Category Archives: Ex-offender in Workplace

Marissa McCall Dodson, GJP, Letter to Editor

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Background checks, Criminal Records, Employability of convicted, Ex-offender in Workplace, Inaccurate Information, Low Risk Ex-offender

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

Marissa McCall Dodson’s Letter to the Editor, accurate, yet does not go deep enough into the root problem to really reduce the barrier to employment for the ex-offender.

Marissa headshot
posted on February 7th, 2014

In response to the attached article in the Daily Report on February 3, 2014:  “Public Has Right to Ex-Offender Info, Lawyers Say”, GJP’s Policy Director & Attorney, Marissa McCall Dodson wrote a response.

LETTER: ‘Compelling interest’ Allows Records to be Sealed

Daily Report

February 07, 2014, 12:00 AM

This letter concerns the Daily Report’s Feb. 3 article, “Public has right to ex-offender info, lawyers say.”

My organization, the Georgia Justice Project, is committed to reducing the barrier to opportunities faced by those with criminal records in Georgia and we are pleased with the recent recommendations made by the Criminal Justice Reform Council, specifically the recommendation to prohibit consumer reporting agencies from reporting records sealed under Georgia law.

 

– See more at: http://www.gjp.org/news/marissa-mccall-dodsons-letter-to-the-editor/#sthash.gj4vlsQT.dpuf

Public Has Right to Ex-Offender Info, Lawyers Say

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Background checks, Criminal Records, Employability of convicted, Ex-offender in Workplace, Legislators

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

“The First Amendment does not allow the government to erase history, including arrest histories,” Manheimer said. “No organization—whether it’s a media organization or a consumer reporting agency—should be punished for publishing accurate information about the fact that our government saw fit to place a person under arrest.

Free speech experts raise concerns about allowing suits over reporting on sealed records

Kathleen Baydala Joyner, Daily Report
February 03, 2014, 12:00 AM

 

Clean Tax Credit (MS) better than Re-entry Certificate

08 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by in Background checks, Ban-the-Box, Criminal Records, Employability of convicted, Ex-offender in Workplace, Legislators, Low Risk Ex-offender

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The Council on Criminal Justice Reform recommends Georgia Department of Corrections issue offenders a certificate that certifies the completion of treatment and vocational training while incarcerated.  The existence of the certificate shall provide immunity in any action against an employer or institution alleging lack of due care.

This past December, InfoMart presented to the Senate Expungement Reform committee.  We supported Georgia establishing a program like the Illinois certificate of re-entry, providing a certificate that provides immunity in any action.

In the one month since, MS house bill 806, has changed the way I think about motivating employers to hire ex-offenders.  

MS House Bill 806 – tax credits to employee nonviolent felony offenders

07 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by in Background checks, Criminal Records, Employability of convicted, Ex-offender in Workplace, Low Risk Ex-offender

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Legislature needs to give employers an incentive, like a clean tax credit for employing ex-offenders. Employers with qualified positions would be motivated to employ ex-offenders.

House Bill 806

AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR TAXPAYERS THAT EMPLOY PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF CERTAIN FELONY OFFENSES; TO PROVIDE THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX CREDIT; TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX CREDIT THAT MAY BE CLAIMED IN A TAXABLE YEAR; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:

     SECTION 1.  (1)  Subject to the provisions of this section, a taxpayer that employs a person who has been convicted of a felony offense for a nonviolent crime shall be allowed an annual credit against the taxes imposed under this chapter.  The credit shall be for an annual amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for five (5) years for each person so employed.  However, the tax credit shall not exceed the amount of tax imposed upon the taxpayer for the taxable year reduced by the sum of all other credits allowable to the taxpayer under this chapter, except credit for tax payments made by or on behalf of the taxpayer.  In order to be eligible to claim a tax credit for an employee, the taxpayer must employ the employee for at least nine (9) consecutive months during the year for which the credit is claimed and the employee must work an average of at least thirty (30) hours per week for the taxpayer during that time.  For the purposes of this subsection, the term “nonviolent crime” means and has the same definition as that term has in Section 47-7-3.

(2)  The tax credits provided for in this section shall be in addition to any other credit authorized under law.

(3)  Any taxpayer who is eligible for the credit authorized in this section before January 1, 2017, shall be eligible for the credit authorized in this section, notwithstanding the repeal of this section.

(4)  This section shall be repealed from and after January 1, 2017.

     SECTION 2.  Section 1 of this act shall be codified as a separate section in Chapter 7, Title 27, Mississippi Code of 1972.

     SECTION 3.  This act shall take effect and be in force from and after January 1, 2014.

 

 

 

Benji Man's Blogs

Image

In a time when schools keep closing down and prisons keep opening up, we are having less children born to fill our schools and more criminals going to prison, where will that leave the employable population in the next 50 years?

The Bible has an old phrase “all sin is equal” which sound ridiculous, however the meaning is simply this each crime comes with the same results “prison” it’s only the amount of time you spend in prison that changes.

You’ll often find that a financial crime comes with longer prison sentences than violent crimes.  So, what of an ex cons criminal record?  Should it be important to us in the employment sector? 

Many years ago when society shared many of the same morals and someone had a criminal record it was fair to say that a criminal was clearly a “different” type of member of our community and there…

View original post 659 more words

When “Ban the Box” Goes Bad

06 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Background checks, Ban-the-Box, Criminal Records, Employability of convicted, Ex-offender in Workplace, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Auditors Probe City Background Check Process

December 20, 2013|By JENNA CARLESSO,

HARTFORD — — The Hartford Internal Audit Commission is investigating the city’s policy on background checks, after Mayor Pedro Segarra appointed a man with a history of felony convictions as his deputy chief of staff.

 Probe City Background Check Process.

Beware of “Ban the Box”

06 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Background checks, Ban-the-Box, Criminal Records, Employability of convicted, Ex-offender in Workplace, Low Risk Ex-offender

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Beware of “Ban the Box”

2009 City of Hartford, passed “Ban the Box” ordinance

November 26, 2013 Kennard Ray’s appointment was made public by  Mayor Segarra

November 27, 2013 Ray withdrew from the job.

“Ray had not disclosed his criminal convictions.” Mayor Segarra

Ray said, he wasn’t given the opportunity to disclose his background until after the appointment because of a city policy that keeps the disclosure of criminal records out of the initial recruitment states.

Ray’s Criminal History includes

  • 1997 conviction for the sale of narcotics,
  • 1998 conviction for possession of narcotics,
  • 1998 conviction for carrying a pistol without a permit and
  • 2004 conviction for criminal possession of a gun.

Auditors probe city background check

“Removing the Barrier” to employment at the expense of the ex-offender

06 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Background checks, Ban-the-Box, Criminal Records, Employability of convicted, Ex-offender in Workplace, Low Risk Ex-offender

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

“Employers have every right to ask about conviction status during the interview process, and can deny anyone a position based on “moral turpitude” – which could include everything from drug dealing, to sex offenses, to other violent crimes.”  from the Drug Policy Alliance of NM
After an ex-offender prepares for an interview, spends money to travel to the interview, survives the stress of explaining face-to-face their past criminal record, only to be denied employment…..“removing the barrier” to employment at the expense of the ex-offender and employer
 

Blaming the “Box” for High Recidivism

06 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Background checks, Ban-the-Box, Criminal Records, Employability of convicted, Ex-offender in Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

“Ban the Box” proponents blame Employers for recidivism… Lets give ex-offenders access to food stamps and TANF, a decent place to live while they re-enter society.  Eliminate the desperation to survive while they re-enter society.

Are Employment Background Checks to Blame for High Recidivism Rates?  by Mike Mccarty Safe Hiring Solutions

How ‘Ban-the-Box’ Would Affect Pre-employment Screening?

30 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in Ban-the-Box, Criminal Records, Employability of convicted, Ex-offender in Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Ban the box updateSince January 1, 2014, several places such as Minnesota, Rhode Island and the City of Buffalo joined the rest of the local and state governments who have also passed ‘Ban the Box’ law. This ‘box’ refers to the part of the job application form where an applicant has to mention whether he or she have had any criminal past. Many employers used this information to reject an applicant before even going through with the interview process and ‘ban the box’ law has been introduced by various governments to stop employers from misusing this information.

This law has not been introduced by local and state governments in order to totally prohibit the employers from running criminal background checks on applicants. The reason for it is to ensure that employers don’t make their decisions on just the basis of the box; without finding out other information relevant to the job position.Having a…

View original post 372 more words