Banning The Box: Enabling A Second Chance

"Convicted felon" is a phrase that conjures images of hardened criminals, supermax prisons, and repeat offenders. These are who many people have in mind when they refuse to hire those with felonies in their past. The question -- "have you ever been arrested for or convicted of a felony?" -- often precludes consideration for an opening, no matter how unrelated the job is to the original offense or how many years in the past the crime happened. There is, however, a national movement, supported by major corporations such as Target, Archer Daniels Midland, Wal-Mart, and Koch Industries, to "Ban The Box," removing this question from initial job applications. Almost 20 states have adopted some form of this policy.

This does not mean employers cannot exclude felons with relevant convictions from employment, when such information is discovered during final background checks before hiring. This change just means that managers would have better odds of looking at a whole person, including a criminal past, before making a decision. Someone who pleaded guilty to check fraud would not make the best bank employee, while someone who obstructed justice would not be appropriate for a job as a municipal court clerk, for example. Would either charge really matter on a construction site? Background checks are still indispensable to protect employers and their clients; day cares and schools, for example, should maintain an absolute and perpetual employment prohibition on those convicted of crimes against children. Should they also do the same for someone convicted 20 years ago on perjury or minor drug possession?

It is not a natural tendency to have sympathy for convicted felons -- after all, they were found guilty in the courts, and chose to commit the crimes that earned these convictions. Those who have been victims of felony crimes -- whether violent or nonviolent -- often feel that, if anything, sentences are too short for the pain caused by these actions. Those with multiple felonies, especially crimes of a violent or sexual nature, should remain in prison for as long as they are threats to society; in many cases, these should mean life sentences. Crime rates have declined nationally in large part because more criminals are facing longer prison sentences.

However, victims of crimes are not the only innocents that suffer from criminal activity and its aftermath. Children and other dependents often endure shame and financial ruin when their father, mother, wife or husband becomes a felon. Should a child of a tax evader or embezzler, for example, once that individual has made full amends, share a life sentence of poverty with their parent? Should someone who pleaded guilty to possessing crack cocaine in 1983 be permanently unemployable? A society built on justice should allow for men and women to change the course of their lives. Especially for those convicted of one felony, and without a long history of criminal activity, there should be a chance to reverse a single bad decision.

Approximately 8 percent of U.S. citizens have felony convictions, a figure that rises to 25 percent of African-Americans. Consider how many lives we consign to the fringes of society if we ban these men and women from opportunity. While without question there are career criminals among us, there are also Americans that have made mistakes but still can contribute to our society, be good workers, and provide for their families if given a chance.

There are practical reasons to move in this direction. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had issued recent guidelines directing employers not use to mere arrest or conviction as a basis not to hire, except when criminal activity is directly related to the position. Indeed, the EEOC has even filed lawsuits against employers that have blanket prohibitions against all felons. Beyond this punitive reason, there are economic benefits to consider; the federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) subsidizes "hard to hire" groups including felons and disabled veterans. There is a federal bonding program that protects employers from losses caused by hiring ex-felons. The State of Missouri provides active support both to employers and ex-felons, and has dramatically reduced recidivism rates. Gainful employment is one of the key factors in preventing ex-felons from returning to criminal activity. With unemployment rates for ex-felons running as high as 60-70 percent, even a slight reduction in this could reduce crime and prison populations. That is not to say that a job is a guarantee of good behavior, but the odds are certainly better.

Why even bother with felons, given that they have made a criminal mistake, and might do so again? In the end, "banning the box" is a step that has the potential to reintegrate thousands of ex-felons into society. If these men and women can regain a sense of self-worth, provide for their families, and move beyond their mistakes, everyone will benefit; certainly, that would be a better option than making every felony conviction the equivalent of a life sentence.