Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:52 pm
Time: 10:52 pm
Results for ex-offenders, employment (u.s.)
2 results foundAuthor: Mills, Linda Title: Inventorying and Reforming State-Created Employment Restrictions Based On Criminal Records: A Policy Brief and Guide Summary: Gainful employment is essential to any strategy to reduce recidivism, and thus to reduce crime and make communities safer. However, among the many hurdles facing people coming home from prisons and jails in successfully reintegrating into society, getting a good job is often one of the most daunting. Equally daunting, for both the person with the record and for workforce staff who might attempt to help him search for jobs, is figuring out what occupations and places of employment are possibly open to people with criminal records. States increasingly have created hiring restrictions that may turn the fact of criminal record into a bar to employment. These restrictions, imposed on both the public and private sectors, vary widely and can affect the ability of the 71 million people in the U.S. (over 30% of the adult population) whose names are in criminal history databases to secure gainful employment. Sometimes the restrictions offer the employer a measure of hiring discretion after reviewing a background check. Sometimes they give the employer the right to assess the relevance of the past crime to the job. Sometimes they provide the job seeker with an opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation. But often the restrictions offer little flexibility to either employers or people looking for work. Each restriction has its own nuances. Some restrictions put jobs or places of employment off-limits to anyone with a record of a criminal conviction. Some put them off-limits only for those convicted of certain crimes. Sometimes the restriction creates a lifetime ban. Sometimes the restriction is time-limited. Sometimes the time limits depend on the crime. For employers, it’s a minefield. Hiring in violation of the restrictions can lead to a loss of a business license and other harsh penalties. For job seekers with a criminal record, it can be Kafkaesque, with the impact of restrictions often both unknown and unknowable until after incurring the costs of a course of study, tests and fees and the application for a job or license is finally reviewed. The lack of reliable information about what jobs can be pursued can lead to deadend efforts and frustrations that impede the self-confidence that is so important to job hunting success. It can also waste precious time during the weeks following release from prison or jail when getting a job is so critical to staying out of trouble. The confusing complexity of the restrictions is due to the fact that criminal history restrictions on employment have proliferated over many years and by many entities and in response to diverse events and shifting policy tides. Adopted by both legislatures and state agencies, typically they are spread over scores of chapters of state laws, buried in agency rules and lost in obscure agency policy memos; and sometimes they exist only on the face of a job or license application. Most states have not catalogued their restrictions. In the absence of a catalogue making restrictions accessible and transparent, employers, workforce and corrections agencies, and people with criminal records are left to their own devices to figure out what the restrictions are. If they don’t get it right, which is very difficult for any of them, myth and misinformation may prevail and the consequences can be serious and costly. Just as employers and job seekers need to know what the restrictions are, so, too, do the state and local agencies that administer the restrictions and are charged with understanding and interpreting them correctly. Some departments of corrections are developing individualized reentry plans that create post-release occupational goals and that assign training programs intended to achieve those goals. Additional training and job placement is then delegated to workforce agencies upon the prisoners’ release. If the occupations for which the training is provided are off-limits to people with criminal convictions, time and tax dollars are wasted and the people being trained can wind-up with useless credentials, leaving them unprepared to find work. If policymakers want to harmonize the restrictions that have been adopted piecemeal over so many years and develop a coherent policy thread that ties them together, they need to understand their state’s restrictions, too. Inventorying the existing restrictions is an essential first step for states interested in creating consistent and meaningful employment policies that protect public safety while also reducing recidivism by opening employment opportunity. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2008. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2011 at: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/PublicationFiles/Employment%20Restrictions%20Policy%20Guide%20Sept%2008.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/PublicationFiles/Employment%20Restrictions%20Policy%20Guide%20Sept%2008.pdf Shelf Number: 113255 Keywords: Criminal RecordsEx-Offenders, Employment (U.S.)Prisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Bellotti, Jeanne Title: Giving Ex-Offenders a Choice in Life: First Findings from the Beneficiary Choice Demonstration Summary: The number of individuals being released from prisons and jails in the United States has continued to grow for the past decade. More than 672,000 individuals were released from Federal and state prisons in 2004, a significant increase from 405,000 individuals in 1990. Upon release from incarceration, ex-offenders often face a range of challenges. Many have low levels of education and literacy, limited prior attachment to the legal workforce, reduced ties to family and community, and histories of substance abuse and mental health problems (Bushway and Reuter 2002; Petersilia 2003; Steurer et al. 2002; Nelson et al. 1999; Byrne et al. 2002). Former prisoners may also confront barriers that directly limit their ability to gain employment, including lack of basic documentation, the use of criminal background checks by employers, and state laws and licensing requirements for certain jobs (Clear and Cole 2000). If not adequately addressed, these barriers can reduce reentry success. Estimates suggest that 45 percent of state prisoners are rearrested within one year of release and 67 percent within three years (Langan and Levin 2002). Prompted by this research, Federal policymakers began in the late 1990s to shift their focus and resources to initiatives aimed at helping ex-offenders successfully reintegrate into society. Programs funded by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), such as Weed and Seed and the Reentry Partnership Initiative, began to bridge the divides among correctional agencies, community supervision, and local public and private social service agencies. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has also funded several prominent initiatives within the past decade, including the Youth Offenders Demonstration, the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, Ready4Work, and the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI). To further expand its initiatives to serve this needy population, the Employment and Training Administration within DOL created the Beneficiary Choice Contracting Program, a demonstration to help ex-offenders successfully enter and remain in the workforce and stay free of crime. To be eligible for the program, individuals must be between 18 and 29 years of age, have been convicted of a Federal or state crime, and have been released from a Federal or state institution within the past 60 days. In July 2007, DOL awarded five grantees a total of $5 million for the first year of operations to serve approximately 225 participants each.The Beneficiary Choice Demonstration involves an indirect funding model in which grantees engage in performance-based contracts with specialized service providers (SSPs) to provide employment-focused services to participants. DOL provided a blueprint for building a service delivery structure that includes the grantee, a services coordinator, and at least five specialized SSPs. Grantees maintain the administrative functions. Services coordinators serve as the gateway for participants to select an SSP. The SSPs then provide in-depth services. Community partners also provide referrals and leveraged resources to support service delivery. The model has three key components that distinguish it from prior programs: 1. Emphasis on Participant Choice. The cornerstone of the program is that it allows participants to choose the program that best meets their needs. Each SSP must offer three core services: (1) workforce readiness training, (2) career counseling, and (3) six months of follow-up services. SSPs are also expected to offer a unique combination of supplemental and supportive services. 2. Expansion of the Service Delivery Network. Grantees were encouraged by DOL to engage a wide range of SSPs, including faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) that offer both a range of secular and faith-infused services. DOL also required that each grantee partner with at least one local provider with which it has not previously worked. In this way, the demonstration can draw on the unique qualifications of FBCOs that may not typically partner with the government. 3. Use of Performance-Based Contracts. Grantees are required to engage in performance-based contracts with at least five SSPs that offer services to participants. Providers receive benchmark payments as they document their success in helping participants achieve key outcomes, such as completing services, obtaining a job, and retaining employment. The Beneficiary Choice model is a new direction in the provision of services to exoffenders and, therefore, is likely to pique the interest of policymakers and program administrators alike. DOL contracted with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) to evaluate the implementation of the program, the short-term outcomes of participants, and the costs of providing services. The evaluation addresses six research questions: 1. How do grantees plan for, implement, and operate the program? 2. How do grantees ensure that participants have a true and independent choice of providers? 3. How does performance-based contracting influence implementation? 4. What are the characteristics of participants and what services do they receive? 5. What are the employment outcomes and recidivism rates of participants? 6. What are the costs of the program? Details: Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2008. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 4, 2012 at: http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Giving%20Ex-Offenders%20a%20Choice%20in%20Life%20-%20First%20Findings%20from%20the%20Beneficiary%20Choice%20Demonstration.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Giving%20Ex-Offenders%20a%20Choice%20in%20Life%20-%20First%20Findings%20from%20the%20Beneficiary%20Choice%20Demonstration.pdf Shelf Number: 126237 Keywords: Ex-Offenders, Employment (U.S.)ReentryRehabilitation ProgramsVocational Education and Trainings |