard and many topics irrelevant to the job being taught.
3. Most training is poorly designed and ineffective.
4. At Honda we often hired people who could not read ... we taught them! Reading, although very important, in not necessarily a hard barrier to employment.
5. Job descriptions and qualifications are often written by people (personnel, HR etc) who know little about thre job.
6. Organizations need to take more responsibility for finding and training community residents. We tried to get that included in the New DC Jobs Bill ... but were unsuccessful.
7. Speak to Marina Streznewski at the DC Jobs Council. She represents most of the training organizations here in the district.
I would be glad to volunteer any support you may wish to address this critical situation. Jobs are essential to the development of any community, for dignity and for self respect. There are many artificial barriers to training and jobs that can be removed. We need to stop lying to people about jobs and we need to eliminate phony barriers to employment.
Jerry in Support
----- Original message -----
From: Gigi Ransom <gigifor5c12@yahoo.com>
To: "wardfive@googlegroups.com" <wardfive@googlegroups.com>, Ward5 <ward5@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [WardFive] CSOSA Article: "The Struggle for Employment-Ex-Offenders
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 12:20:53 -0800 (PST)
Jerrry,
Thanks for the updated information. I agree and aware the National Capital Jobs Coalition has been doing an outstanding job in this effort. Will go to their site to be informed. Also agree to be working together.
Albrette "Gigi" Ransom
From: Jerome J. Peloquin <jeromepeloquin@fastmail.fm>
To: wardfive@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2012 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WardFive] CSOSA Article: "The Struggle for Employment-Ex-Offenders
As we are The National Capital Jobs Coalition, we participated in the drafting of this much improved Workforce Intermediary ... law. Gigi, Rob, et al ... please read the (new) law. The 51% hiring level is the "old," law. It was easily defeated by construction companies through tricks and deception. The new law requires specific percentages of wages to be paid to well defined classification of workers and it defines those clearly. It is NOT discriminatory. It was created to avoid the dishonest behavior of the contractors and developers who defraud both the city and its workers on a daily basis. This includes wage theft and other nefarious practices as well.
I believe most of us on this list serve are on the side of the DC worker! Let us reason together so that we may present a united front in defense of DC citizen's right to work in their own city.
Jerry in Advocacy
----- Original message -----
From: Gigi Ransom <gigifor5c12@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WardFive] CSOSA Article: "The Struggle for Employment-Ex-Offenders
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 09:29:42 -0800 (PST)
I have always been uncomfortable with certain aspects of the "First Source Agreement" in that there are additional steps added for the DC resident that is not required of other workers, which I feel is discriminatory. For these type of projects, all workers should have to go through if not the same, some form close to it, so that 51% requirement is fulfilled as close as possible from the start of the project, not trying to fulfill it during the 3rd to the end of a project.
Albrette "Gigi" Ransom
From: Rob <indianrob@gmail.com>
To: wardfive@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [WardFive] CSOSA Article: "The Struggle for Employment-Ex-Offenders
Good morning Ward 5,
Over the last four years, there were so many Crains in the skyline that the deputy mayor was touting that he enjoyed counting them and seems to always be so proud of his accomplishments. Driving by those sites, I see a ton of hispanic and White men with most of the vehicles tags being from out of state.
In addition, I would imagine that "hiring" off site adds quite a few steps of difficulty as I think that the "security" issue is some ______.
Rob Ramson
On Dec 9, 2012 11:48 AM, "Gigi Ransom" <gigifor5c12@yahoo.com> wrote:
I recall in posts over a couple of years, I've already emphasized the impact of the transition of the economy from about 2006-7; the lull we had for a few years; and the accelerated re-started a couple of years ago and last year as the economy stabilized with examples of the completion of the build up of the 1st St NE corridor, old Convention Center site, old EPA buildings in SW, and many other major and minor sites around the city, which now also includes many small businesses that have popped up due to the "restored confidence" in the ability to obtain financing.
I've also posted about the fact that returning citizens would have problems with being hired for the Ward 8 Homeland Security project because of federal laws for this type of federal project, so that is not an issue. However, other qualified and entry level DC residents (for the most part, you don't need specialized skills to pickup and remove construction debris) can do the work as Mrs. Norton has and is working to achieve.
All old news!
The continual, "DC residents don't have the skills, or are poorly trained (directed at the Unions) is untrue, and is a highly designed mindset conditioning form of prejudice and discrimination, plain and simple.
Even Chairman Mendelson recognizes this problem, when as then CM at-large and Chair of the Judiciary Committee states in this article (dated 2011), "There are multiple barriers for ex-offenders, including prejudice," said "As a felon, they're barred from public housing. They can't find a job, and it's hard to survive without an income."
This is the core issue that CM Barry's bill, and the support from Alexander, Brown, Graham and one other CM, want to see changed.
The same applies to DC Govt, again, where the person being ostracized, CM Barry, upon first becoming mayor opened up contracting opportunities for small businesses which DC residents took advantage, but as many of these businesses grew, the owners move their homes and some, also their businesses to Wards 9 & 10. There was the same result for then DC residents who became DC Govt employees, showing their thanks by also moving to what they perceived as "the Promised Lands" of Wards 9 & 10, abandoning DC. For those that gained mid to upper mgmt positions, they also focused on "hiring their own", thereby creating this disease of "economic insecurity" for not only our returning citizen population, but also DC residents of any skills level.
The past is over.It is about now and going forward.
What readers/DC residents must keep in mind about this issue as in the past and the same today which compounds our difficulty in addressing this problem is the core fact, where many other States have/are addressing this problem and had success, the success is because the majority of that State's business owners live in that State, contribute to that State, and look to hire their own to also support that State.
FACT, it is not the same here in DC, where the majority of businesses are owned by people who don't live here, executive mgmt don't live here; hire their own first from their own State or another State. This includes many of the small businesses in our communities as we have seen.
Again to the core of the matter, the Chamber is saying there will be lawsuits. Rather than giving such a broad, vague statement, what are the types of lawsuits they perceive might be brought against them so the public can have a better understanding of the Chamber's position? Publicly knowing the concerns would help in the creation of legislation to these concerns if they are valid, or there aren't any valid concerns, just an attempt to continue the status quo?
To the contrary, there are examples of successful state level programs. Two being the NY State and City have functioning legislation on this matter and a well developed Employer's Guide on the matter. http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/Ex_Offender_Employer_Guide_09.pdf (12 pgs)
A study that shows the success of State level ex-offender program by the Urban Institute on Los Angeles, CA: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410779_ExOffenders.pdf
Employer Demand for Ex-Offenders: Recent Evidence from Los Angeles (2002, 42 pgs)
Adding to this, there are already incentives to employers to hire ex-offenders, which the 40% of the employee's salary can be taken as a tax credit, along with the available free Fidelity Bonding Program that provides up to $5,000.00 in coverage for the first 6 months of employment to cover theft or other potential criminal activity, and if the employee is retained thereafter, the employer can continue the bonding at commercial rates. DOES' website is vague on the details (http://onecityonehire.org/pe.aspx) , but I will use the Anne Arundel County Workforce Development Corporation's program to give a better picture of the program to inform:
http://www.aawdc.org/html/federal_bonding.html Anne Arundel County Workforce Development Program: Services for Businesses-Federal Bonding
The Federal Bonding Program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, offers fidelity bonding insurance protection to employers who hire individuals who are considered to be at-risk or hard to place because of:
- History of arrest, conviction or incarceration
- History of substance abuse
- Poor credit history, i.e. bankruptcy
- Lack of employment history (e.g. youth, displaced homemaker)
- Dishonorable discharge from the military
- Special situations requiring a fidelity bond
The Federal Bonding Program is NOT a guarantee of hire. It is an incentive to employers. Eligible individuals will be issued a Letter of Eligibility which they will use when they go on job interviews to let the employer know that they have been determined eligible for the program.
Once an employer agrees to hire an individual and gives a firm first day of work, the employer must contact the State Bonding Coordinator. The fidelity bond insures the business against stealing by theft, larceny, embezzlement or forgery
Eligible individuals receive their Letter of Eligibility from a Local Bonding Coordinator located at a One-Stop Career Center.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a fidelity bond?
It is a business insurance policy that protects the employer in case of any loss of money, products or equipment due to employee dishonesty. The Fidelity Bonds issued under the Federal Bonding Program are insurance policies of the Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company. The McLaughlin Company in Washington, DC is the agent managing the program nationally.
How does the bond help someone get a job?
The bond is provided to the employer free-of-charge for six months, and is offered to encourage the company to hire a job applicant who is an ex-offender or has some other "risk" factor in his/her personal background. The employer is able to hire the individual without taking any risk of worker dishonesty on the job.
What does the bond insurance cover?
It insures the employer for any type of stealing by theft, forgery, larceny, or embezzlement. The bond is for $5,000. It does not cover liability due to poor workmanship, job injuries or work accidents. It is not a bail bond or court bond for the legal system. It is not a contract bond, performance bond, or license bond sometimes needed to be self-employed. Self-employed persons cannot be covered.
What are the restrictions?
The worker must meet the State's legal age for working; there are no other age limits. The job must be for at least 30 hours work per week. Workers must be paid wages with Federal taxes automatically deducted from pay.
Can the bond be issued at any time?
For the bond to be issued, the employer must offer a job to the applicant and set a date for the individual to start work. The job start date will be the effective date of the bond insurance. The insurance policy will terminate six months later. Employment must be verified by the State Bonding Coordinator for the bond to be issued.
From the top of US Government:
President George Bush, "the Second Chance Act":
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. I'm about to sign a piece of legislation that will help give prisoners across America a second chance for a better life. This bill is going to support the caring men and women who help America's prisoners find renewal and hope. I can't thank the folks who care enough about a fellow citizen to offer their love and compassion. It's through the acts of mercy that compassionate Americans are making the nation a more hopeful place, and I want to thank you all for joining us today.
President Obama signed an omnibus appropriations bill on March 11, 2009, for the remainder of fiscal year 2009, which provides $25 million for Second Chance Act programs. He has requested $109 million for the 2010 fiscal year budget. Additionally, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit serves to enable felons in acquiring employment and was extended in May of 2007 to be effective through August 31st, 2011. The law provides tax credits of up to 40% of an individual's salary if the individual has been convicted of, or released from a felony conviction, within one year of the hire. In 2007, the American Bar Association Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions (Commission) developed a series of policy recommendations to "provide the basis for a broad reform agenda to reduce reliance on incarceration and remove legal barriers to offender reentry." The Commission suggested policy changes to provide alternatives to incarceration and conviction, improvements in probation and parole supervision, and employment and licensure of persons with a criminal record.
Let's see, CSOSA states they have over 16,000 current under their oversight. There are probably thousands more who are no longer in CSOSA's system who are experiencing economic insecurity. We have Congressional legislation State/City level legislation; successful State/city level programs; and, plenty of professional organizations' and academic studies and reports providing guidance to businesses. Quite frankly, I can see no excuse for those doing business in DC except for continued financial gain to support their own States and communities at the expense of DC residents, meaning "all is fair in capitalism in DC."
Today, D.C.'s job market has been touted as the most robust and best in the country, but due to the position being taken by the Chamber and some businesses, for those with criminal backgrounds, the outlook is fairly grim.
It would be good to know those businesses that do/have hired DC ex-offenders. They should be recognized and shown appreciation for their showing of compassion and understanding. Having a list of these businesses could allow our ANCs to recognize these businesses and when possible depending on the services provided, DC residents could be directed to support these businesses.
If these businesses who hire DC's ex-offenders are kept a secret, it is hard to believe they exist.
In future EMs on this topic, I will include a study performed by our own Eleanor Holmes Norton, when she was the Chair of the NY Commission on Human Rights and others that refute the position being taken by the Chamber.
Albrette "Gigi" Ransom
From: Eric J. Jones <ejjones.threed@gmail.com>
To: wardfive@googlegroups.com
Cc: Ward5 <ward5@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WardFive] CSOSA Article: "The Struggle for Employment-Ex-Offenders
This was a great article released last year which also a follow up on a great Washington Post Article which was another year or so older which highlighted a lot of the work that Kenny does with Miller & Long to help reach out to others in the construction industry to hire returning citizens. I can tell you that as of the last summer Kenny with the support of M & L and others in the industry was able to start that support group for returning citizens at M & L and it has helped many who work with the company. Likewise I can tell you from working with Tony Lewis, Jr who is a great leader in our ward and the city that there has been some real strides in helping to improve the image and find employment for many of our returning citizens.
This article however doesn't touch on something of great importance. In years past much of the work for returning citizens has been in areas such as Construction at various levels and through other entry level jobs but because of the economy this has become a greater issue. First from the standpoint that many individuals who years ago wouldn't be looking at the entry level jobs are now looking at them because of the economy which is making it harder for them because in many cases they are competing with individuals with more education and without the blemish on their record.
The second issue has been that Construction for the most part has continued to major decline in private/residential construction. This coupled with the troubled economy has caused many journemen to continue to work which means less room to bring in new individuals which in many cases would be apprentices which most of the returning citizens would be. To make matters worse much of the work we see these days (especially in this region) are public private partnerships or public projects such as the DHS headquarters which requires that many of the employees pass background checks. Because of this many of the new positions which would usually go to returning citizens in the industry or even to returning citizens who are already working end up being out of their reach because they can't pass the clearance. During the hearing last week my self and a few others from the industry including two of the union representatives were talking about how problematic this was on the DHS project and talking about various individuals who we have come across in this exact situation.
Likewise what we have also seen in this region is greater difficulty in obtaining the required insurance and other financial securities for companies because they have returning citizens on their employee rosters much like they face with individuals with lower credit scores. This is something that companies are facing which the government (a) hasn't truly worked to try to address and (b) doesn't have a great deal of control over in certain areas.
In addition from a DC standpoint we have seen seen constant decreases in the resources for training and grants to programs such as those run by Covenant House and Goodwill of Greater Washington which worked in large part with returning citizens. All the while we are seeing increased numbers of returning citizens. This coupled with other governmental cuts in programs such as Project Empowerment through DOES and a few other programs has unfortunately almost caused a perfect storm.
Many of these issues is why industries and companies which have had good track records working with returning citizens had to stand against Councilman Barry and his legislation. It wasn't about not wanting to hire returning citizens so much but because of the changed business environment many of those companies now must know before hand who they are looking to hire. Going back to the DHS project many of the companies who did hire in the city were hiring specifically for that project. For some of them they had a time period of 10 - 15 days to staff up prior to starting the job from the time they were awarded a contract. If you take a few days to review and interview individuals and then hire then make them offers you are screwed 5 - 7 days later if not longer when it comes back and they aren't cleared to work. These are the types of issues which have repeated their selves in this city and there are several examples of individuals who were approached by security on the job after having their reports come back and being asked to leave the property not to return.
What truly needs to happen in this city which isn't talked about enough is a real effort in helping to train our returning citizens in not only obtaining the same old jobs which are becoming less and less available but also creating new opportunity for them to gain jobs and open their own businesses.
If I can find my copy of the article from the Post I will share it.
--
Eric J. Jones, MSF
ejjones.threed@gmail.com
"I for one believe that if you give people a thorough understanding of what confronts them and the basic causes that produce it, they'll create their own program, and when the people create a program, you get action."
El Haj Malik El Shabazz--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mailto:wardfive%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mailto:wardfive%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
--
R. Ramson
3744 12th Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C., 20017
202-438-5988
"We must become the change we want to see" - Mohandas Gandhi-
(Together, for a Brighter Tomorrow)
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
--
R. Ramson
3744 12th Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C., 20017
202-438-5988
"We must become the change we want to see" - Mohandas Gandhi-
(Together, for a Brighter Tomorrow)
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment