Are We Now Getting The Point: Criminality Is Not Just Bad Decision-Making

Cities That Lead the Way: A New Approach To The Old Problem of Recividism Among Ex-Cons

Our no-nonsense approach to criminality--the so-called "hard line law and order" approach--has not been effective. This approach is often associated with Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. Sheriff Joe has erected a tent city that exposes all county inmates to the hazards of the weather without regard for safety or consequences. He feeds inmates bologna sandwiches almost exclusively and charges inmates a per diem cost for doing so. He claims it works. He even cites statistics that prove it works. But those statistics are quite suspect because they are 1) not reviewed by external agencies; 2) are pre-defined by the Sheriff himself; and 3) are skewed because Sheriff Joe doesn't tell us about the numbers of folks he chases out of the county. While most counties across the nation report a recividism rate somewhere between 60%-70%, Sheriff Arpaio often reports less than 50% recividism. But he excludes certain types of offenders from the statistics and has been known to drive an inmate to the county borders and order him/her to stay out of Maricopa County. Some reports indicate that the recividism rate under Sheriff Joe is actually as high as 80%-90%.

But Arpaio is a huckster and a politician. He knows how to draw a crowd, speak to the fears of voters and garner media attention. His web site speaks of having "enjoyed press from as far away as England, France, Germany, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The Sheriff and his programs have been featured on ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN national news programs and magazines. Newspapers from around the world have come to interview him and see his Tent City and female chain gang. Magazines including Jane, Time, MarieClair, Newsweek, Philadelphia Inquirer and People are just some of the national magazines that have all done pieces on the office and Sheriff as well. His unique programs have captured the attention of the public and the press everywhere." Something is wrong when a sheriff "enjoys" media attention.

For far too long we have had a notion in corrections that denying basic comforts, basic rights and activities in our correctional facilities actually does some good. We then cast the inmates out of the facility and back into the world, often on parole, and expect them to change their ways, find a job, and become productive. But who really expects an ex-con (even a county ex-con) to get a fair shake in the job market? The cities cited in this article have taken a step to alter the unfairness of the process, the assumptions and the ability of an ex-con to actually do what society expects. It probably won't work for all ex-cons, and recividism will still remain high... but shouldn't we offer some hope to those that have the potential to succeed? Bravo zulu to Boston, Chicago and San Francisco for their leadership. Of course, we want them to be extremely careful in selecting who works in specific areas, but we should be prepared to offer second chances. This is especially true for those ex-cons fully participating in an earnest program of recovery from addiction that was related to their criminality to beging with...

Crippled by soaring corrections costs, states and municipalities are re-examining policies that drive ex-offenders right back to prison by barring them from employment. Locked out of the mainstream, ex-felons become burdens to their families, their communities and the nation as a whole. Three cities — Boston, Chicago and San Francisco — have taken groundbreaking steps aimed at de-emphasizing criminal histories for qualified applicants for city jobs, except in law enforcement, education and other sensitive areas where people with convictions are specifically barred by statute.

The Boston plan, which becomes effective this summer, deserves to be widely emulated. It covers not just city employees but also the companies that do business with the city. Those companies, which employ hundreds of thousands of workers, will be required to make their employment policies consistent with those put forth by the city.

Under the new policy, the city will not conduct a criminal record review at all, except in special circumstances or when it is required by law. Even then, the search will come near the end of the process, after the applicant has proved to be qualified and is about to be hired. If the city then changes its mind about the job offer, the applicant is entitled to a full explanation and a chance to rebut the criminal records reports, which sometimes contain errors.

Taken together, the recent developments in Boston, Chicago and San Francisco symbolize a step forward in terms of fairness for law-abiding ex-offenders, who are often barred from entire occupations because of youthful mistakes and minor crimes committed in the distant past. It should be clear to all of us by now that confining those people to the ranks of the unemployed makes it more likely that they will commit new crimes, return to prison and become a permanent burden to society.