Today, I was invited to be the guest speaker at meeting for probationers and parolees. We discussed my past and my program. We were having a very candid conversation. Before I left, I opened the floor to questions. One question, in particular, started another discussion. I was asked, “If you are on diversion, how do you answer the question, ‘Have you ever been convicted of a felony’”? Before I could answer, the officer said, “Answer that question, ‘NO’”. And before I could say anything, another person said, “At (unnamed program), they teach us the same thing”!
Needless to say, I was highly upset. We are dealing with individuals that have chosen to go against what society views as normal. They have broken the law and were caught. That shows that there is something in their thinking process that is flawed. We, as trainers, must realize that and then train the to not think that way, presenting them with a different decision making process- one that is not flawed.
I quickly explained to the group and the officer that that was lying- flat out. Diversion, first time felons, and repeat offenders are ALL convicted felons! Diversion is an opportunity for a convicted felon to live trouble free for a specified period of time and if the other conditions are met, that record is expunged. But that only happens AFTER the time has passed. Until then, that individual is a convicted felon.
The reason I was so angry is because I know why this is going on. Programs that are funded by grants have benchmarks and quotas to meet. So they must find ways to gain employment for their participants. The motivation then is shifted from what is best for the client to what is best for the program. This CAN NOT be about programs. It must be about the people. We are dealing with real people, real lives, not numbers. While the employment numbers for the program may look good, it does not reflect the fact that the individual lost that job once the employer completed the background investigation and found the criminal record.
Understand this, the clients that we deal with have been turned down and looked down upon for their pasts for so long that it begins to affect them emotionally. The fact that they were able to find employment removes some the negative self image. There is a sense of accomplishment that goes with finding employment. So imagine what it must feel like to have that taken away because you lied on the application. That person, now, feels worse than before they were employed. That type of disappointment will lead a person back to a life of crime.
In short, by training this group to lie, their negative thought processes are only exacerbated and strengthened! It is our job, as trainers, to teach them that negative thinking ALWAYS brings negative results. We must make negative decision making practices unattractive. This is life or death. Leave this line of work to those that have a heart for the people, not a desire to have a great program.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Criminals
Below, you will find a story that discusses possible protections for persons previously convicted of felonies. While I agree that there needs to be some protections put in place, I also strongly feel that re-entry training MUST be completed before ex-felons are given full access to those protections. We need a restorative justice system that works to equip those in this category with the tools necessary to become productive citizens, while making the criminal lifestyle "unattractive" and no longer an option.
By Claudia Cowan
Published July 22, 2011
FoxNews.com
A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women. If passed by city supervisors, landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past.
Supporters say it's an effort to help former offenders get back on their feet, but critics call the concept a crime in itself.
"My mother is an immigrant, my mother-in-law is a Jew and I'm a gay man. Those are all protected categories, but you're going to put a felon in there as a protected category? That's not right," said Andrew Long, a board member of the San Francisco Apartment Association.
But ex-cons contend they're immediately disqualified by employers and landlords reluctant to trust anyone with a rap sheet.
"People don't want to hire felons," says Monique Love, who served time five years ago on a drug offense. Clean and sober now, she says boxes on application forms asking about criminal history unfairly discriminate against her. At one recent interview, Monique says she never got the chance to tell her story of recovery and rehabilitation.
"I didn't get a shot. Not a shot," she says. "As soon as he saw that box was checked, the boss was like, 'I'm sorry, we can't help you.'"
According to The City's Human Rights Commission, San Francisco has the highest recidivism rate of any big city in California, almost 80 percent. With an influx of new prisoners set to be released because of the state's budget crisis, supporters argue felons need legal protections before they're disqualified simply because of their record, which could be decades old and for crimes that have nothing to do with the job they're hoping to get.
Commission Director Teresa Sparks calls it a public safety issue.
"Without housing, it's hard to keep a steady job, and many times because of that, people recommit," Sparks said. She argues a criminal history shouldn't be the only reason someone is denied housing or work.
"All we're saying is get a chance to know them, see if they're qualified otherwise, before you use that as a criteria for taking them out," she said.
Hawaii, New York and Philadelphia have enacted similar policies to prevent blanket discrimination against felons in the private job market, and some cities in Illinois and Wisconsin have imposed such restrictions on rental property owners.
At a public hearing at San Francisco's City Hall this week, some landlords worried that if the policy passes here, they'll face a barrage of lawsuits from unscrupulous convicts.
"Some ex-cons will probably make this a business, going from apartment complex to apartment complex, getting denied for whatever reason, and then filing a nuisance lawsuit," Long said.
Sparks says rental property owners could turn away sex offenders and people who've committed some violent crimes, like murder. Employers could also reject job applicants if their crimes are "significantly related" to the position they are seeking, but they could only inquire about the applicants' criminal past at the end of the interview process.
That doesn't sit well with Gary Bauer, owner of Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, one of San Francisco's biggest transportation companies. He says he needs to know about an applicants criminal history right up front.
"We won't discriminate against anyone, but we need to know what we're looking at. What is their background? Is it grand auto theft? We're running transportation," Bauer said, adding, "Being in California, and in San Francisco, it gets tougher and tougher every year ... when they come down with these things."
Public hearings continue to formalize the legislation, with lawsuits sure to follow, if San Francisco gives legal protections to people who broke the law.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/22/san-francisco-considers-legal-protection-for-criminals/#ixzz1TBEJRO33
By Claudia Cowan
Published July 22, 2011
FoxNews.com
A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women. If passed by city supervisors, landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past.
Supporters say it's an effort to help former offenders get back on their feet, but critics call the concept a crime in itself.
"My mother is an immigrant, my mother-in-law is a Jew and I'm a gay man. Those are all protected categories, but you're going to put a felon in there as a protected category? That's not right," said Andrew Long, a board member of the San Francisco Apartment Association.
But ex-cons contend they're immediately disqualified by employers and landlords reluctant to trust anyone with a rap sheet.
"People don't want to hire felons," says Monique Love, who served time five years ago on a drug offense. Clean and sober now, she says boxes on application forms asking about criminal history unfairly discriminate against her. At one recent interview, Monique says she never got the chance to tell her story of recovery and rehabilitation.
"I didn't get a shot. Not a shot," she says. "As soon as he saw that box was checked, the boss was like, 'I'm sorry, we can't help you.'"
According to The City's Human Rights Commission, San Francisco has the highest recidivism rate of any big city in California, almost 80 percent. With an influx of new prisoners set to be released because of the state's budget crisis, supporters argue felons need legal protections before they're disqualified simply because of their record, which could be decades old and for crimes that have nothing to do with the job they're hoping to get.
Commission Director Teresa Sparks calls it a public safety issue.
"Without housing, it's hard to keep a steady job, and many times because of that, people recommit," Sparks said. She argues a criminal history shouldn't be the only reason someone is denied housing or work.
"All we're saying is get a chance to know them, see if they're qualified otherwise, before you use that as a criteria for taking them out," she said.
Hawaii, New York and Philadelphia have enacted similar policies to prevent blanket discrimination against felons in the private job market, and some cities in Illinois and Wisconsin have imposed such restrictions on rental property owners.
At a public hearing at San Francisco's City Hall this week, some landlords worried that if the policy passes here, they'll face a barrage of lawsuits from unscrupulous convicts.
"Some ex-cons will probably make this a business, going from apartment complex to apartment complex, getting denied for whatever reason, and then filing a nuisance lawsuit," Long said.
Sparks says rental property owners could turn away sex offenders and people who've committed some violent crimes, like murder. Employers could also reject job applicants if their crimes are "significantly related" to the position they are seeking, but they could only inquire about the applicants' criminal past at the end of the interview process.
That doesn't sit well with Gary Bauer, owner of Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, one of San Francisco's biggest transportation companies. He says he needs to know about an applicants criminal history right up front.
"We won't discriminate against anyone, but we need to know what we're looking at. What is their background? Is it grand auto theft? We're running transportation," Bauer said, adding, "Being in California, and in San Francisco, it gets tougher and tougher every year ... when they come down with these things."
Public hearings continue to formalize the legislation, with lawsuits sure to follow, if San Francisco gives legal protections to people who broke the law.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/22/san-francisco-considers-legal-protection-for-criminals/#ixzz1TBEJRO33
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
