[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FAIR CHANCE TO COMPETE FOR JOBS ACT (H.R. 1076)
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 13, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://www.oversight.house.gov or
http://www.docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-063 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Member
Columbia Justin Amash, Michigan
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California James Comer, Kentucky
Katie Hill, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Bob Gibbs, Ohio
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Peter Welch, Vermont Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Jackie Speier, California Chip Roy, Texas
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Ro Khanna, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Susanne Sachsman Grooms, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk and Director of Operations
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Valerie Shen, Chief Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor
Yvette Badu-Nimako, Director of Policy and Counsel
Kristine Lam, Counsel
Amy Stratton, Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Chairman
Carolyn Maloney, New York Chip Roy, Texas, Ranking Minority
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Member
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Justin Amish, Michigan
Robin Kelly, Illinois Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Jimmy Gomez, California Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Jody Hice, Georgia
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Michael Cloud, Texas
Columbia Carol Miller, West Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 13, 2019................................... 1
Witnesses
The Honorable Cory A. Booker, Senator, U.S. Senate, New Jersey
Oral Statement................................................... 5
The Honorable Doug Collins, Member of Congress, Georgia
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Ms. Holly Harris, Executive Director, Justice Action Network
Oral Statement................................................... 13
Ms. Teresa Hodge, C-Founder& CEO, R3 ScoreTechnologies, Inc.
Oral Statement................................................... 15
The Honorable Ron Johnson, Chairman, U.S. Senate, on behalf of
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Oral Statement................................................... 3
The written statements for witnesses are available at the U.S.
House of Representatives Repository: https://docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
The documents entered into the record throughout this hearing are
listed below, and available at: https://docs.house.gov.
* Racial Profiling in Hiring: A Critique of New ``Ban the Box''
Studies, National Employment Law Project; submitted by Rep. Roy
* Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Ban the Box Policies:
The State of Literature in 2019, Jennifer L. Doleac, Texas A&M
University; submitted by Rep. Roy
* Back to Business; How Hiring Formerly Incarcerated Job
Seekers Benefits Your Company, ACLU; submitted by Rep. Raskin
* Letter from the Leadership Conference, National Employment
Law Project and ACLU; submitted by Rep. Roy
* The Effect of Changing Employers' Access to Criminal
Histories on Ex-Offenders' Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence
fromthe 2010-2012 Massachusetts CORI Reform; submitted by Rep.
Roy
* Ban the Box, Convictions, and Public Sector Employment,
Terry-Ann Craigie, Ph.D.
THE FAIR CHANCE TO COMPETE FOR JOBS ACT (H.R. 1076)
----------
Tuesday, March 13, 2019
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m.,
2154 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jamie Raskin [chairman
of the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Raskin, Cummings, Maloney, Norton,
Clay, Connolly, Sarbanes, Kelly, Plaskett, Khanna, Ocasio-
Cortez, Pressley, Amash, Massie, Meadows, Hice, Grothman,
Comer, Cloud, Norman, Roy, Miller, and Steube.
Mr. Raskin. The committee will come to order. So everyone
finish up your selfies.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Raskin. Without objection, the chair is authorized to
declare a recess of the committee at any time. This joint
hearing of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
and the Subcommittee on Government Operations is on The Fair
Chance to Compete for Jobs Act, H.R. 1076. I will now recognize
the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Cummings, to give his
opening statement, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much Chairman Raskin, to
Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Roy, Ranking Member Meadows
for holding this hearing on H.R. 1076, the Fair Chance to
Compete for Jobs Act.
Our bill would do what many state agencies and private
corporations are already doing. It would direct Federal
employers and contractors not to ask about criminal histories
of applicants until the conditional offer stage. The bill also
includes important exceptions for law enforcement and national
security positions requiring access to classified information
and positions that, by statute, require access to criminal
history information. It will give formerly incarcerated
individuals a fair chance at a job and a piece of the American
dream.
Criminal justice reform is very personal to me. I have seen
the problems that plague the system through many lenses. I saw
it during my days as a young lawyer representing criminal
defendants in Baltimore. I have seen it as someone who as a
deep respect for dedicated police officers who serve and
protect our communities.
I have seen it as a Congressman representing a district
where finding balance between law and order and crime and
punishment is a profound concern for my constituents. I have
also seen it as a concerned citizen, in my community where I
have lived for three decades in the inner city of Baltimore.
One lens that has not changed is the lens of color. We have
seen how sentences issued by our criminal justice system
disproportionately affects Americans of color. 70 percent of
Maryland's incarcerated individuals are African American.
Although African Americans comprise only 31 percent of the
state's population. According to a report released by the ACLU,
this was the highest proportion of incarcerated African
Americans in the entire country in 2014.
Formerly incarcerated individuals need jobs to support
themselves and their families and after they have served their
sentences. Jobs will also help them avoid recidivism, which
helps us all. But they will be followed by criminal records
long after they have repaid their debts to society. As a matter
of fact, it will follow them to their graves.
Criminal records limit their employment opportunities and
are barriers to getting a job. We can reduce those barriers
with H.R. 1076.
Fortunately there is an emerging, bipartisan, thank God,
consensus that this barrier has to come down, and that it needs
to come down now. There are legislators on both sides of the
aisle who are considering how we can transform lives and save
money. And if we help exoffenders to truly put their past
behind them, allow them to live a life that God meant for them
to live.
We have a unique moment of bipartisan momentum for true
reform. And it is ours to seize. My hope is that this hearing
inspires action. My republican colleagues and I disagree about
many things. However, on the Fair Chance Act, we have not only
found common ground, we have, because of a moral imperative,
found higher ground.
Finally, let me address the concern that couple of my
republican colleagues have raised. Although this measure is
largely bipartisan, a couple of my colleagues say that they are
concerned that this bill can somehow hurt African Americans or
others when certain racist employers discriminate against
minorities who they think might have a criminal record.
Look, you all know who I am. I have been working on civil
rights issues for decades. I think I have some standing to
speak on this matter. You would know that I would never support
a bill that I believe would cause discrimination against
African Americans. So take it from me, I support the bill, and
we all should support the bill.
But now ladies and gentlemen, it is up to us. It does not
hurt us. We ask for your support. Now if there is evidence that
someone is illegally discriminating against African Americans
in the Federal hiring process, the remedy for that civil rights
violation is to bring the full force of the law down on that
individual. The remedy is not to withhold support for a bill
that would help our communities and our Nation.
We owe it to our children and to our grandchildren and to
generations yet unborn. We must make lasting changes that give
them opportunities of hope. We need to invest and reform now
for future generations so that they can see a criminal justice
system and an entire country they can believe in.
We must remember that our children are the living
messengers we send to a future we will never see. And we need
to make every child's dream accessible, which starts with their
parents.
I would like to thank Senator Johnson, Senator Booker, and
Congressman Collins for testifying before us today. I also
thank the witnesses on the second panel, Ms. Holly of the
Justice Action Network, Ms. Harris from the Justice Action
Network, Ms. Teresa Hodge of R3 Technologies for sharing their
insights with us today. And I look forward to our discussion
scheduling and scheduling the Fair Chance Act for markup as
soon as possible. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman for your
powerful statement. It is now pleasure to welcome our
colleagues who have come to testify, Senator Johnson from
Wisconsin, Senator Booker from New Jersey, and our own
Congressman Collins from Georgia. We are delighted to have all
of you here to testify. We commend your bipartisan and
bicameral advocacy for this important legislation.
At the conclusion of your statements, without objection,
your written statements will be made--your complete written
statements will be made part of the hearing record. The
microphones are sensitive, so please speak directly into them.
And Senator Johnson, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Raskin
and Connolly, Ranking Members Meadows and Roy. Thank you for
holding a hearing on the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act
and giving me the opportunity to testify on its behalf.
I also want to thank Senators Booker, Chairman Cummings,
Congressman Collins, and many others who--for working with me
on this legislation over the last few years.
Our founders specified three unalienable rights endowed to
all by our Creator, ``Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness.'' In comparison to life and liberty, I used to think
the pursuit of happiness was more of a frivolous concept, a
less important right. I no longer believe that. Life without
dignity and liberty without the freedom to dream, aspire, and
earn your own success would be rights with dramatically
diminished value. The right to pursue happiness is therefore
crucial in the fulfillment of the first two rights, life and
liberty.
Few will ever truly be happy living in dependency. Work is
essential in allowing to pursue happiness by providing them the
dignity of earning their own success. For those reentering
society after incarceration, work is the key factor in
determining whether they will turn their lives around or end up
back behind bars. One study showed those who maintain
employment for one year post-release had a 16 percent
probability of returning to prison versus a 52 percent
probability for those without jobs. That is a significant
difference.
A lower rate of reincarceration should result in less
crime. Instead of bearing the cost of imprisoning people,
communities can benefit from their contribution to the tax
space. But most importantly, these individuals are not just
mere statistics, they are human beings, and we should all want
them to succeed in life.
The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act recognizes the
crucial role employment plays in transforming lives. Just
because some may have temporarily lost their freedom because
they committed a crime does not mean they have lost their right
to pursue happiness.
My work reforming incarcerated men and women in Wisconsin
has shown me the significant barriers they face putting their
lives back together once they leave prison. My involvement in
the Joseph Project where we connect those genuinely seeking to
turn their lives around with the job opportunities throughout
the state has taught me how transformational a good paying job
can be. It is the most inspirational activity my staff and I
have been involved in since I took office.
I fully understand the legitimate concerns employers have
about offering a job to someone convicted of a crime. Many
criminals will never reform and could pose a significant threat
and danger to an organization. But many others who have been
incarcerated realize a life of crime offers no positive future.
It is those individuals and their future employers that this
legislation seeks to help.
Employers who give Joseph Project participants a chance
consistently tell me that they have some of the best attitudes
within their organization. Having a positive attitude and
making a daily commitment to succeed are the key elements of
the Joseph Project's 12-hour training program. Employers who
have taken the chance on these individuals have been rewarded
with great employees.
The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act simply provides the
opportunity for an applicant to convey the right attitude and
what they can contribute to an organization without being
automatically excluded for consideration because of their
checkered past. People do choose to turn their lives around,
and society should make it easier, not harder, for them to do
so.
Prior to hiring, an employer will still have access to an
applicant's complete history in order to make a fully informed
hiring decision. Nothing in the legislation prevents that. It
is also important to note, this legislation only applies to
Federal Government and its contractors. Although we do hope
other employers will see its value and voluntarily adopt
similar hiring policies.
Working with the Joseph Project, numerous employers from
Wisconsin are already being rewarded with dedicated employees
by deciding to hire individuals with criminal records.
Nationally, other large employers, including Facebook, Google,
Walmart, and Koch Industries have not only pledged to delay the
criminal background check but have also begun hiring formerly
incarcerated individuals.
My hope is that by passing the Fair Chance to Compete for
Jobs Act, employers throughout America will see the value in
helping people transform their lives through productive
employment.
Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Booker?
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Chairman Raskin,
Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Roy and Ranking Member
Meadows. It is really an honor to be here. I am grateful that
you all would invite me. Thank you for holding this hearing,
most importantly. I am grateful for Chairman Cummings for his
leadership on this bill. He has been an incredible friend and
inspiration to me in my short time in the U.S. Senate, and I
want to thank Representative Collins for his support as well.
I want to gratefully acknowledge my--the bill's coauthor
with me--the lead republican sponsor in the Senate, Senator
Johnson, who spoke very passionately and personally about this
issue and helped us to usher this bill through committee three
times. All three Congresses that I have been a senator since it
was first introduced in 2015.
There are more than 650,000 people released from prison
each year. People who have served their time, paid their debt
to society, and are returning home to their communities in
hopes for a second chance. But all too often, they are freed
from physical bars, but they encounter, what I believe are
lifetime sentences. They have, literally, 45,000 collateral
consequences is what the American Bar Association refers to
them as. These collateral consequences prevent them from
getting opportunity. And you have to understand, the
overwhelming majority of these people are nonviolent offenders.
We are in a country, that there was more arrests for a
marijuana possession in 2017, than there were for all violent
crimes combined.
And so, for things that past Presidents have admitted to
doing, things that people in the body admitted to doing, I see
it out on the trail, now it is en vogue for senators to admit
to doing it. Low-income, poor people, and disproportionately
minorities are being targeted by a failed drug war and then
face lifetime consequences for possession of drugs and other
crimes.
We are a nation that believes in second chances. And one of
the most difficult things that people do when they come out of
prison is just--who want to work, who are dedicated to that--
finding a job. The barriers for finding jobs.
Research has shown that a conviction record reduces your
likelihood of a job callback by nearly 50 percent, and this is
even more acutely felt by people of color who have even a less
likelihood of getting a job after a conviction. The same
research has found that while 17 percent of Whites with a
criminal record were given a callback only 5 percent of African
Americans were.
This is a reality I know. I have spent over 20 years of my
life living in the community I love, which is a low-income
community. The median income in my neighborhood for the last
census is $14,000 per household. And when I hear my neighbors
who struggle for finding a job because of drug convictions for
doing things that people on college campuses do every day. What
we are seeing is a patently unfair system, and we must tear
down the barriers to employment that are stacked so high
against people who have done their time and now just look for
hope.
In my home county, Bergen County, a father wrote me about
his son who was convicted for nonviolent drug charges. But
since his rehab, he has finished high school, attended
technical school, been certified as a heating and air
conditioning technician, but has repeatedly been denied jobs
simply because of his criminal record.
At the end of the last Congress, in a bipartisan, bicameral
effort, the First Step Act, which its name suggests was just a
step in the right direction, was able to be passed, but
unfortunately we have a long way to go to ensure that those
released under the First Step Act are set up for success and
not continued failure.
It was a Republican President Bush who said, ``America is
the land of second chances.'' And when the gates of the prison
are open, the path ahead should lead to a better life. We have
got a lot of work to do to realize that promise.
The Fair Chance Act allows qualified people with criminal
records to get their foot in the door and be judged by their
merit not by a past conviction. It allows employers to get to
know an individual and ultimately make them an offer. But
before that person is hired, that is when they share the
criminal history.
In short, the bill would preclude the Federal Government
and Federal prime contractors from asking a job applicant about
his or her record until a conditional offer is extended. And,
yes, an employer has the right to know whether someone is
considering a job has a criminal history. But by placing that
information at the end of the interview process, it allows a
candidate to be judged objectively instead of their having
their resume being reflexively tossed out.
This bill strikes the right balance between giving
returning citizens a fair shot at finding a job and allowing
employers to know who they are hiring. Now we already have a
nation where 33 states and the District of Columbia and over
150 cities and counties have adopted Fair Chance policies.
In the public sector, and they have proven so successful,
that 11 states and 17 cities and counties have extended their
Fair Chance policies and laws to private employment. Here in
D.C., after a policy was adopted, there was a 33 percent
increase in the number of applicants whose records were higher
which resulted in 21 percent of them, of all new hires in D.C.,
being people with records. It is an incredible success.
The bill is going to help break the dangerous cycle of
recidivism and give people with criminal records a fair shot in
a system that is still so tragically unfair. We have a lot more
work to do.
But this is about our Nation's capacity for forgiveness and
redemption. Are we a nation that believes in second chances or
not? Are we a nation that believes a person should not be
judged by the worst thing that they have done and instead, be
seen as who they are. People with endless potential, not just
for redemption, but for contribution in our society.
God, we have a criminal justice system that is so broken.
It feeds on the poor. It feeds on the hurt. It feeds on the
marginalized, the mentally ill, the addicted. Let us do
something that rights the scales in our country and empowers
people to succeed. Let us be about restorative justice, instead
of retribution against people who often need more help than
continued harm. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Senator Booker.
Congressman Collins?
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG COLLLINS, A REPRESENATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Chairman Raskin and Ranking Member
Roy and also Chairman Cummings, full committee, and it has been
a pleasure to work with this, Ranking Member Jordan.
Thanks for inviting me to testify. It is good to be back
into this room where I first started in Congress with Mr.
Meadows and us, when we first came here bright eyed and bushy
tailed ready to take on the world, and it is good to be back
and see you again.
Look, I am going to be brief, because we have talked about
this a lot, and you have heard about the importance of the Fair
Chance Act from those senators that just spoke before me. This
legislation clearly draws on broad bipartisan support, and it
should. It is common sense. As it looks to build on the work
that this this chamber started last year the First Step Act.
I worked on the First Step Act with my friend, Hakeem
Jeffries and introduced it with a belief that we can and should
do better when it comes to our prison system and our criminal
justice system. And I cannot think a more proud moment for me
to stand in the Oval Office while President Trump signed this
legislation, who bought into it and understood that people
matter. Redemption matters. And a chance is what is important.
And to hear the President say that and sign that was a great
day.
I am committed, then, that the First Step Act was just
that, a first step, and not a final step. I continue to looking
for ways to work across the aisle on issues related to the
justice system, redemption, and recidivism reduction. The Fair
Chance Act is part of that commitment, and I am proud to be
working alongside Chairman Cummings on this legislation.
The Fair Chance Act is important, both in terms of what it
does, and in terms of the example it sets. The bill brings Ban
the Box to the Federal Government. It prevents Federal
employers and contractors from asking about a criminal history
until the final stages of the interview and application
process.
Too often individuals who have atoned for their mistakes
and served their time are automatically disqualified or
overlooked because of their record. These individuals are
denied a chance to rejoin and contribute to society even though
they have paid their dues.
This scenario can lead to a cycle of recidivism because an
individual is unable to find work. We can do better. We can
provide meaningful opportunities to those who have paid their
dues who are seeking a second chance. Thirty-three states,
including my home state of Georgia have Ban the Box. The
Federal Government can learn from their example and their
successes.
Governor Deal, a former member of this body, in Georgia,
was a leader on issues like this. And much of what has been
accomplished on reform efforts in Congress have been built and
modeled after those efforts. The Fair Chance Act continues that
effort.
It is my hope that members of this committee and all of my
colleagues will look at a strong, bipartisan support of this
bill already has and join this effort to reduce recidivism,
strengthen communities by banning the box at the Federal level.
I made this comment to President Trump before he signed it,
the bill, the First Step Act. I said, ``Mr. President, many
times you're gonna be presented with bills that are simply
lines on a page.'' And hearing the echoes of the chairman of
this great committee and the ranking member and others, I told
him, I said, ``On this bill, there are actually faces behind
those lines,'' and we have actually seen that come true.
When we take a step of humanity, Mr. Chairman, when we take
a step to looking how we can help in solid ways. Recognizing
the role of our criminal justice system and those of who had
made mistakes and then helping them once they get out, not
diminishing the system but enhancing it. This is what this bill
does, and I look forward to continued support. I thank the
chairman, the ranking member, and I appreciate the opportunity
to testify.
Mr. Raskin. Congressman Collins, thank you very much. We
very much appreciate your testimony and those of our now-
departed colleagues, and this panel is dismissed.
Before I now turn to opening statements from the
subcommittee, I just wanted to recognize that this is a joint
hearing of the new Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties and the Government Operations Subcommittee. And this,
in fact, the first hearing of the new subcommittee. So I just
wanted to quickly recognize all of the members.
We have got an all-star cast on the subcommittee: Carolyn
Maloney, Lacy Clay, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Robin Kelly,
Jimmy Gomez, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Eleanor
Holmes Norton. On the minority side we have Chip Roy, who is
the ranking member, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Mark Meadows,
Jody Hice, Michael Cloud and Carol Miller. And I just want to
welcome and thank all of the members of the new subcommittee.
And I want to ask the clerks if they would prepare the
table and ask the new panel of witnesses to come forward to the
witness table during our opening statements.
At this time, I will recognize myself for five minutes for
an opening statement. And again, I want to extend my warm
greetings to Mr. Roy, the ranking member, and also to my Vice
Chair, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
This is an exciting and timely hearing. The laboratories of
democracy across the country have been banning the box for
quite some time now. So we have a good table of experiences to
draw from as we enter upon this legislation. Six years ago, my
home state of Maryland became the ninth state to ban the box
and to improve fair hiring practices in our local communities.
Today, 33 states and more than 150 counties and cities have
instituted Ban the Box in addition. Many companies, like
Walmart, Koch Industries, Target, Home Depot, and Bed Bath &
Beyond have embraced the policy, too. So Congress can strike a
decisive blow for reentry and reintegration by enacting this
policy at the Federal level.
The bill would codify the existing OPM guidance for Federal
agencies to ask about criminal histories only after a
conditional job offer has been made rather than automatically
screening out applicants at the start of the process, which is
still taking place in too many workplaces.
When highly qualified job seekers do not even make it to an
interview, there is nothing but lost opportunity on all sides.
To the employer and the applicant, but also the applicants'
families and our local communities.
The Fair Chance Act includes important exceptions for
sensitive positions in national security and law enforcement,
and it would not force any employer to hire any applicant they
do not want to. But the bill would institute Ban the Box for
millions of Federal contractor positions for the first time,
effectively opening up the possibility of employment to this
critical and expanding sector.
Study after study have shown that steady and meaningful
employment is the most significant factor for reducing
recidivism. Finding and keeping a job is the critical way for
returning citizens to truly reintegrate and make contributions
to society.
I look forward to hearing more about the details and the
rationale for the Fair Chance Act from our witnesses as the
committee plans to take up the bill at a markup as well.
I hope today will be the first of many hearings we have to
advance the bipartisan cause of a fair and just criminal
justice system.
I also want to thank Teresa Hodge from Baltimore, Maryland
for her tireless advocacy in Maryland to help people with
criminal histories successfully get back on their feet and into
society. Enduring prison, going to prison and being released
and building bridges to success, not only for yourself but for
other people is a powerful testament to the potential that this
legislation has.
There are still way too many people that have paid their
debt to society but are never been given a fair chance to work
in dignity again. So I look forward to hearing how this
legislation will help.
And with that, I will turn to Mr. Roy, and I recognize the
gentleman for five minutes.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Thank
you very much for holding this hearing on this important
subject. I applaud you for making this issue the first that we
are going to cover in this Congress. I appreciate you doing
that. It is an important issue. I would like to thank the
witnesses for being here and each of your devotion of your life
to this important issue, and I look forward to hearing from
you.
I think it is safe to say that everyone in this room wants
those in our society who have committed crimes to be
rehabilitated back into the community and live a law-abiding
and productive and fulfilling life.
The chairman and panel may not know, I was formerly the
Vice President of Strategy of the Texas Public Policy
Foundation where we had Right on Crime as a core component of
that institution's purpose. I was proud to work with those
individuals as we have advanced, you know, policies to change,
both in Texas and now at the national level.
A huge part of reentry success is gaining and maintaining
employment. There is dignity in work. Employment is part of the
rehabilitative process. Think about the challenges such a
person faces as they seek employment, especially those who were
recently incarcerated. You need clothes for an interview, proof
of identification. You need to find transportation to get to an
interview. You need to know what to say when you get to the
interview, and eventually, you will be faced with the dreaded
question, ``Have you been convicted of a crime?''
And this is the issue we are examining today. And it is a
tough issue. And, again, I applaud this committee for putting
this issue front and center. I do have some concerns that I
think we should address and look forward to hearing about
today.
The chairman mentioned some of those concerns earlier,
Chairman Cummings, about, you know, some of the issues that
have been raised in the past. And, you know, one of those is
pointing to the question of hiring people with convictions, and
this policy may not actually advance the cause that I think is
being purported to advance, and that is something that we will
address today.
And, you know, why do I say that? Because there is some
evidence that suggests that this bill may run afoul of the goal
based on some of the studies and the history that people have
looked at.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, written
testimony provided for this hearing by Texas A&M Professor of
Economics, Jennifer Doleac.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Mr. Roy. Now, I say as a University of Texas School Law
graduate, I say that with some hesitation, right, this is an
Aggie's report. And I say that as I am married to an Aggie, so
I am going to get in trouble back home.
But this is an important study. It is an important review
of the record. And I think it was done from an objective, non-
biased view by this professor. I think it is important for the
discussion on the record.
Professor Doleac's testimony reviews the empirical evidence
on polices that prohibit employers from asking job applicants
about their criminal records. And that evidence shows that
these policies may not actually increase employment for people
with records. And in fact, the evidence suggests it may
actually reduce employment opportunities. Additionally, it may
reduce minority hiring overall and disproportionally hurting
young African American men who have no criminal record.
I would also ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record, a May 15, 2018 letter from then-Chairman Gowdy to the
Government Accountability Office. This letter reads, in part,
``Given the goal of improving employment outcomes for those
with criminal records, we would like GAO to examine whether the
Federal Ban the Box initiative is achieving its intended
purpose and determine whether there have been any observable
changes in the hiring of individuals with criminal histories
attributable to this initiative.''
So without objection, I would like to put that in the
record.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Mr. Roy. And Ranking Member Jordan recently requested that
GAO continue to pursue this effort. I think we should analyze
the current Federal policy, determine if it is effective and
then legislate to appropriate, based on evidence.
The only last thing I would point is, there are a couple of
questions that I think is important for us to look at. You
know, why should an employer spend time and resources
interviewing individuals who should not be hired, if you know
that. And if you had that information, you might know it from
the get-go. I just think that is an important thing to review.
One might hypothetically ask, you know, if I am
particularly in charge of hiring someone to be in charge of,
you know, tax collections and enforcement at the IRS, would I
really want to hire Michael Cohen, for example, based on his
recent running afoul with the IRS. I think that would be a
reasonable question to ask if you knew that right out of the
gate.
And then there are other methods to consider regarding
statute of limitations. Are there ways to deal with this in a
slightly different way, or sort of a partial ban the box?
I look forward to hearing information on those. These are
challenging issues, and I thank the chairman for having the
hearing. I thank the witnesses for being here, and I look
forward to learning more about how to help more people with
criminal records find work success and lead crime-free lives,
and I yield back to the chairman.
Mr. Raskin. Okay, I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
Government Operations Subcommittee, Mr. Meadows of North
Carolina, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raskin. Well, are you ready----
Mr. Meadows. I yield to the Chairman of the Government
Operations.
Mr. Raskin. You know what, we recognize Mr. Connolly of
Virginia for five--I was just giving you a second.
Mr. Connolly. I forgot, we are called chairmen, now. He is
the ranking member. I just automatically--sorry.
Mr. Raskin. All right, we will let Mr. Meadows go. We will
give Mr. Connolly a minimum----
Mr. Meadows. I will be very, very, very brief. I want to
thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Civil Rights
subcommittee. Obviously, my good friend, Mr. Connolly, the
chairman of the full committee, Mr. Cummings, who articulated
exactly why this is such a critical issue.
I am probably one of the few Members of Congress in the
private sector that has actually hired those that have been
convicted and incarcerated and actually hired them to work for
me in the private sectors, and it has been a very rewarding
[experience]and truthfully, [they were] some of the best
employees that I have had.
I must admit, that when I did it, it was with great fear
and concern. Not necessarily for myself, personally, but from
the attorneys that actually represented my corporation. They
said, ``Are you crazy?'' You know, ``What are you doing? The
liability, the potential liability.'' And so, I think that this
is a good second step. It should not be the final step. We
should answer some of the difficult questions that we have, and
I look forward to working in a bipartisan way.
Look forward to hearing from both of you and with that, I
yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Meadows, thank you for your always-
thoughtful comments. And now we turn to Chairman Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my good friend, Mr. Raskin. And
again, I am going to have to use to this chairman thing.
Mr. Raskin. Hopefully not for too long.
Mr. Connolly. Been a while. So forgive me. This is a really
important subject, and it is quite striking that 33 states and
150 cities and counties have adopted policies preventing public
employers from asking about an applicant's criminal history
until a later stage in the hiring process.
And in Washington, DC. alone, that Ban the Box policy has
resulted in a 33 percent increase in employment for the
formerly incarcerated.
In November 2015, President Obama moved to implement a Ban
the Box policy across the Federal Government. And that was
clearly intended to encourage more individuals with requisite
knowledge, skills, and ability to apply for Federal positions.
I happen to believe more can be done to help ex-offenders
find employment. Federal contractors, for example, are a great
example. They play an important role in supporting Federal
operations. New York University professor Paul Light estimates
that among the 40 percent or 3.6 million of the 9 million
individuals who comprise the Federal work force are contract
employees.
And as I have said often, the Federal contracter does work
shoulder to shoulder with Federal employees. Sometimes even
performing this very substantially similar task, which, by the
way, is a problem in terms of equity after a shutdown. Because
we pass laws to make sure our Federal employees are kept whole,
but their Federal contract counterparts are not. Even though
they may be working in the same office, cubicle by cubicle,
doing the same work.
And so, similarly, I think we have some real opportunities
in expanding Ban the Box to Federal contract employees and
would very much be interested in hearing testimony today about
that as well.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are delighted to join you in
holding this hearing. And thank you, Mr. Cummings, especially
for your vision on this subject. [It] was very much
appreciated.
I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Excellent, thank you very much, Mr. Connolly.
Now I want to briefly recognize Congressman Massie to introduce
the witness from his home state of Kentucky.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure and
my honor to introduce Holly Harris, the Executive Director of
the Justice Action Network. She was born and raised in
Kentucky, and she has done a lot of great work there. She
previously served as a litigator at the Justice Cabinet and in
senior leadership roles for Kentucky-elected officials. In
fact, it was there, that we worked together on the industrial
hemp issue, and we succeeded. She did a great job there in
Kentucky for us.
Now she is the Executive Director of the Justice Action
Network, which has gone from a three state presence to a 17
state presence, and I want to thank you, Ms. Harris for your
passion and leadership on these issues and other issues that
matter to the people of Kentucky and the people of this entire
United States.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. Will the witnesses please
rise?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Raskin. Let the record show the witnesses have answered
in the affirmative. Thank you and please be seated. The mics
are sensitive, so please do speak directly into them.
Without objection, your full written statements will be
made part of the record. And with that, Ms. Harris, you are now
recognized to give the verbal presentation of your testimony
for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HOLLY HARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JUSTICE ACTION
NETWORK
Ms. Harris. A miracle of technology. Again thank you,
Chairman Raskin, Chairman Connolly. Thank you, Representative
Massie. I want to thank all the members of the committee for
inviting me to be here today.
Again, my name is Holly Harris. I am the Executive Director
and president of the Justice Action Network. We are the largest
bipartisan organization working at both the Federal and state
levels to make our justice system fairer and more effective.
The Network is a relatively young organization. We launched
in 2015 and started with three target states. We are now built
out in 17 states across the country in which we have helped to
pass more than 70 pieces of significant criminal justice reform
legislation.
At the Federal level, we were honored to support and serve
as a bipartisan convener for many of the organizations and
lawmakers that work to pass the First Step Act. And if it is
Okay, I would like to just immediately, right off the top
address some of the questions that you had, Ranking Member,
Roy.
You did reference a study or some testimony that talked
about how, potentially, Ban the Box could exacerbate racial
disparities, and I think it is really important to note that
the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and
Chairman Cummings and Teresa Hodge with JustLeadershipUSA and
some of the most important civil rights voices of my generation
are zealous supporters of this policy, and I think we ought to
be deferring to those voices on what is best for minority
communities and at-risk populations.
In addition to that, I also want to address your point
that, you know, that employers may waste their time by
interviewing folks who may ultimately not be eligible for a
job. And I will tell you what we hear from employers, and I
will tell you, it is really critical in my home state of
Kentucky, there is a real dearth of skilled labor out there.
And what we hear from employers is that they are desperate
for workers. And so, quite frankly, they are excited about
seeing the Federal Government take this move, because it will
empower them to do the same.
With that, I will move on with my testimony. For many of
those reasons, Fair Chance hiring or Ban the Box, as most
people refer to it, actually tops our list of legislative
priorities. And it has a vaunted place among our state
legislative victories, because it was the very first bill that
we helped to pass in the states.
House Bill 56 in the Battleground state of Ohio passed with
near unanimous support on both sides of the aisle, in both
chambers at the close of 2015, the year that we launched the
Network.
Since then, we have successfully urged implementation of
Ban the Box in Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Indiana, and in many of your home states. And not to play
favorites, but I will start with the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Representative Massie, in our very first meeting with
Kentucky policymakers in 2016, we urged executive action on Ban
the Box and in 2017, the policy was implemented. Thanks, in no
small part, to some members of Kentucky's Federal delegation,
you, Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Yarmuth, getting the hemp
ban back together again. There were pioneering voices in
criminal justice reform in our home state.
Another great Commonwealth representative on this
committee, Massachusetts became one of the first states to pass
Ban the Box by legislation back in 2010. Chairman Raskin, your
state legislature in Maryland was next, banning the box for
public employment in 2013. That same year, Illinois Governor
issued an executive order banning the box for Government
employers. And the following year, the state legislature passed
an even more expansive version.
In 2014, the District of Columbia banned the box for public
and private employers. Congressman Hice--I saw Congressman Hice
earlier. I had the honor of meeting Governor Nathan Deal, who
previously led your home state of Georgia. As you well know,
Governor Deal was a national leader in all areas of criminal
justice reform policy. He even got a unanimous vote on
sentencing reform in Georgia, which is pretty unheard of. But
he implemented Fair Chance hiring by executive order in 2015.
Chairman Connolly, that same year, Virginia's Governor also
signed an executive order also banning the box and shortly
thereafter, Representative Ocasio-Cortez, the New York
legislature did the same.
The very next year, in 2016, Wisconsin banned the box for
government jobs and just a week later, Missouri followed suit
implementing Fair Chance hiring for public employment. The
California State Assembly passed Ban the Box, for public and
private employers in 2017. And in 2018, Michigan, banned the
box for government jobs by executive order. Finally, and not to
be outdone, the legislature of the U.S. Virgin Islands, banned
the box for public and private employers in November that same
year.
Other witnesses today have cited to data that a job can be
the greatest deterrent to returning to a life of crime. Others
will share their compelling stories of the consequences of a
criminal record, not just on themselves but on their families
and on their children. My role here is to remind everyone that
we are not reinventing the wheel with this legislation. We are
simply asking Congress to catch up to what is happening in
their own backyards.
All in, 33 states, diverse in population, geography, and
political ideology have implemented Fair Chance hiring policies
that, at the very least, ensure people with records have an
opportunity to get their foot in the door and present their
skills and qualifications before they have to disclose their
criminal histories.
At a time when some studies show that as many as one in
three, oe in three American adults have a criminal records, we
simply cannot afford to exclude this population from employment
opportunities.
And as a woman who hails from Kentucky, a state that has
been ravaged by the drug scourge, I can tell you that we are
not ready to throw in the towel on our friends and our family
members who are struggling to overcome addiction, who have made
mistakes but simply want a chance to get back on their feet,
support their families, and be productive members of society
again.
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Harris, let me stop you there, and you will
get a chance, during questioning to offer more thoughts.
Ms. Harris. Yes sir.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you for your excellent testimony. Ms.
Hodge?
STATEMENT OF TERESA HODGE, C0-FOUNDER & CEO, R3 SCORE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Ms. Hodge. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Raskin,
Ranking Member Jordan, Ranking Member Roy, and members of this
committee.
I am Teresa Hodge, and I am testifying today on behalf of
JustLeadershipUSA. And the millions of formerly incarcerated
and convicted people in the United States. JustLeadership is a
national nonprofit, dedicating to cutting the U.S. corrections
population in half by the year 2030. Led by directly impacted
people, we believe that those closest to the problem are
closest to the solution but furthest from the resources and
power.
For this reason, JustLeadership works to ensure the
directly impacted people are at the center of the criminal
justice reform efforts, because we have the most relevant
expertise and the most to gain from such reforms. I applaud
this committee for recognizing this and inviting me to testify
today.
For those of us who have been incarcerated and convicted,
we hold a similar truth. We know we are better than our worst
mistake. We are people who can do and make positive
contributions to this country but countless stigmas and
structural barriers impede our success.
One of the most harmful of these barriers is the consistent
discrimination we face when pursuing jobs. Today, more than 70
million adults in this country have a criminal record, and we
confront more than 46,000 laws and statutes that hinder our
success, including access to gainful employment.
The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act is a critical step
toward eliminating discriminatory barriers. By codifying
important legal protections, you will provide millions of
people a fair chance to compete for employment in the Federal
Government.
By delaying any discussions of a person's criminal history
record until a conditional offer of employment is extended, we
allow all individuals to compete for the positions based on
their talent and skills.
To date, 33 states and more than 150 municipalities have
already enacted these laws. Now Congress can join their ranks
and quicken the elimination of these harmful, discriminatory
practice that continue to ruin millions of lives.
A growing body of evidence, coupled with the bipartisan of
the Ban the Box policies throughout the country attest to the
effectiveness of Fair Chance hiring policies. My story and my
voice speaks to the depth of the problem and humanizes the pain
that millions of Americans face.
On August 3, 2011, I was released from Alderson Federal
Prison Camp. I had imagined this day for the entire 70 months
of my Federal prison sentence as a first-time, white-collar,
nonviolent person. I went to prison at the age of 44 years old.
With more than 20 years of professional work experience that
included an H.R. background as well as social entrepreneurship,
I was confident that I could return home and be a valuable
asset in the workplace again. Yet, all of this did not take
away from the fact that as a former H.R. professional, I was
familiar with the training that often leads to immediate
disqualification of anyone with a criminal record if that
information is readily available.
I know that meaningful work brings dignity to one's life.
It was with this knowledge that prior to leaving prison, I
began reaching out to my network for a job. A former colleague
hired me. I was able to start working days after my release
from prison.
A year later, I was searching for greater meaning to my own
prison journey. I wanted to launch a nonprofit alongside my
daughter that would help people with criminal records pursue
entrepreneurship as a means to become self-sufficient. I looked
to my professional network for a part-time job that would allow
me the flexibility to start a nonprofit.
I was induced to an opening found online by a friend.
However this time, I did not have an introduction into the
company. After my initial read, I knew I was qualified for the
position, and I began applying online. I put my name, my
address, my phone number, and other very basic information into
the system. And then the question appeared, ``Have you ever
been convicted of a crime?'' I took a deep breath, and I said,
``yes.'' I hit enter, and I will never forget what happened.
The screen went black and a message appeared, ``Something you
said disqualified you for this job.''
The answer was glaring. It was not my name or my address.
It was the fact that I had said yes. I was disqualified for the
opportunity before I even had an opportunity to apply.
I do not believe I will ever forget that experience. At
that moment, I became aware of the level of discrimination that
I could face for the rest of my life when applying for a job.
There is nothing on its own that will alleviate the
centuries of criminalization, but enactment of the Fair Chance
to Compete for Jobs Act offers a starting point. Removing this
box does not ensure that every person with a criminal history
will get a job. But it will give those who apply a fair chance.
I urge this committee and Congress to pass the Fair Chance
to Compete for Jobs Act. Millions of Americans and their
families are counting on you. I also believe, just knowing you
have a fair chance to employment is essential to the success of
reintegration and will reduce recidivism.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Hodge, thank you very much for your
testimony. And I would like to thank both of the witnesses for
their testimony today. And I am going to pass myself. So I am
eager to get questions from all of the members, and I turn it
now over to the Ranking Member, Mr. Roy, and I just learned
from a friend of yours that you were actually born in Bethesda,
Maryland.
Mr. Roy. I did not campaign on that fact.
Mr. Raskin. So--well, you are always welcome. So all is
forgiven. Come on home, Mr. Roy. All right, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy. Happy to go, actually the chairman wants our side
to go ahead and go first.
Mr. Raskin. No please, please. I am eager to get to the----
Mr. Roy. I will yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. I
believe he has a question.
Mr. Massie. I have several questions here today. So you
announced an impressive array of states that have implemented
Ban the Box in their state legislatures. Do we have enough of a
record yet to know whether this policy works or does not work,
and if there are ill effects? What kind of record do these
states have that have done it long enough to have some data?
Ms. Harris. Well there is a lot of research out there
actually--to your point--the states need to be passing better
data collection bills, and we are working on that, too. But
there is a lot of data that shows the connection between having
a job and recidivism rates.
And I believe some of that has been referenced in the
testimony from our friends at Freedom Works that was submitted
into the record. And then also from the Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights. But basically, a job is the greatest
deterrent to returning to a life of crime.
And so, you know, to us, to our organization and the groups
from the far left to far right that support this policy, it is
not just about providing second chances, which is great. It is
not just about ensuring that employers can find good workers.
It is also about ensuring public safety, which you cannot put a
price on, so.
Mr. Massie. How do you get over the fear that, obviously,
employers would have that if they hire somebody with a criminal
background and they have not done their due diligence and then
something bad happens related to that criminal background that
they would be liable for the actions of that employee or that
their hiring process would be, you know, looked at in a bad way
by a jury?
Ms. Harris. Well I can tell you we do not hear that, again,
from employers at all. In fact, again, it is a desperation for
workers that we hear. That is why the Homebuilders Association,
The automobile manufacturers and so many others have joined in
the fight for criminal justice reform, because they simply
cannot find workers.
I will tell you that my home state of Kentucky is moving
forward on an expungement bill today that can address some of
those concerns employers have, and I would sure love to see
that happen at the Federal level as well.
Mr. Massie. Let us see, I think it was Mr. Roy brought up
the point, what was your point, Mr. Roy, on the----
Mr. Roy. I am sure it was a really good point.
Mr. Massie. Yes, I am trying to remember what it was. Oh,
what about, and this is my concern, too, if people are not
allowed to ask the question about prior criminal conviction,
there is a concern that they may replace that question in their
mind with some indication, maybe race of the applicant. And
that, this, you know, people have objected that maybe this
could result in more bias in the hiring process if we do that.
Now, I do not personally subscribe to that. Like I do not
know if the data shows that, but what do you say when you are
asked that question?
Ms. Harris. Again, I defer to my good friend, Ms. Hodge to
her organization JustLeadershipUSA. Also to great leaders like
Chairman Cummings and also the Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights.
Mr. Massie. Let me ask you this----
Ms. Harris. I was going to say----
Mr. Massie. If you will defer to Ms. Hodge, do you have
that concern that somebody who is not allowed to ask about
their criminal record, may instead, substitute their own
personal biases in that application process? And thereby,
result in more discrimination?
Ms. Hodge. That is not a concern of individuals who have
arrest or conviction records. The concern that we have is just
an opportunity to compete.
The example that I gave of applying for an opportunity, I
did not have an opportunity to even apply for that particular
job. So in this case, what we are looking for is just a
fairness in an application process. Between eight and nine
employers run criminal background checks. And so, we are not
trying to hide information. We just want to get a little bit
further in the process so that we have an opportunity to be
seen and to state our case of who we are in this moment.
Mr. Massie. To be clear, I support this legislation. I
think it is great idea. I think that the concerns need to be
addressed. That we have to have answers to these, because when
this ultimately does come for a vote, we are going to have to
debate this on the floor. So I am glad to hear your testimony
here today. I think it does support the fact that we need this
bill and that taxpayers would benefit.
And it is not just about benefiting the people who are
applying for the jobs. It is that taxpayers actually benefit
from the resources that those people can bring to the job that
are being denied right now because of the box that they have to
check. So I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. Okay, before I yield to
the Chair of Government Operations, Mr. Connolly, I just want
to state for the members, we are following the rule which
Chairman Cummings has decreed for questioning.
So we will go to the chairs first, then we will go in order
of seniority by virtue of the people who were here when the
gavel came down. So if you want to speak, you have got to be in
your seat.
You were. I see you looking at me, Ms. Kelly. But our staff
has kept careful records. So, you know, do not travel until you
hear the gavel. That is the rule. I was the first victim of
this rule. And so, I learned it well. But you actually learn
something listening to everybody. Mr. Connolly, I come to you.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman before you defer to me, and I
thank you. I just want to make sure, does Mr. Cummings wish to
go?
Mr. Cummings. I am going to be very brief.
Mr. Connolly. Why do we not defer to Mr. Cummings?
Mr. Raskin. Oh very good, then I come to the chairman. Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Cummings. Ms. Hodge, is it Ms. Hodge?
First of all, I want to thank you for your journey.
Ms. Hodge. Thank you.
Mr. Cummings. I think a lot of people do not realize how
difficult it is when someone has a record. Some of my
constituents were telling me during the recent shutdown that
they finally got a chance to be even more empathetic to folks
who are going through coming out of prison or with a record,
because they, themselves were faced with a situation where they
had no paycheck and could not and did not know when they were
going to get one. But at least they knew they were going to get
one.
On the other hand, we have people with a record who have no
way out. Am I right?
Ms. Hodge. Yes sir.
Mr. Cummings. I cannot hear you.
Ms. Hodge. Yes sir.
Mr. Cummings. And so you said you have children?
Ms. Hodge. I do. I have one daughter, and I have a
grandchild.
Mr. Cummings. And tell us a little bit more about your
journey. And so you came out of prison. You had already made
preparation to get a job?
Ms. Hodge. Yes, I did. I was fortunate enough to have a
strong network, and I took good skill sets with me to prison.
And as a result of that, I was able to reach into my network.
And it was people who believed in me and who knew me as a
person and knew that I would be qualified for opportunities,
but that is not the case for most people.
Mr. Cummings. Right. And we have a situation today--I do
not think people really fully understand the volume of African
American people who are locked up for offenses like dealing
with marijuana and things of that nature, nonviolent. While at
the same time, they can go to Colorado and watch people buying
the same drug or whatever you want to call it, and it is no big
deal.
And the lives--a person who then goes who has that record
cannot get a job. Family, a lot of times, is not there for
them. I mean what do they do? What are they supposed to do? I
mean, do you have any suggestions?
Ms. Hodge. The best thing that a person can do is----
Mr. Cummings. Yes.
Ms. Hodge [continuing]. get a job. Most people who I met in
prison and individuals who came home right after being
incarcerated, what they wanted more than anything was to be
productive members of society. They wanted to have a job. While
I was imprisoned, women were dreaming of being able to go home,
walk their children to school, and have jobs. And they wanted
to be productive. And so, the best thing that individuals can
do is access jobs. But without a job, then people are returning
to under-resourced neighborhoods and communities and are
returning back to what is familiar.
Mr. Cummings. Now Ms. Harris, this whole question of
worrying about whether the person--will you be able to trust
them and all that kind of thing. What we are dealing with is,
this person comes in, maybe does an interview and you are
trying to just make sure that they get maybe past the initial
steps. Is that right? Am I missing it?
Ms. Harris. Absolutely and ultimately once a conditional
offer is made, then there can be discussion of criminal
history. But I would like to say, and of course, this is
anecdotal. I mean, from the employers that we talk to, and we
talk to quite a lot of them, who hire individuals with records,
they say that these individuals are their very best employees,
and they are so grateful for these jobs.
They are the first to be at the door in the morning and
then they are the last to leave at night. And so, again, all we
ever hear from employers who have implemented Fair Chance
hiring practices is just how well it is working for them.
Mr. Cummings. I have found that just to be the same thing.
I found that to be the case. As I close, and at Johns Hopkins,
I remember, not long ago, I went--drove up there and these guys
jumped out and they were like the Secret Service.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cummings. No, seriously, seriously. I was very
impressed. They were dressed in bowties, and they were sharp.
They had little wires in their ears and stuff. And so I said,
``Who are these guys? They are so polite.'' And come to find
out, all of them were former inmates. They had formed a firm
and had been hired by, probably the No. 1 hospital in the
world, Johns Hopkins. So I just--the idea is to give people a
chance so that they can then go forward and do for their
families.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy, and I yield
back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I come now
to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and I, likewise
appreciate this hearing and the heart of everyone up here. And
to both of you, thank you for your work, and we are grateful
for your presence.
Ms. Harris, I appreciate you giving a shout-out to Georgia
and what has been done there. I know there are a lot of other
states that are doing great work in this area as well. But
Governor Deal and my colleague, Doug Collins have been
tremendous leaders, and it is an honor to work with them.
We have got some 70 million individuals that have a
criminal record in this country. That is an enormous amount,
even compared to other countries. And, you know, obviously this
is something that we have got to address, and so I am glad that
we are.
The question, obviously, is these people need some sort of
opportunity after they have served their time so they do not go
back into the same cycle. And I know that is why we are all
here. And from studies that I have seen, those who are released
from prison who stay unemployed are three times more likely to
return than are those who are making even $10 an hour. So the
opportunity here is great.
One of my concerns has been brought up, and I want to bring
it back up. And if both of you could kind of answer quickly. I
do not have too many questions, but I want to get both of your
responses.
Since the Office of Personnel Management has implemented
the Ban the Box policy, the question is, out of the gate, have
we seen an increase of hiring people with convictions? Either
one of you, both of you.
Ms. Harris. I can just share, that again, there is a lot of
data that is still missing from states.
Mr. Hice. So we do not know?
Ms. Harris. But I will tell you this. I will tell you this.
I have experience in hiring in state government, and here is
the way it works. You know, we open the floodgates----
Mr. Hice. I want to go quickly, because I have got some
things--my question is, have we seen, definitely, an increase
in hiring people with convictions? Or do we not know?
Ms. Harris. I have not seen data that shows that.
Mr. Hice. Okay, Ms. Hodge?
Ms. Hodge. I have not seen data. I know that we have
reported that in the District of Columbia employment for
individuals with records has gone up by 33 percent.
Mr. Hice. Okay and that is a fantastic number, my friend.
But Chairman Connolly mentioned that, and I think that is
fantastic. Great record. I would love to see that across the
board, but at this point, from the GAO, we do not have that
kind of information.
The study came out from Professor Jennifer Doleac, whatever
her name is. I hope I pronounced that properly. Are you
familiar with that study reference? You are?
Ms. Harris. Yes.
Mr. Hice. Okay, does it concern you?
Ms. Harris. No.
Mr. Hice. Okay, does it concern you?
Ms. Hodge. No, it does not.
Mr. Hice. Why not?
Ms. Hodge. The crux of the study talks about Ban the Box is
not a cure-all, and we agree, that it is not a cure-all. It is
a good first step when we are looking at employment. And the
study looks at discrimination and the study focused on African
American men as a whole around employment opportunities.
Mr. Hice. Okay, the question that does concern me is again
that we do not have any evidence, no empirical evidence that
Ban the Box legislation increases employment. That does kind of
concern me. That was the result of the study. Let me ask you
this. Moving on from there, another underlying issue that I
think we are all trying to tackle is employers seemingly
reluctant to hire people. Does this legislation change that at
all?
Ms. Harris. Well no, if we are talking about private
employers, there is no private employer mandate in this.
Mr. Hice. All right, that was going to be my next step.
Ms. Harris. Sure. Yes but, of course, Mark Holden at Koch
Industries talks about this all the time. I mean, if you do not
want to adhere to this policy, then do not do business with the
government and provide services that are paid for by the
taxpayers. And so, I think it is quite simple.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Ms. Hodge, you want to add anything to
that?
Ms. Hodge. No, I agree with everything that Ms. Harris has
indicated.
Mr. Hice. Okay, let me ask one last question, and we may
not have an answer to this. We know unemployment, right now, is
about 3.8 percent. Do we have any records as to how many of
that unemployment are individuals with records?
Ms. Harris. I am not aware of that number, but I can
certainly----
Mr. Hice. Is there any way we can get an answer to that? I
would really be curious to know how many among our current
unemployed in this country have records.
Ms. Hodge. Probably the National Employment Law Project is
the leader of data concerning unemployment for individuals with
criminal histories. They have conducted long-standing studies
and are the leaders of Ban the Box.
Mr. Hice. Would you try to get that for us?
Ms. Hodge. Yes sir, we will.
Mr. Hice. Thank you very much.
Mr. Raskin. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you
very much. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, to our
panel. Ms. Hodge, you may know this, but as I understand it, an
estimate one in three adults in America has a criminal record
that will show up in a routine background check. Is that your
understanding?
Ms. Hodge. Yes sir.
Mr. Connolly. That is astounding.
Ms. Hodge. It is.
Mr. Connolly. And if they all go through the experience you
did, in that interview, where the screen goes black. You said
something that disqualified you--that disqualifies potentially
a third of the entire American work force--adult work force.
Ms. Hodge. Yes sir.
Mr. Connolly. Astounding. Ms. Harris, there is now guidance
with respect to formerly incarcerated individuals by OPM for
those seeking direct employment with the Federal Government. Is
that correct?
Ms. Harris. Yes sir.
Mr. Connolly. And has it had a positive impact, from your
point of view?
Ms. Harris. Yes, there is positive data that we have seen.
And I also want to share, you all, this is some good common
sense. And I can tell you that as----
Mr. Connolly. My time, Ms. Harris. Do not jump ahead.
Mr. Meadows. But I like her accent, Mr. Connolly.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connolly. Great accent and great point you are making,
but hold on. So that guidance which is working pretty well on
the direct Federal employment side. Is that guidance extended
to those who are seeking to be Federal contract employees?
Working for a private contractor with an account with the
Federal Government?
Ms. Harris. I am not aware of that. I do not think so.
Mr. Connolly. Perhaps the answer is no?
Ms. Harris. I am not quite sure. I am not quite sure.
Mr. Connolly. So it does not apply. And here is the thing.
So we have a total Federal work force of about nine million. Of
which, 40 percent is private contract employees, 40 percent. So
if my math is correct, that means we have got 5.4 direct
Federal hires and 3.6 million contract hires.
And in many cases, those contract employees are embedded
with the Federal employees. So at the same agency in the same
room, same office, you know, sharing cubicles, we got a Federal
employee, we got a contract employee doing the same work. But
they are not treated the same way. So when there is a shutdown,
the Federal employee might be reimbursed--is going to be
reimbursed, but the contract employee is not.
And likewise in the case of looking at former incarceration
as a factor of employment we are providing relief at the
Federal employment level but not necessarily at the contract
level. And different companies may have different policies. And
I assume from your point of view that would present a problem
if we have sort of a potpourri of approaches as opposed to a
uniform, standard policy.
Ms. Harris. Not if we pass this legislation.
Mr. Connolly. What is that?
Ms. Harris. We will not have the problem.
Mr. Connolly. You are jumping ahead again, Ms. Harris. We
are trying to work through the case, here. But okay. So maybe
legislation is necessary, you are saying?
Ms. Harris. It is necessary, yes.
Mr. Connolly. It is necessary, and are we not lucky that
Chairman Cummings has a bill that we can all consider getting
on the help us with this. And that bill, inter alia, would
include mandating agencies to keep data. Is that correct, Ms.
Hodge?
Ms. Hodge. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And that data could then give us sort of a
statistical base for GAO and others from which, Mr. Hice's
question, would have some statistics that would be helpful in
guiding us in terms of how policies are working or how they are
not. And to incentivize agencies to do the right thing that Ms.
Harris is advocating for and so are you.
Ms. Hodge. Yes sir.
Mr. Connolly. Are there states, you know, you went through
a long list of states, thank you, Ms. Harris, but is there sort
of a benchmark where it is really working and working well and
we can look to and go, ``There is the model.''
Ms. Harris. We have literally never had a state, certainly
not the ones that we have been a part of helping to implement
the Ban the Box policy and that would be, again, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky. We have literally never had any
policymaker from the far left to the far right complain about
implementing this policy. And in fact, it has been just the
opposite, so. I will say, though, there is dearth of data that
is available in the states. And sometimes that is what is
difficult in determining, you know, how far reaching this
policy is.
Mr. Connolly. I just want to say, in closing, and thank you
both. You know, this is sort of an across-the-board thing we
have to look at. Policies of incarceration, Mr. Cummings has
talked about that already, is just inherently unequal. And not
a fair system of justice. Then the consequences of having been
incarcerated, including the restoration of voting rights.
In my state, it required the scent of the Governor, because
the legislature would not do it. Physically designed the
restoration for 170,000 individuals, one by one. That is what
it took. And now we are looking at hiring practices. So we have
got a long way to go in terms of making sure justice is blind.
And that once somebody has served their term, they have
opportunities in this society.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Chairman Connolly. I come now to
the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman. Thank you all for appearing. Let me give you a
different point of view. I am from the private sector. We are
contracting company. We have done government work, but we
mainly do private work now. And as I understand, Ban the Box
would not run--would not be required--for private work.
We have done a lot of hiring with people who have been
incarcerated. One of my best carpenters was a person who had a
drinking problem. He killed a 13-year-old from drunk driving,
not once, but twice. And he told us. Had I not been able to
find out, no, I would not have hired him. The fact that I did
find out gave me that lever to, if he ever got off the wagon, I
would know it.
Second, I hired another carpenter who had been in prison
for 30 years, drug abuse. Great worker for a while. I hired
him. He told me. And most of the workers who had criminal
records were eager to tell us, for some reason. He went back to
cocaine. I could sense it, because we could watch his change in
personality.
The third person I had, had a cocaine problem. Had been in
and out of prison. Got back on it. I called him in. I said, ``I
can't keep you on.'' He said, ``Why?'' I said, ``Let me ask
you. You're the best motor grader driver I have, any piece of
equipment. How is that going to protect that family when you
get high and run off the road?'' He is now at a Federal job
with waving the flag on the highway, which is the only Federal
job he could get, waving a job. I was paying him $30 an hour.
He is down to $12 now.
Why I would take--Ms. Hodge, help me understand. I would
take the tact as almost discriminatory against that person not
to know the background, because if the person I just described
was able to go to a Federal job and get on a motor grader or a
D7 tractor and run over through a house, tell me what I am
missing.
Ms. Hodge. Congressman, first thank you for those stories.
The process is not to keep the information from an employer. It
is just to delay it a little bit further in the process. In
addition, again, eight out of nine employers run criminal
background checks. And so this information will be disclosed. I
think the point that you were making where you had an
opportunity to meet the individuals. They were able to tell you
their stories, to tell you about their mistakes, and you had an
opportunity after having that human connection, to make a
decision as an employer.
I think that is what we want to continue to happen. We are
not looking for this information to be hidden. We want
employers to have the information, a hundred percent, and I
think that is exactly what this bill will do. It is just a
little bit further in the process.
Mr. Norman. But does it not let that person down who has
been incarcerated, if he is--and I guess what you are saying
is--once they fill that application out online, if you see the
criminal history, it precludes them from taking the next step.
I am just saying from a private individual, the opposite would
be true to me, because we have experienced it. We have lived
it.
And particularly, if you take a Federal job, it is even
more important to know that up front. And then to request an
interview with that government employee. There is a lot of
Federal jobs involve childcare. And to have somebody
potentially watching your children that you do not know about,
the history of it, is a drawback to the person as well as to
the Federal employee that is hiring them, because they can help
them.
In each one of our cases, we were able to help them. And
more importantly, spot the signs when they either go back or
cannot function, which helped that person, because they knew we
were looking. I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. Is Ms. Kelly in the--oh,
there she is. The gentlelady from Illinois.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairs and ranking members. There
has been significant action, you know, through many states that
you have named on Ban the Box, and I am proud that my state is
one of them. Can you just share some of the results on the
state level, from the implementation of this law, and it can be
either one of you.
Ms. Harris. Well if I could, I was just going to share from
my own experience how this worked in government hiring. I was
both a chief of staff, general counsel, and what would end up
happening is we used a criminal history as a filter. So if you
got hundreds of resumes, and again, so many of them were not
qualified for positions. But next to geography, filtering by
criminal history was the only way to get this down, you know,
get the applications down to a couple of dozen applications.
And so, of course, what ended up happening is then these
individuals were not the most qualified. They were not the most
talented. And so, then we had to go back into the application
pool. And so, I would say the only way, the only way, to
safeguard individuals with records from being discriminated
against in the hiring process and to ensure that we are hiring
the most talented, the most qualified people to do jobs that
are paid for by the taxpayers is to implement Ban the Box.
Ms. Kelly. Do you have any?
Ms. Hodge. I agree with everything that Ms. Harris said. I
was once an H.R. professional prior to incarceration. And I was
mandated by my employer to dwindle down the application pool,
often to 10 or 20, something that was manageable. We looked for
every possible way to discriminate. By having the information
ahead of time, it was used.
Ms. Kelly. What would you say when people get out of jail?
Like you said, you had skills before you went into jail that
you could use when you got out, but what about people that go
into the system, into prison, and they do not have skills. What
do you think needs to be done in prison? What skills do you
think need to be taught or trained, so people can be prepared
when they come out? How do you figure that out?
Ms. Hodge. I think that prisons, to some degree, have to
keep pace with what is happening on the outside of the prison
walls. I am a big advocate for technology, because we live in a
digitally connected world. And it is important that people know
how to use technology. But in addition to that, just jobs that
are jobs of the future. So that individuals can come home and
gain access.
Often when people are in prison, they are given trainings
for jobs that no longer exist when you come home. And that is
very disheartening, because individuals are believing when they
come home, that they will be able to have access to certain
employment opportunities.
Some of the statutes that we have talked about keep an
individual from being able to apply. Instances such as, you
might get a barber's license while you are incarcerated. And in
certain jurisdictions, when you come home, because you have a
criminal record, you cannot be a barber.
Ms. Kelly. Also, we would all agree that the affects, you
know, criminal justice, employment rates, the economy, and
crime rates. But what would you say are--we are talking about
the good things, but some of the negatives--what do you think
needs to be improved? Like my colleague, Mr. Norman talked
about his experiences. What are things that you think need to
be improved?
Ms. Harris. Oh where to start?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Harris. Certainly, I mean, I mentioned earlier that
there needs to be a significant vehicle for expungement. That
is happening all over the country. And in fact, in Kentucky, we
have got a felony expungement bill. And the bill that would
pass today, hopefully passes today, would take a waiting period
from 10 years to 5 years, crime-free waiting period.
So I am hopeful that we will move forward with expungement.
Look, there is still so much that we have to do on sentencing
reform, and I am hopeful that we can have a broader
conversation about that as well.
Ms. Hodge. I agree with everything that was said. And then
also I reiterate that most employers actually run criminal
background checks. And we do not want to hide information. We
just want to be able to have the human contact, the human
experience to be able to advocate and tell our stories, to tell
individuals who we are, and to just receive the job based upon
our talent and experience, or not.
Ms. Kelly. And then, just out of curiosity, do you go to
business and tell your story and----
Ms. Hodge. I do, and I am an advocate in this country. I do
go and talk. I am currently working with banks right now who
are interested in finding ways to give loans to individuals who
have arrest or conviction records, because they are turning to
entrepreneurship out of necessity.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Ms. Harris. And what foolish person would not hire her?
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. We come now to the
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Well, I think this committee is largely a
lovefest and, perhaps, it should be. It certainly is about as
well-intentioned a bill as you are ever going to find. Before
we had these committees, you know, hardworking staff put
together stuff for us. Stuff that sometimes does not come out
in the testimony immediately. And one thing, just struck my eye
a little bit, here. I mean, one of the things they say is,
``that these bills may be counterproductive.'' And they mention
a study here, I do not know whether any other legislators
brought it up. Joint study by a Michigan Law professor and a
professor of who knows what, some gal from Rutgers. And they
found unintended consequences. They felt that when they did the
Ban the Box--or before Ban the Box, there was some race
discrimination. That White people were seven times more likely
to get callbacks than their Black counterparts. And this was
based on made-up resumes.
They said after they put Ban the Box in there, White people
got 45 percent more callbacks. So in other words, it kind of
Ban the Box, really, really punished Black people. Are you
familiar with that study, and do you have like a counter to it?
Ms. Harris. Well I was going to say, still, I guess I am a
little confused. I mean, yes, I am familiar with the study. But
again, in my own experience in hiring in government, really the
only way that you can consider individuals with records, is
again, to implement Ban the Box, because so many government
agencies use the criminal history as a filter.
So--and I am unclear--I know, you know, it has been said
several times that then, you know, a question about criminal
history will then be replaced by a question about race or--and
that was just never my experience. And again, the only way,
again, to ensure that we are giving opportunities to people
with records is to ensure that they cannot be discriminated
against in the beginning of the hiring process.
Mr. Grothman. Well these are kind of dramatic numbers. I
mean Ron Johnson's my buddy. I will vote for his bill, but
these are kind of huge numbers. The difference between 7
percent and 45 percent. It is kind of devastating, I think for
Black people and the University of Michigan, that is a top-
flight law school. I would not think this Sonja Starr is, you
know, incompetent person. Really, one of the best law schools
in the country.
And I am just saying, you can read the little guidance we
have here, gives the reasons why they think this would,
perhaps, make sense. But, I mean, jumping from 7 percent more
likely to be called back to 45 percent, is a big number, and I
will vote for the bill if they bring it up, but I would hope
the committee chair spends some time looking at that number and
makes sure that by passing this bill, we do not make things a
lot worse. Because maybe we have to bring Sonja Starr or Amanda
Agan in here and find out why, but I assume they are sharp
people, and they are saying this bill is going to make things a
lot worse. So, you know, so I will vote for it. And it
certainly feels good to vote for it, but the studies ought to
be kind of analyzed maybe a little more as well.
And before I get myself in any trouble, I will pass things
back to the chairman.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Grothman, thank you very much. I come now
to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to kind of
pick up on that prior note about, you know, race-based
discrimination and employment. Banning the box is not
legislation to end racism in America. Would you say that is
correct, Ms. Harris and Ms. Hodge?
Ms. Harris. I would.
Ms. Hodge. Absolutely.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So we have a lot more work to do when it
comes to racism and employment discrimination beyond just Ban
the Box, correct?
Ms. Hodge. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I would recommend that if we are
truly concerned about race-based, and other forms of
discrimination in the employment act, I would be happy work
with my colleagues across the aisle to strengthen and expand
Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. So I think, we
can table that conversation, because I agree, that there is a
lot of work that needs to be done.
Ms. Hodge, you mentioned earlier that a person should not
be judged by the worst thing they have ever done, correct?
Ms. Hodge. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I agree and especially when they have
paid their debt to society. And I think that something that is
not discussed enough is that Congress has done something wrong.
And we have a debt to society, because the war on drugs is
widely recognized as a horrific and non-evidence-based policy
that created an enormous amount of social damage in the United
states.
The criminalization of marijuana and the punitive
sentencing of nonviolent people is wrong. Zero tolerance laws
were wrong. Blocking harm reduction policies was wrong. Minimum
sentencing laws were wrong. And even against all advisement
from commissions and nonprofits and experts and secretaries in
both administrations, Congresses of both parties did the wrong
thing. We have a debt to society that we must repay.
And my question is, do you think banning the box is part of
the work that we have to do to repay our debt to society?
Ms. Hodge. I agree that banning the box is a step, and yes,
it is something that Congress can do and join the 33 states in
over 150 jurisdictions that have already done so.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. One of the things that we
learned is that one of the biggest aspects of preventing
recidivism as you both have talked about, preventing people
recommitting crimes and going back to jail, is employment and
economic opportunity. Is that correct?
Ms. Hodge. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So I am interested as well, it is not
just any economic opportunity but the dignity of work and how
dignified a job is that can prevent you from--that can keep a
person in society. So out of all the job programs that you have
seen that formerly incarcerated people may apply to, what tends
to be the most common line of work that they enter? What kind
of jobs are we talking about?
Ms. Hodge. Most people enter into the restaurant and
hospitality, construction, very baseline, entry-level positions
throughout the country.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And so you would say that a lot of jobs
that we are talking about are in the service sector?
Ms. Hodge. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Are there any that are typically offered
more technical jobs?
Ms. Hodge. I am sorry, say that one more time.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Are folks offered more technical jobs
ever, or do you see--like, does it tend to be more complicated
work beyond that?
Ms. Hodge. No.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So we are talking about a pretty basic
level of work, and I think that we should also be expanding
this conversation so that we are not just allowing or creating
opportunities for the formerly incarcerated to have only
minimum wage jobs. But recognize the unlimited potential of all
people. And for that reason, Mr. Chair, I would like to see
unanimous consent to submit to the record something for
consideration, A Bill of Rights for Criminalized Workers, just
released by JustLeadershipUSA.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And last but not least, how do you think
the Fair Chance Act can work toward the dignity of work for all
Americans? And, Ms. Harris, you are free to enter as well.
Ms. Hodge. I will go quickly. I think we are at a time in
the country where, with First Step Act passing, that more and
more Americans are talking about criminal justice and criminal
justice reform. I believe that Congress passing this bill will
continue that conversation. It will allow more people to begin
to understand what is going on with a third of our country,
their fellow citizens, people who their children go to school
with. So it is a good first step.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Ms. Harris, anything?
Ms. Harris. I agree with Ms. Hodge.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much.
Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady yields back. Now I am calling on
our colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Miller.
Ms. Miller, forgive me.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you ranking
member chairman. And thank you both for being here today.
We have learned about the Fair Chance Act. Legislation that
seeks to ban the box and give previous criminal offenders the
opportunity to interview for positions with Federal agencies
and contractors. I strongly believe in giving people a second
chance.
During my time in the West Virginia legislature, I was a
proponent for justice reinvestment and fought for years to
ensure that it was implemented. The opioid epidemic in my state
has created thousands of nonviolent offenders who, once they
are clean, need assistance and the tools to reenter their
community.
Reducing recidivism is only possible if we give people
those tools and the opportunity to succeed. To accomplish this,
we should focus on promoting exoffenders through rehabilitative
certifications and connecting them with the many jobs that seek
to hire exoffenders.
Employment is one of the most important factors in reducing
recidivism. Although the Fair Chance Act is written with good
intentions, I think a GAO study on the effects of the policy is
needed before we can move forward in good faith.
Ms. Harris, what protections are put in place for Federal
contractors who hire those with a criminal history? Giving
exoffenders a second chance. Is there anything in the Fair
Chance Act that protects contractors from increased liability,
insurance, or other issues that might arise from hiring
exoffenders?
Ms. Harris. Again, I think the premise of the question is a
little bit troubling. We have not seen these issues across the
country with any of the employers that we have worked with who
have hired exoffenders. So when we talk about liability issues,
it just has been very rare that employers have had a negative
experience with Fair Chance hiring practices or with hiring
formerly incarcerated individuals.
Ms. Hodge. I agree.
Mrs. Miller. Okay, is there evidence that Ban the Box
legislation actually helps those with a criminal history join
the work force, or do hiring managers use other factors to weed
out those exoffenders, such as race and gaps in employment?
Ms. Harris. I will just refer to my previous testimony on
my experience in hiring in government employment. And I also
wanted to note a statistic, sort of coming at the question from
a different direction.
I know we are talking about the impact of Ban the Box, but
you know, the impact of not giving employment opportunities to
individuals with records, and I am referring to a letter that
should be in the record from the Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights, the National Employment Law Project, and the
ACLU. And I am a conservative----
Mrs. Miller. Make sure you are answering my question,
please.
Ms. Harris. Yes ma'am, and it states, ``The Economist
estimated that the U.S. GDP was reduced by as much as $78
billion in 2014 alone, due to the poor prospects, poor job
prospects, rather, of formerly incarcerated individuals.'' So
that is coming at your question in a bit of a different
direction, but we are certainly seeing a very negative impact
on our economy.
Mrs. Miller. I just want to make sure that we are not using
it as a tool to weed out people, as opposed to hiring them.
Ms. Harris. No, in fact, it weeds out people when they are
filtered by criminal history in the hiring process.
Mrs. Miller. Ms. Hodge, are there limits on Ban the Box
legislation, so that perpetrators of violent crimes are not
employed by the Federal Government?
Ms. Hodge. Not to my knowledge. But there are--I think I
have to go back to one thing, which is, we are not forcing
anyone to hire. This is really about when is this information
disclosed? And employers can continue with their traditional
practices of running background checks and gathering all the
information that they need to make a decision.
So this is not forcing anyone to hire. It is just when will
this information be disclosed?
Mrs. Miller. Considering my history in working very hard on
this subject, I just want to make sure that whatever
legislation is put forward does not actually have the reverse
effect on what we are trying to do, which is give people tools
to become good citizens and feel good about themselves and be
productive. Thank you.
Ms. Hodge. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Next is----
Mrs. Miller. Yield back.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. the gentlelady from Massachusetts,
Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Ms.
Hodge for your informative and compelling testimony. Thank you
for bringing your lived experiences to this. I share your
belief that the people closest to the pain should be driving
and informing the solutions and the policymaking. So we thank
you for being here.
In 2000--and I do want to say that I very much appreciate
the organization mission launch on your website. It says,
``People do not go to prison, families do.'' And that is really
what I want to pick up on. My father was in and out of the
criminal justice system because of crimes he committed while
battling a substance abuse disorder.
I know, intimately, the destabilization, the stigma, the
social shame and isolation of having a loved one who is
incarcerated. I do want to say, my father has gone on to do
incredible things. He obtained two advanced degrees and went on
to be a professor of journalism and a published author. So I am
very proud of him. But needless to say, while he was in the
throes of that addiction, in and out of the criminal justice
system, our entire family was serving with him.
In 2015, the Center for American Progress released a study
showing that nearly half of the children in the U.S. have at
least one parent with a criminal record. And 5.2 million
children, or one in 14, have a parent who has been in prison.
In the Massachusetts 7th, which I am fortunate to
represent, a Boston re-entry study that tracked formerly
incarcerated men and women, found over half of respondents had
less than $400 in their pockets upon release from prison. And
about a third went to unstable or temporary housing. I think
they represent about 30 percent of our chronically homeless, in
shelters, transitional housing programs, motels. And fewer than
half were in paid employment after two months.
These studies both unearth the scale and scope of
challenges many children and families face when welcoming a
parent back home. A criminal record can lead to unemployment
and underemployment, picking up on the comments of the
gentlelady from New York, which in turn lead to financial
instability, eviction, and hunger. Underscoring that
incarceration and a criminal history is quite literally a
shared sentence for families.
Ms. Hodge, in your work with Mission: Launch, what impact,
specifically, have you seen a criminal record have on the
families of those who are released from prison? And I also want
to say, I appreciate your being here, because you are
diversifying the public narrative of who is incarcerated. There
are more women incarcerated now than ever before and the
Massachusetts 7th, we have almost 40 percent of our
householders, single female headed. So again, if you could
speak to the impact on family?
Ms. Hodge. Thank you for that question. I think part of the
work that I do is a result of the children. I was incarcerated
with many women who I cannot tell you of the cries and the pain
that I had to listen to for almost five years of them being
away from their children. It was at a visiting room, watching
children play, after reading an article where it said that, ``A
child who has an incarcerated parent is more likely to go to
prison themselves,'' and it was after reading that, that I
personally made a commitment that I wanted to do this work.
I was fortunate. My daughter was 22 when I went to prison.
So I took an adult child to prison. But she became committed to
that as well as we watched the mothers and the children
reunited, often for just once a year, for a few hours in a
visiting room.
Ms. Pressley. And there is so much work to be done around
maintaining those familial bonds while a loved one is
incarcerated. Everything from more-affordable phone rates to
family visiting areas and the like, but a family reunification
and the stabilization of family is such a critical component of
successful reentry and reintegration, you would agree?
Ms. Hodge. Absolutely, yes.
Ms. Pressley. And so, could you speak to how does this
employment discrimination and housing discrimination as well,
how does this affect in the day to day, the functionality of
the restoration of family?
Ms. Hodge. Family reunification is extremely important. If
a parent is unable to take care of their families that plays an
unnecessary strain. I have engaged with organizations that
support children and one of the things that they said is that
it is the most stressful time in the lives of a child when
their parent comes home. Because it is an unnecessary strain
for individuals, for parents, who are unable to take care of
their children, depending on the types of crime, they are
unable to live with their children. If their children live in
public housing as well.
Ms. Pressley. I am just so sorry. As we wrap--do you think
that social safety set programs should be doing more to support
the children of incarcerated parents?
Ms. Hodge. I think our country is safer when we support
families and we support families being together.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you so much.
Ms. Hodge. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Meadows is up next, the ranking member of
the Subcommittee of Government Operations.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you both for
your testimony. It has been very illuminating. If you could
help me understand a little bit. So let us make the assumption,
I think everybody here makes the assumption, this is going to
be passed by both chambers, will be signed into law. How will
it work in the workplace?
So let us say that you do not have it, you do not disclose
it up front. You come in for an interview. At what point does
it get disclosed? So I understand the whole filter, but I also
can see the negative part, that if it creates a situation where
you are interviewing somebody and they are nervous that they
are going to have to disclose this, and if they do not, then
the employer--having been one--I go, ``Well, why weren't you
just honest with me, and I check it as a dishonest mark against
you.'' How does it work in reality?
Ms. Hodge. I think it works a couple of different ways. But
in this particular scenario, it is, a person gets to complete
an application, and an individual criminal history gets to
persist. They are able to be interviewed by you, and it is----
Mr. Meadows. And during that interview, do they disclose
this?
Ms. Hodge. No. The law that is before you is if there is a
conditional offer. If you are interested in this person, that
is when it is disclosed. However, the Ban the Box policies
throughout the country, there are various versions of them. It
is why many states and jurisdictions are expanding it. And
quite frankly, it is a complicated, unnecessarily, complicated
policy.
Ms. Harris. Yes, and I would just offer, too, and I think
this is something that Congressman Norman, I believe, brought
up. So again, there are a lot of individuals who would tell
you, or a lot of employers rather, who would tell you that when
individuals come in who have a criminal record, they are
actually very quick to share it. Before you even ask, they are
quick to share it.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Ms. Harris. Because again, they are quite concerned about
the issue you just raised, about honesty. But this gives them
an opportunity to talk about their efforts at rehabilitation.
It also gives you an opportunity to see their job skills and
qualifications. And again, we are talking about discriminating
against a third of our country. And we are no longer talking
about an obscure minority here. This is a third of our country
that has a criminal record. So I mean, I think it is quite
concerning that, you know, that we would exclude a third of our
country from the job pool for government jobs.
Mr. Meadows. I get that, but I guess here is the concern,
because I normally would ask, you know, is there anything that
I ought to know about that might be a concern? In the minute--
if this uses this law--is used as one to say, ``Well I am not
required to disclose it,'' it can have a complicating factor,
certainly from an employer standpoint. Do you follow me? So if
you all can come up with some recommendations on how maybe we
can look at that. And I am going to yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Kentucky, who Ms. Harris does not
need a translator for you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Massie. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. When
I was a county executive, at Lewis County, the second biggest
line item in our budget was the jail. The only thing we spent
more money on was the roads. And so, I spent a lot of time over
at the jail, and I got to know some of these inmates. And one
of the most ironic cases was a guy who had been convicted of
flagrant nonsupport. It is a Class D felony in Kentucky. I
think he was spending a year in our jail. Okay, we were housing
state inmates at the time.
So the reason that is ironic to me is we are depriving him
of a year of income and the children that he has fathered need
that income. I am not advocating for a lesser sentence for it,
but the problem is when he gets out, how is he going to provide
for those children? So I want to broaden this in the minute
that I have left. And this is probably a good idea, this bill,
but what are the other things we can do to make sure that those
type inmates, when they get out, they can provide for the
family that they should be supporting? By getting a job. Ms.
Harris?
Ms. Harris. Again, and not to be a broken record, but
expungement. And again, most expungement bills in this country,
there is a ridiculous waiting period of 10 years. And if you
live with a criminal record for 10 years, I mean it is just--
expungement almost seems like it really will not do much for
you.
But an expungement bill that has a reasonable crime-free
waiting period of, you know, three to five years, I think could
do a lot to ensure that individuals can get back on their feet
and eventually find a well-paying job. But I mean, that is
where I would like to start at the Federal level, just because
there is no significant vehicle for it.
Mr. Massie. Let me give Ms. Hodge a chance to tell me
something else we could do to make sure people can get a job
when the get out of jail.
Ms. Hodge. Actually I was agreeing with everything that----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Hodge. Ms. Harris had to say there as well. But I think
that this bill--if Congress passes this bill, it continues a
conversation. It continues a conversation with employers on how
do we handle this issue? I do not think that we have all of the
answers today, here. Ban the Box is new legislation. So the
data does not exist to the degree that we would like to have
it, but I think that it is a good next step, and we are going
to have to grow and heal as a country and find ways that we
create employment opportunities.
Mr. Massie. I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. And Mr. Massie, you know,
the question you raised is an important one, and it is one that
I hope we, that our subcommittee will get to investigate, which
is people who are in jail or in prison for essentially
financial offenses for not paying fees, not paying fines,
speeding tickets and so on, not paying child support, and I
know a lot of states are trying to work on that problem as
well. We come now to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay?
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to continue the
conversation with Mr. Massie. There is an effort around the
country in the area of restorative justice. In the state of
Missouri, it has been shown that we have debtor's prison for
things like you mentioned, for people who do not pay child
support. But in the St. Louis region, we have just elected two
new prosecutors in St. Louis City, St. Louis County, who have
done away with warrants and jail time for those do not pay
child support. And for low-level possession of marijuana.
And because the corrosive effect of locking someone up
because they cannot pay child support only multiplies the
impact. Okay, so you put them in jail, then they lose their
job. Or they lose their privilege of driving. So they cannot
drive to a job then.
I mean there are all kinds of cyclical effects that happen
to people because we go after these low-level crimes and
because a person is poor we cannot--they cannot meet those
fines and then they wind up doing jail. So that is a
discussion, hopefully, this committee will continue to have.
And that is why the First Step Act is so important. That is
why The Second Chance Act was so important. And I want to
continue to engage you in that. But before all of my time is
up--well, if you have a response.
Mr. Massie. No, I just think it was the most ironic case in
our jail. And it also shows why this is not a democrat or
republican issue.
Mr. Clay. And it happens more than it should.
Mr. Massie. Exactly.
Mr. Clay. So let me go to my first question. But thank you
for engaging. Ms. Harris, thank you for being here today and
you have spoken enthusiastically in the press about criminal
justice reform being a bipartisan issue.
Ms. Harris. Yes sir.
Mr. Clay. Specifically Ban the Box, initiatives like the
Fair Chance Act, benefit not just individuals but entire
communities. A prime piece of evidence you have identified is
Ban the Box initiatives have been endorsed by a wide variety of
employers from Facebook to Walmart to Koch Industry. Is that
correct?
Ms. Harris. Yes sir.
Mr. Clay. The benefits of Ban the Box for individuals with
a criminal record is obvious. It helps them get jobs they are
qualified to do but might not otherwise get.
How do policies like the Fair Chance Act benefit employees?
Ms. Harris. Well again, it opens up opportunity, and I do
not want to miss the forest for the trees, here. Again, we are
just ensuring that folks with records will have an opportunity
just to get their foot in the door and be able to offer, you
know, a narrative about their job skills and qualifications
before they, you know, they have to discuss what is, perhaps,
their worst mistake.
And so we are not, as Ms. Hodge said earlier today, no one
is forcing anyone to hire anybody. But simply to give these
individuals an opportunity.
And you did mention bipartisanship, and I do want to note
that I think it is just truly remarkable that a democratic-led
committee would invite a conservative strategist from deep red
Kentucky to serve as one of your witnesses, and I think that
speaks to your commitment to these issues and to the
bipartisanship that continues to safeguard criminal justice
reform.
Mr. Clay. We find you an excellent witness for this
legislation. Ms. Hodge, before my time is up, you have worked
passionately to open doors to people with criminal records
building on your own experience which you have movingly
testified to here. What response have you seen from employers,
particularly public employers who have adopted Ban the Box
policies?
Ms. Hodge. A lot of what Ms. Harris has said. Employers are
saying that these are their best employees. They are less
likely to leave the job. They arrive early for employment.
There are stories after stories of employers who are saying, by
widening their pool, and not just blanketedly discriminating--
and now that we are using technology online. We have to know
that algorithms are going to work faster and are discriminating
people earlier in the process.
Mr. Clay. Thank you both for your testimony. My time is up.
I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Clay, thank you. I am going to come to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Representative
Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is an
important hearing, and one we have not looked at. I am
impressed by the testimony we have received today from both of
our witnesses. We are talking about Federal Government hiring
alone.
You know that once upon a time, the Federal Government was
the kind of role model for the states and then the states said,
``Well it must be all right, because the Federal Government is
doing it.'' And now it has turned just the opposite, I think,
as your testimony has indicated.
I am very interested in your testimony, because this is an
issue that seems to breach the divisions in Congress. I note,
Ms. Harris, if you do not mind my saying so, that you are a
republican.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Harris. Secret is out.
Ms. Norton. And are here by invitation of the democratic
chair of this subcommittee. So I do think we begin on the right
foot. I am also impressed by the list of jurisdiction states
who have banned the box. I cannot find a difference between red
and blue on this issue. And as a key to, perhaps, learning how
we can bring that to other issues as well, I would like your
opinion, the opinion of both of you, on why this bill has seem
to know--we used to say left or right--it is red or blue. And
why, in particular, it would be seen as consistent with
conservative principles?
Ms. Harris. I am going to assume that is to me.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Harris. But look, you know, criminal justice reform
policy, in general, strengthens families. We would say it gets
government out of the way and puts people back to work. Right,
Congressman Massie? It ensures that we are holding government
agencies accountable. It also improves public safety, which I
think is a goal of both parties.
So, you know, for all of those reasons, I certainly think
that criminal justice reform, in general, is consistent with
conservative principles, and that is why you see some of our
most conservative members, like Congressman Massie, like
Senator Rand Paul, like Congressman Amash, you know, serving as
zealous advocates for these issues.
Ms. Norton. Certainly if you leave people who get out of
prison with nothing, no way to earn a living, of course, that
could be seen as an invitation to crime. So I do think that
this makes me want to think, at least, of issues to which we
could transfer just such thinking. In other words, what is the
alternative? You come to the alternative pretty clear what you
want to do.
I do not know if you can think of other criminal justice
reform measures that have this same kind of red and blue
impact. Can you?
Ms. Harris. Oh, sentencing reform, bail reform, shrinking
criminal codes, getting rid of a lot of unfair, unnecessary
duplicative laws, any of your reentry policies. All of the
above have a lot of bipartisan support.
I also would urge, and I would be remiss not to mention it,
you know, folks here have talked about those who have relapsed
on the job, and it is due to drug addiction. And we have got to
be investing more money in treatment in this country. Less
investment in jails and prisons and more investment in
treatment, because we are not treating the core issues that
brought a lot of these individuals to the justice system to
begin with.
Ms. Norton. Thanks for that insight. Now, I think--in fact
I know that our bill is about Federal employment, and I
noticed, Ms. Harris, that you indicated that some jurisdictions
have banned the box in public and private employment. And then
some, I suspect, in only public employment, and I want to know
how jurisdictions make that distinction if some decide to go
with only public employment, why? Any insight you can give us
on that? Because obviously most of the jobs in the United
States are private employment.
Ms. Harris. Sure, and look, I think as more people see and
hear the success stories of organizations like, for example,
Koch Industries. I cite to that a lot, because Mark Holden is
very free and sharing about his experiences in hiring formerly
incarcerated individuals.
As more jurisdictions hear those success stories, and by
the way, as employers become more and more desperate for
workers. I mean, now in the country, we have more open jobs
that we have unemployed individuals to fill them. So, you know,
as employers become more desperate, I do think there will be a
move to further encourage private employers.
Ms. Norton. You scare me a little bit on that. It is good
to hear that one of the reasons is that employers need
employees, and I remember during the Clinton Administration,
when we got to this point as well. And we found people readily
employing people with records.
So if we get back beyond where we are now, we have full
employment. Do you think there will be reversion, or do you
think these examples will have made the case for hiring
formerly incarcerated people?
Ms. Harris. Oh, there is no question. I defer to Ms. Hodge
to share so many of the stories from the individuals who are
involved----
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Hodge, will you answer the question, and
then the gentlelady's time is up.
Ms. Hodge. Yes, I am sorry. Can you please repeat your
question, though?
Ms. Norton. Yes, I say, of course, we are in a time when
employers are desperate for--with full employment, it is
called, of course, we know, people are working two or three
jobs. And so, I am wondering if you have had enough experience
so that when inevitably in a market economy, we go back to
where you do not have full employment anymore, you feel that
the lesson has been taught? That it is not a danger to hire
formerly incarcerated persons.
Ms. Hodge. Yes. I personally believe that the evidence is
going to bear that. I think that is why states that have early
adopted Ban the Box, even minimally, have gone back and have
expanded it, Ban the Box within their states. So we are now
starting to see that. And I think as we continue, the evidence
will prove that banning the box is beneficial--it makes us as a
country more fiscally responsible.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. The gentlewoman from the Virgin
Island, Ms. Plaskett.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you all for
being here and to my colleagues for this, I think, very
educational and important discussion. I want to say just as a
point of reference that this discussion has been going on for
quite a long time, and I am glad that this is really raising
itself now to a point where we may have a bipartisan solution
that makes some steps in the right direction.
I just want to note that our chairman of the subcommittee
was very engaged in this, and when I was his law school
student, at American University Law School, I wrote a thesis
where he was the advisor on the disenfranchisement and voting
rights for convicted felons. I saw that in a box a couple of
months ago and thought----
Mr. Raskin. I hope you will not mind my violating your
academic privacy, but you got an A on your thesis.
Ms. Plaskett. I did, thank you. But the other thing I
wanted to share was an experience that I had. I had been a
prosecutor in the past, and I had the pleasure and the honor of
working in the Bronx District Attorney's office. And just as a
personal experience, I recall one day taking my sons to a
barbershop. People had told me that this has got to be one of
the greatest, hottest, barbershops in the south Bronx. And
sitting there with three of my--my sons were really small at
that time waiting for them to see the barber. It was a young
shop. These were young guys. They even had an area of play for
their children. And as I looked at the guy who was about to do
my son's hair, I realized I had put him in jail. That I was the
prosecutor.
And so, I began to put the newspaper a little closer over
my face as he was about to start shaving my son's head. And
afterwards when I paid him and thanked him, you know, said he
did a great job. He called me by name. And said, you know,
``And I want to thank you, because you were definitely the ADA
on that case, but I definitely did the crime and being in jail
is where I got my barber's license from.'' But he could not
find work and so he and two other guys from the barbershop went
in and started their own barbershop together. And the city of
New York gave them support to be able and lease a place to do
that.
And that became a safe place for not only young people.
They were able to have their children there and care for their
children while they were working. So these are important things
in communities to have. And that is just a personal experience.
But banning the box is crucial, because research shows that
removing barriers from employment is essential to providing a
real second chance for individuals.
Two studies from the National Institute of Justice found
that having a criminal record reduces likelihood of a job
callback or offer by nearly 50 percent. You both are, I am
sure, very aware of that. What would these penalties even apply
to those who be arrested or who actually have not been
convicted? Can any of you answer that? Does this apply to
arrest, this banning the box? Or is it just for convictions?
Ms. Harris. Well so, if you are--this particular bill
allows the government employer to inquire into your criminal
history but then again, that would mean that you would have to
have been convicted of a crime. That said, as you well know, if
you do a criminal background check, you can often see where
someone has been arrested. So, you know, it would still be
available to you if, you know, depending on the search
mechanism that you are using.
Ms. Plaskett. Sure, you know, in the panel before, Senator
Booker cited some information from the American Bar
Association, which stated that there were 45,000 collateral
consequences to having a criminal conviction. I think that is
really important for us to know. That this is just one of many
consequences to individuals of having that.
You cited earlier, Ms. Harris, the Virgin Islands, which
adopted a robust Ban the Box that keeps from public and
private, which means that employers are hiring and looking for
good workers, because there are a staggering 30 percent of 18-
to-35-year-olds in the Virgin Islands that have a criminal
record. Most for nonviolent offenses. Most are petty offenses
and marijuana offenses in our case.
And one of the other things our legislature did last year
that I was really happy to be a part of was to remove the
waiver for individuals to receive food stamps. Because we saw
that we had so many families--individuals that were coming out
of jail that unless a state allows it, will not allow them to
receive food stamps for them and their families as they are
trying to find work and trying to make that transition.
So we should be working here at the Federal level to look
at states--with the states--to see what support do they need
from us and Federal legislation that will allow them to support
individuals. There are a lot of other things that I would like
to ask you all, but I want to thank you so much for having this
hearing. This has been a really wonderful conversation, and I
am glad to get this information on the record, so our
colleagues can see the importance of banning the box. Thank
you.
Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady yields. We come to the
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Maloney.
Ms. Maloney. First of all, I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman for calling this important hearing, and I thank both
panelists and all of my colleagues for their support and
contribution to the discussion. I am a proud cosponsor of the
Fair Chance Act and think that our Federal Government should
follow the example of 34 states, including my own home state of
New York that has enacted similar legislation. And as we heard
from the testimony today, the Fair Chance Act is not only
morally right, but it makes good business sense by employing
people with a record and making it possible for them to be
employed, and they have the dignity of work for their own life.
Also it helps their families and actually the economic vitality
of our country. So barring people with criminal records from
work has real negative consequences for the economy and for the
bottom line.
And I want to cite two statistics that really support this.
The National Employment Law Project, in 2014, ``America's GDP
lost an estimated $78 billion because people with felony
records could not participate in the labor market.'' The
organization also found that, ``Putting 100 formerly
incarcerated people back to work could increase their lifetime
earnings by $55 million, increase their income tax
contributions by $1.9 million and boost sales tax revenues by
$770,000.'' That sounds like a pretty good deal.
So I would like to ask Mrs. Harris and Mrs. Hodges, are
these findings consistent with your understanding of the
economic benefits of employing people with criminal records?
Ms. Harris. Yes.
Ms. Hodge. Yes.
Ms. Maloney. And we have also established that reemployment
of people, the dignity of work, employing them with criminal
records adds value to our overall economy. So Ms. Hodges and
Ms. Harris, do Ban the Box policies save taxpayers money?
Ms. Harris. Yes ma'am.
Ms. Hodge. Yes, it will.
Ms. Maloney. And I agree. In fact, the National Employment
Law Project also noted that, ``Ban the Box saves as much as $2
million in criminal justice expenditures.'' So my question is,
why have we not passed this earlier? This sounds like a win-
win-win, for the individual, the family, the economy, the
country.
Ms. Harris. Amen.
Ms. Maloney. So why have we not passed it earlier, do you
think?
Ms. Hodge. I am not sure why we have not passed it earlier,
but I am so excited that this bill is before Congress today,
and I am hopeful that this Congress will pass this bill.
Ms. Maloney. Well thank you so much, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you so much. The gentlelady yields, and I
come now to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy. Well you all have been extraordinarily patient. We
are coming up on a couple of hours, I think, for those who have
been here at the table. So thank you for your patients, we are
about to wind down. I do appreciate the chairman. I appreciate
all of my colleagues. And I will try to be quick.
And full disclosure here, you know, this committee in
particular, we have got a lot of interesting issues in
Oversight. Maybe there is a little bit more bombast in this
committee sometimes, because of some of the issues that are
brought before it, and this was a very, I think, compelling
hearing. Very nonpartisan, as Ms. Harris, you rightly point
out. I already pointed out my affiliation with the Texas Public
Policy Foundation, who is obviously one of the leaders on this
with Right on Crime, this area, Right on Crime.
But I do want to say, sort of acknowledge, that I am a
little bit split on this issue and broadly speaking as somebody
who believes, from my faith, my Christian faith in second
chances and somebody who thinks that we need to follow the data
and figure how we can best allow people to integrate back into
society. I think this is a really important conversation.
I am also a former prosecutor, and not unlike my colleague
that was just talking, and so I do have some concerns about
just making sure that as the pendulum is moving, as we kind of
think about things, that we are making sure we are keeping our
eye on the ball.
So a couple of things, a couple of clarifying questions,
totally meant to be open-ended, clarifying questions. No
``gotchas'' or anything. I did want to come back to the Doleac
study, because we have talked a few times about these issues
that have been raised, and, in general, the response has sort
of been, ``Well, that's not been my experience.'' And that is
fine. That is an anecdotal observation that I take your word on
it, because you spend all your days doing this. So that matters
to me.
But in the empirical analyses, it is not just the Doleac
study, there are others, you know, for example, I would ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record, a February 2017
paper authored by two senior economists at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Boston that analyzed Massachusetts Ban the Box reform.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Mr. Roy. The study found, ``We find that contrary to the
intended goal, the Corey reform,'' which is the analogous
reform here, ``has a small negative effect on exoffenders
employment that grows over time.'' Now to be clear, it said,
``small negative effect,'' so I mean, I would acknowledge that.
And as I said, with respect to Ms. Doleac, her analysis
said, ``delaying information about job applicants' criminal
histories lead employers to statistically discriminate against
groups that are more likely to have a recent conviction. No. 2,
this negative effect is driven by reduction employment for
young, low-skilled Black men who do not have criminal records.
No. 3, current evidence suggests that Ban the Box may not
increase employment for people of criminal records and might
even reduce it.''
I could go on, and you guys have read the study. My point
of bringing that up is only this, it is important that we look
at that, and that is why we have got this inquiry in on the
study, the letter that Chairman Gowdy put in last year that we
are waiting on.
And here is when I am going to actually get to the
question, which is, I think Ms. Harris, you had pointed out
about current policy with the Federal Government and hiring.
And I think you stated something to the effect of, we need this
law to prevent the Federal Government from having hiring
practices that would make it difficult for those with records,
because they have to check the box. You said something along
those lines?
Ms. Harris. Yes, I guess there could be action from the
President as well, but legislation would be required. Was that
your question? I am sorry.
Mr. Roy. Well it is, and I am glad you said that, because
my understanding, but please correct me if I am wrong, is that
under current Office of Personnel Management Policy,
established under President Obama, we already follow what is
laid out in the Fair Chance Act but if I am wrong----
Ms. Harris. But it does not extend to contractors.
Mr. Roy. Okay, so here is my question and that may be fair
and I will take your word that that is true. What data do we
have from the experience in the last, two, three, four years--I
do not know the date of the executive order or whatever the
order was that would indicate how this is faring with
employment, not the contractors if it only applies to
employees. How are we seeing it perform with respect to
employees?
Ms. Harris. What I would share is that there is really no
level of accountability for some of this and that is why I
think it is pretty critical that when we talk--I think someone
did make the point about implementation about ensuring that we
are not, you know, replacing, you know, the box with something
that could exacerbate any sort of, you know, racial
disparities.
And so or any sort of race issues. And so--look, I think
your point is well taken that you know, implementation of this
and ensuring some accountability with respect to, you know,
what is passed by this body is critical. I would raise the
First Step Act that we just passed. Look, when you read it, it
is great. We are having some issues with implementation. So--
and it is my understanding that this body, all of you all are
members of the Oversight Committee, and I am quite hopeful that
you all will be vigilant in ensuring that when you pass this
bill that there is a level of accountability in ensuring that
the Executive branch does, in fact, follow it.
Mr. Roy. Well I appreciate that. My time is winding down,
so I will just say this one last point, which is that, I think
I would hope that we, the committee, would be able to work on
other things in this area.
I think we are heavily over-criminalized. I think that I
would like to look at over-criminalization, how we might reduce
the number of laws that are out there. If you follow, you know,
a crime a day on Twitter, it is pretty compelling.
And also things like occupational licensing, which I think,
often more at the state level, but I would at least like to
continue to have, you know, interest in looking at some of
these other ways that we can address these kinds of issues. And
I thank you all very much for your time. Thank you.
Ms. Hodge. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Roy, thank you. The ranking member has
extraordinary experience in this field. And so, I indeed hope
that this will be just the beginning of some bipartisan
collaboration we can do to advance things.
I am going to ask each of you one question, and I am going
to yield, two-point-five minutes to Ms. Pressley from
Massachusetts. She has asked for two, but I was so moved by her
beautiful statement before, I am giving her two-point-five
minutes, and then I am going to enter some stuff in the record.
So, Ms. Hodge, let me start with you. You began with a very
powerful story about how you knew that you had the right
qualifications. You knew you were right for the job. You filled
it out online and then you honestly answered the question, ``Do
you have a criminal record,'' and then suddenly it went blank
and came up and it said, ``You have been disqualified because
of one of your answers.''
Now technically speaking, and maybe even more than
technically, subsequently speaking, we are not going to remedy
that with this legislation, because now you could not be cutoff
at the threshold, but you go all the way through the process
and they could say, ``Ms. Hodge is the greatest candidate we've
ever seen,'' and then they ask you the question, ``Do you have
a criminal record?'' And then at that point, they could say,
``Sorry, we can't chance it.''
So no, I understand that would not happen in every case, so
you clearly have won by virtue of having the opportunity to get
the job, but if that were to happen to you, what would your
reaction be? In other words, would you feel better about such a
process or worse about such a process? I think some of
colleagues asked about that.
Ms. Hodge. I would feel better. I think that most
individuals who have an arrest or conviction record just want
to feel as though they have a fair shot. And I have applied for
many jobs, even prior to incarceration that I did not receive
that I felt like I was qualified for. And so, being
disqualified for any other reason but just the fact that I had
a criminal record and that early on in the process was what was
the most disheartening.
Mr. Raskin. What an excellent answer. I think there are a
lot of socio-psychological studies which show that people--even
if they are not going to end up getting a job, admission to a
college, whatever it might be, win a prize, if they feel like
the process was fair, then they do not leave embittered by the
experience. I thank you very much.
Ms. Harris, let me ask you, I think that one of the tough
things we face in this whole field is the idea that because
someone has committed a crime, they have been adjudicated
guilty by a jury of their peers, that, that defines who they
are for the past and for the future. And you seem to have
robust optimism about you. What is it that gives you faith that
we do not have to be bound by that belief?
Ms. Harris. Well, ``There but for the grace of God go'' all
of us, right? I mean, again, I come from a state where a lot of
people are very sick. No state has been ravaged by the drug
scourge like Kentucky. And, you know, and because of that, you
know, we have a whole lot of people who are entering our
justice system who are not bad people but they are sick people.
And so I certainly have the belief that if we can get these
people well and certainly that should happen through treatment
not through incarceration. Then, you know, of course, they can
be different people. And the stories, you know, of Ms. Hodge
and so many of the individuals that she works with at
JustLeadershipUSA. Matthew Charles, my good friend, who
actually would be considered a violent criminal is one of the
finest people that I have ever met.
So I would not even call it optimism. I would say, you
know, based on my personal experience and my observations that
this is, you know, second chances are real and that a person's
worst mistake should not define them.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chair for being so gracious as
to allow me the opportunity to ask one more question for the
record.
I am reminded of a recent report produced by the IMF which
substantiated what we all know, which is that if we had a more
inclusive economy, what that can mean for the GDP. And, in
fact, when it comes to closing the gender gap, specifically
they said, if we were to address that, then we could see a boon
to the GDP of some 35 percent.
And so, thinking about this from the standpoint, a more
inclusive economy, do we have any projections? In 2015, they
said something like there were 70 million Americans with a
criminal record or who had been incarcerated. So are there any
economic projections of what a more inclusive economy can mean
by eliminating these barriers to employment?
Ms. Harris. Again, I would go straight back to that number
that has been cited, which again, is sort of the reverse of
your question. But on how--on the negative impact that we have
seen to our economy by the poor job prospects of formerly
incarcerated individuals.
Economists have estimated the U.S. GDP was reduced by as
much as $78 billion in 2014 alone. Seventy-eight billion
dollars in one year. So, you know, certainly, I mean, again,
that is the reverse of your question. I think it underscores
the point.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you very much, all right. And I yield
back. Thank you again, Mr. Chair for your graciousness.
Mr. Raskin. Oh you bet, Ms. Pressley. Thank you for your
astute questioning today.
Let us see, I wanted to close just by saying something
about the very interesting point made by Mr. Grothman from
Wisconsin about this study, and I am going to enter some
counter studies into the record.
But, of course, he made the interesting point that there is
one study that shows that removing a former condition of
incarceration as a legitimate grounds for discrimination may
increase race discrimination. And, of course, I do not know
whether or not it is true. There are several reports which
undermine that claim.
But in any event, I do not know that it is a powerful
argument. Even if it were true, it is like saying, ``Well we
shouldn't have the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, because some
employers may say therefore, we'll just discriminate on the
basis of gender.'' You cannot use one form of discrimination to
justify another form of discrimination.
But in any case, I am introducing one statement from Dr.
Terry-Ann Craigie, who is a professor at the Department of
Economics at the Connecticut College, and she makes the point
that her confers of study finds that, ``Ban the Box policies
increase the likelihood of public employment for those with
criminal records by 30 percent.'' And she goes through the
data.
The second comes from National Employment Law Project which
directly targets the claim that you are going to increase race
discrimination if you develop a Ban the Box policy. The core
problem raised by the study is not Ban the Box but entrenched
racism in the hiring process, which manifests as racial
profiling of African Americans as criminals, according to these
authors. And they get into a lot of detail.
And then, finally, from Texas A&M University--oh, that one
has been entered already. Where is the one from--is that the
one from the leadership conference? Okay.
Two more, one from the ACLU called, Back to Business: How
Hiring Formerly Incarcerated Job Seekers Benefits Your Company.
And finally, from the Leadership Conference, a statement on the
Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019.
Mr. Raskin. I want to thank everybody for this enormously
illuminating and fair-minded hearing. And without objection,
all members will have five legislative days within which to
submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the
chair which will be sent to the witnesses for their response,
and I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you
can.
And again, we thank you for your excellent testimony today.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]