Bill would help offenders apply for civil service

Jun 28th, 2012 | By | Category: Parole, Rehabilitation, Spotlight

‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ for offenders

Related: Inmates to receive, submit state job applications under proposed law

Editorial: A job is best crime prevention program

Sacramento Bee
The job hunt is tough for everybody these days. But imagine having a criminal record.

Many employers, including cities and counties, won’t consider hiring someone with a criminal past…

That places the public at risk by helping to spin the revolving jailhouse door. Unemployment among ex-offenders is the leading predictor of whether someone will re-offend…

Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, is carrying a bill headed for a Senate committee hearing today…Assembly Bill 1831 would prohibit cities and counties from having criminal history boxes on application forms…

The bill would not prevent local governments from asking about and eventually rejecting an applicant because of criminal history which would make the job seeker unsuitable for certain kinds of employment…(Full text at Sacramento Bee )

It seems to Paco Assemblyman Dickinson’s proposal will cost state and municipal agencies untold dollars precisely because offenders who currently self-disqualify will submit applications–Processing unqualified applicants wastes time and costs money.

What’s next? Will CPO’s be required to distribute STD 678‘s to the population?  Perhaps CO’s should assist inmates in applying for state jobs by helping them fill out the forms and routing them to the affected agencies

Sponsored Content

4 Comments to “Bill would help offenders apply for civil service”

  1. In The Know says:

    This is total BS. CCPOA needs to target him next election. Then again, maybe MJ gave him the idea…

  2. King Wills says:

    There is no one who wants parolees and other ex offenders to find gainful employment more than I do. Why? Because I’m sick and tired of my tax dollars going to support convivicted felons on welfare, food stamps, SSI and any other government program that they crawl to after they get out of CDCr custody and…surprise, surprise…discover they can’t find work because of their criminal past. Having said that, this proposed legislation will have no practical effect on 98% of those ex inmates looking for work with public agencies, because with the exception of jobs like bus driving, sanitation or specialized outreach programs, no manager in his right mind wants a convicted felon woking in his department, for reasons of employee safety as well as general peace of mind. Most people don’t want to be in the company of parolees or felony probationers, much less have them for co-workers. It’s just like any public agency, CDCr or otherwise-if a manager wants to find a way to make something happen or not happen, odds are he will, dispite the intent of any regulation that might apply. If a manager with hiring clout decides that he/she does not want a parolee working in their department, you can bet your last money, the parolees’ application will be deep sixed for sure.

    • Howie Katz says:

      I don’t now what has happened in the intervening years. When I was a parole agent in the ’60s there were many employers willing to give parolees a job and it wasn’t just the car washes. I had parolees working in good jobs. Most of them got those jobs on their own and that was when we required them to notify their employers within a maximum of 30 days that they were on parole. I had several heroin addict parolees working in hospitals. I had another heroin addict working as a custodian in the super-security Command Control Center at March Air Force Base. The hospitals and MAFB authorities were aware of their parole and heroin addiction history. We had employers call the Riverside District Office saying they wanted to help parolees by offering them jobs and those jobs were not shitass or minimum wage jobs either.

      I even had a bank robber working for Pacific Savings and Loan driving their money truck around from branch to branch. For over a year they didn’t know about his criminal background. Don’t ask me, why not. He was covered by a ‘blanket bond.’ When I found he had not revealed his parole status, I gave him a week to inform them. Both of us were sure he would be fired. But they were so delighted he informed them, that they promoted him as manager of the print shop and mail delivery service. He supervised more than a dozen Pacific Savings employees and made more than twice the money I was making.

      One employer called the PAIII and said he had a parolee in his office who said that if he didn’t get a job within 3 days, Mr. Katz was going to throw his ass in jail. He asked if I could do that. Fred Galloway replied, “Yes he can and knowing Howie, he will do exactly that.” The man then told Fred, “Well, I don’t have a job opening right now, but I’m going to make on so that this guy won’t have to go to jail.”

      The employment situation aside, I think what has happened is that the hot-air politicians have been screaming about law and order for so long that it’s got everyone scared to hire anyone with an arrest record. And that’s really a shame because steady employment is the most significant factor in a successful parole, while unemployment is one of the most significant factors in parole failure.

  3. Bob Walsh says:

    This is just another semi-useless, feel-good piece of legislation that will, in the long run, mean nothing and cost the state a modest chunk of change.