Purpose of meeting: We are actively seeking business and corporate entities willing to support felony re-entry and employment in Ohio. We are exploring opportunities for partnership and hope to counter the Ohio Chamber of Commerce objections to the former Senate Bill 197.
Outcome: This was our first of what will hopefully become many discussions on this topic as we continue to make contacts and seek support. If you would like to become part of the on-going discussion, Please e-mail me here
The effect of felony conviction on employment is not a ‘new’ issue. For as long as we’ve been arresting individuals and charging them with crimes, we’ve been dealing with how to treat these individuals when they return to society. The state of the economy in America and in Ohio has forced many sectors to cut-back on expenses and to lay-off valued employees. The unemployment rate in Ohio was nearly 9.7% as of March 2009. Some of the hardest hit in this type of job market are those that are already disadvantaged- single parents, the homeless and convicted felons.
Ohio, faced with the same shortages in revenue as its population, has been forced to reexamine old policies and pass legislation replacing outdated and ineffective social policies. One of the biggest areas of concern has been Ohio’s rising prison population and with it, the rising population of felons returning to the community. So far the best efforts have been focused on keeping people out of prison. For example, even as this article is being written, changes to Substitute H.B. 1- Ohio’s Budget Bill- include sentencing reforms and child support enforcement reforms intended to reduce the numbers of people sent to prison for low- level crimes; Thus, reducing the financial burden of the State and its people who must pay for the food, housing, and medical expenses of incarcerated individuals.
As more and more efforts are made to reduce the number of offenders sent to prison, more and more offenders will be placed in alternative monitored environments with an emphasis on reform rather than punishment. We hope that these alternative environments will help lower recidivism rates and integrate the offenders back into the community. Many more offenders will be asked to find and keep employment- a difficult task in Ohio’s current economic climate- even with a spotless criminal record.
Unfortunately, those who have been convicted of crimes face employment discrimination as employers- in a tough job market- continually choose ‘more desirable’ candidates to fill their open positions. Even when faced with a choice of two candidates with similar skill sets and even if a conviction is relatively minor- such as a minor drug possession conviction- employers will choose the candidate with a clean record; Employers are less willing to hire ex-offenders than any other disadvantaged group. (Holzer 1996 p.15). Thus, employers are screening out a whole segment of Ohio’s population who might prove (after three years of clean living) to be highly productive employees.
According to a representative study done by the United States Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics based on data collected from the 75 largest counties in the U.S., two thirds of all felonies committed in the United States were for drug or property (theft) related offenses in 2004. Under Ohio’s tier system of felony classification, most drug and property related offenses are classified as felony IV’s and V’s or ‘lower level’ felonies.
| Number of felony defendants in the 75 largest counties in 2004 | Number of defendants charged with property related crimes | Percentage of defendants charged with property related crimes | Number of defendants charged with drug related crimes | Percentage of defendants charged with drug related crimes |
| 57,497 | 17,595 | 30.6% | 21,080 | 36.7% |
Ohio’s violent crime rate is considerably lower than that of the national average. All most all of the felony arrests made here are drug or property related.
| Number of people estimated to be living in Ohio in 2007 *according to the United States Census Bureau; Only a 1% change since 2000 | Total number of all arrests reported to the FBI in 2005 | Approximant number of adult- aged 18 and over- arrests | Percentage of adults arrested for all crimes | Percentage of arrests made for violent crimes | Percentage of arrests made for property related crimes | Percentage of arrests made for drug related crimes | Percentage of arrests made for less serious or less frequently occurring crimes |
| 11,466,917 | 287,987 | 240,000 | 83% | 3% | 12% | 13% | 72% |
Because crime rates tend to fluctuate from year to year and Ohio is still perfecting its reporting techniques, it is difficult to pin down the exact numbers of crimes committed here. Assuming that the same types of crimes are committed at about the same rate each year, we can come to an approximate average. Tables Three and Four show the most recent statistics available. According to this data, we can safely assume that approximately 65,000 individuals are arrested and charged with a ‘lower level’ crime in Ohio every year.
| Total number of all arrests reported to the FBI in 2005 | Percentage of arrests made for property related crimes in 2005 | Approximate number of people arrested for property related crime | Percentage of all arrests made for drug related crimes | Approximate number of people arrested for drug related crimes |
| 287,987 | 12% | 34,500 | 13% | 37,400 |
| Approximate number of people arrested for drug related crimes in 2005 | Percentage of drug arrests involving possession *arrests for which data was available in 2004 | Approximate number of people charged with a possession related crime | Percentage of drug arrests for a trafficking related crime *arrests for which data was available in 2004 | Approximate number of people charged with a trafficking related crime |
| 37,400 | 87% | 32,500 | 13% | 4,800 |
Youth crime rates for violent and property related crimes peak at age 18 according to the 2005 study, “State of Crime and Justice in Ohio” (p.65). This is significant because many of the 34,500 plus people who were charged with relatively minor property related felony offenses were under or near 18 years old at the time of the crime- a fact that hasn’t gone unnoticed by legislatures. Here in Ohio, we recognize that children are not capable of adult decision making. As of October 9th 2006, all juvenile records are required to be expunged after five years.
Further, according to the U.S Department of Justice, 38 percent of those arrested in 2004 were ‘new’ defendants with no prior conviction record. (Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties- Table 7) Using this data as a marker, we can conclude that approximately 22,800 people are charged with their first low- level felony conviction each year in Ohio.
Finally, of the 287,972 arrests made in Ohio in 2005, 70 percent or 201,580 of the arrests made were for less serious crimes than those already discussed. If 38 percent of those arrests are ‘new’ arrestees then, 76,600 people were arrested and charged with less serious crimes. According to this data approximately 99,000 people are arrested and charged with ‘new’ minor felony or misdemeanor charges each year in Ohio.
The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Local Rule 23.1 - Criminal Discovery adopted November 12, 2008 and effective February 10, 2009- is one of the more recent and local changes being made as Ohio seeks to revise its Justice System policies. (Where can we be more effective? Where can we cut costs?). The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas website maintains that the Open Discovery rule will “minimize delay, unnecessary expense, and all other impediments to a just and expeditious determination of criminal cases” The new rule acknowledges that while Ohio’s Justice System is basically fair, decent and effective, it is by no means perfect. Local Rule 23.1 is another way for Ohioans to ensure a fair and decent trial for all accused.
In response to the Lynch Report, which highlighted discrepancies in how drug laws were applied inside and outside of Cleveland city limits, Cleveland’s Mayor Frank Jackson changed drug policies to better reflect the policies of the surrounding suburbs. Previously, those caught with drug paraphernalia inside of Cleveland were being charged with felonies, while those in the suburbs- when caught with the same paraphernalia- were charged with misdemeanors. This unfairly affected the high population of minority residents living inside of Cleveland. Jackson’s new policy states “…on the first offense, a user will be charged with having drug paraphernalia, a second-degree misdemeanor. A second offense will be charged as a first-degree misdemeanor… [A] third arrest will be a felony offense, which would send the case to Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court for a drug-abuse charge.” (Puent, The Plain Dealer)
Felony conviction in Ohio carries a myriad of consequences. Some of those consequences- such as employment licensure restrictions- are intended. Others- such as forced welfare dependency- are not. Although research done on the topic is spotty and inconclusive at best, data analyzed by Harry Holzer between the years 2005 and 2007 suggests that felony conviction severely limits a person’s lifetime earnings and ability to find adequate employment:
“These studies […] have some common findings. For one thing, they all show very low levels of employment and earnings among ex-offenders, with only 30-40 percent generally showing any employment per quarter, and with quarterly earnings often averaging $2000 or so among those working.21 But this seems to be true before as well as after incarceration for most individuals.” (Holzer 2007 p.21)
Considering the age at which someone is most likely to be charged with a violent or property related crime is 18 years in Ohio, the lowered wages before incarceration might be attributed to the age of the defendant at the time of the crime committed. The ‘child’ might not have had chance to fully ingratiate himself into the employment system before his time of incarceration.
Decreased wages and other unintended consequences keep convicted persons from experiencing a full range of employment opportunities on a small scale, but also keep them from fully experiencing society as law abiding citizens later on in life. They are inhibited, to say the least, from participating in the local economy and may rely on other social means to support their families. Thereby placing the financial burden again on the society in which they are poorly integrated.
Employers are afraid to hire felons of any sort:
Research on recidivism rates clearly does not warrant this type of fear. According to the article Scarlet Letters and Recidivism, recidivism rates reach .05% after approximately six to seven years have passed since a person’s last conviction. (Kurlychek and Brame p.493) A person’s overall chance of re-offending is highest in the three years after release from probation or prison which might be, on average, six to seven years after they committed their offense. Another finding noted by Kurlychek and Brame’s states that an individuals likelihood of offending is low, regardless of past criminal behavior, once the person reaches the age of 25. According to modern day psychology, 25 years old is the true age of reason, when the brain has reached physiological maturity. In light of this data, employers who see criminal offenses on a potential employees background check are misled. The relevancy of the information contained there decreases as time passes.
These are the occupations for which Ohio’s Licensure Boards are required by law to deny felony licensure. Ohio’s Licensure Boards are permitted to view prior conviction records even if they have been sealed by a Court of Law.
| sec. 4707.02 | auctioneers |
| sec. 4749.03 | private investigators and security guard employees |
| sec. 4730.25 | physician assistants |
| sec. 4731.22 | physicians and limited practitioners |
| sec. 4731.22 | motor vehicle salvage |
| sec. 4738.07 | nursing home administrators |
| sec. 4760.13 | anesthesiologist assistants |
| sec. 4762.13 | acupuncturists |
| sec. 4740.06 | Additionally, in order to qualify for an examination administered by the Construction Industry Examining Board a person must not have any felony convictions |
These are the occupations for which Ohio’s Licensure Boards are permitted to deny felony licensure even if the individual’s conviction record has been sealed by a Court of Law.
| sec. 4712.03 | Accountants | for a felony |
| sec. 4703.15 | Architects | for a felony or crime of fraud committed in the course of practice |
| sec. 4709.13 | Barbers | for a felony |
| sec. 4712.03 | Credit services organizations | for a felony or any criminal offense involving fraud, or for failure to notify the Division of Financial Institutions of any such conviction |
| sec. 4715.30 | Dental hygienists | for a felony or a misdemeanor committed in the course of practice |
| sec. 4717.14 | Embalmers, funeral directors, and crematories | for conviction of or plea of guilty to a felony or crime of moral turpitude |
| sec. 4719.02 | Telephone solicitors | for an arrest for, conviction of, plea of guilty or no contest to, or prosecution for a felony, theft offense, racketeering, securities law, or corrupt activities |
| sec. 4723.28 | Nurses | for any felony or crime of moral turpitude |
| secs. 4725.19 and 4725.53 | Optometrists | for conviction of a felony or of a misdemeanor in the course of practice; and dispensing opticians, for conviction of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude |
| sec. 4727.15 | Pawnbrokers | upon criminal conviction for theft, receiving stolen property, or money laundering, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions may suspend a license, or upon any criminal conviction other than theft, receiving stolen property, or money laundering, the Superintendent may assess a penalty against the licensee or act to revoke or suspend the licensee's license |
| sec. 4728.13 | Precious metal dealers | for conviction of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude |
| sec. 4729.53 | Pharmacists | for conviction of a felony or any law regarding drug samples |
| sec. 4732.17 | Psychologists | for conviction of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude |
| sec. 4733.20 | Professional engineers and surveyors | for conviction of or a plea of guilty to a felony or crime of moral turpitude |
| sec. 4734.31 | Chiropractors | for conviction of or plea of guilty to a felony, a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, or a misdemeanor committed in the course of practice |
| sec. 4735.13 | Real estate brokers | for conviction of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude |
| sec. 4741.22 | Veterinarians | for conviction of a felony, a crime involving moral turpitude, felony drug abuse, or cruelty to animals |
| sec. 4753.10 | Speech-language pathologists and audiologists | for conviction of or plea of guilty to a felony or crime involving moral turpitude |
| secs. 4755.10 and 4755.47 | Occupational therapists and physical therapists | for conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude |
| sec. 4755.64 | Athletic trainers | for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude |
| sec. 4757.36 | Counselors, social workers, and marriage and family therapists | For conviction of a felony in general or a misdemeanor committed in the course of practice |
| sec. 4758.30 | Chemical dependency professionals | for a felony or for a misdemeanor committed in the course of practice |
| sec. 4759.07 | Dietitians | for conviction of a felony or of a misdemeanor committed in the course of practice |
| sec. 4761.09 | Respiratory care | for conviction of or plea of guilty to a felony or crime of moral turpitude |
| sec. 4765.18 | Emergency medical services | for conviction of or plea of guilty to a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude |
| sec. 4779.28 | Orthotists, prosthetists, and pedorthists | for conviction of a misdemeanor crime of moral turpitude |
| sec. 3905.14(B) | insurance agent | for a conviction of a felony |
Also, felons are generally not hired as cab drivers, truck drivers, or gas station clerks, nor are they hired for many manufacturing positions especially in shipping and receiving. Certain felonies preclude people from working at Wal-Mart. Invacare, Fed-Ex, and Home Depot will not hire felons of any sort. Felons are not allowed to work many government jobs and are not allowed to collect signatures for ballot initiatives.
The fact that Ohio keeps track of arrest and conviction in the form of a ‘criminal record’ may be evidence of the fact that the law intended the record to be used to protect the community from future offenses. However, the most glaring unintended consequence is the stigma and discrimination felons experience in the job market for their entire lives as a by-product related to the conviction. The law most certainly did not intend for these people to be discriminated against by the same community with which they are supposed to be reintegrated once the offender has been rehabilitated. The number of job descriptions explicitly asking for ‘no felony’ records and the data on felony hiring practices suggests
“Many employers seem to use the information as a screening mechanism, without attempting to probe deeper into the possible context or complexities of the situation. As we can see here, in 50% of cases, employers were unwilling to consider equally qualified applicants on the basis of their criminal record.” (Pager p.956)
How can those convicted of felonies in Ohio integrate themselves into society when society is taught to shun them? Few people want to acknowledge that by helping this undesirable segment of the population, they are helping themselves, as well as the community in which they live. Convicted felons who earn a competitive wage can then funnel their earnings back into the local economy and should be given the chance to unburden themselves from dependency on the public welfare system.
In the landmark study, The Mark of a Criminal Record, conducted by Devah Pager examining the effects of criminal record on hiring practices, four young men, two black and two white, were sent to apply for jobs in the Milwaukee area. Each was randomly assigned no record or a minor felony drug conviction. The following conclusions are reported:
We are dealing with a situation where the felon is nearly always seen as untrustworthy (especially young black males) simply by labeling them felons and regardless of their likelihood to re-offend. This is called the fundamental attribution error- a tendency for observers to judge other individuals on their behavior alone, never taking into account how the situation might have influenced the individual. Different situations provoke different reactions from the very same person. (For further proof, read about Stanley Milgram or his famous Obedience Experiments or read about Phillip Zimbardo and see the Stanford Prison Experiments where everyday normal people committed terrible acts in response to the situations in which they were placed.)
According to a study released by The Crime and Justice Institute, Employment of Ex-Offenders: Employer Perspectives,employers say greater protection from legal liability as one of the biggest factors that might encourage them to hire convicted felons.
Another factor found to have significant impact on an employer’s likelihood of employing a convicted felon was Work readiness and job skills training.
Unfortunately, as already mentioned, felon access to education and job training is limited.
Clearly, the additional ‘unintended’ consequences faced by convicted felons are above and beyond what the law intended. Felony conviction carries a stigma for life and continues to be a barrier to employment and earnings indefinitely.
Yes, currently under Ohio Law if an individual meets a set of narrow standards, then they may petition the court in which they were convicted to have a single conviction sealed provided they have no prior felony or misdemeanor convictions. Ohio Licensure Boards, law enforcement, and Ohio’s judicial system are still able to view sealed convictions. Alternately, a convicted individual may petition The Ohio Parole Board to make a recommendation to the governor of Ohio in favor of pardon. Few petitions of this sort are granted in any given year.
They languish- no longer a part of the criminal system- but not able to fully integrate into society due to the stigma attached to their conviction.
Most recently The U.S. Congress enacted the Second Chance Act of 2007. While commissioning more research on the subject- The Second Chance Act hopes to improve the lives of people post conviction by helping them find housing, employment, and medical care.
Other efforts in the Ohio legislature include the efforts of Oho State Senator Shirley Smith who has introduced legislation into the last three legislative sessions aimed at helping felons clean up their records and find employment. Her most recent proposal, S.B. 197 introduced during the 127th General assembly, does not permit violent or sexually orientated offenders to seal their records. Only those with lower level felonies and misdemeanors may apply to the court or courts in which they were convicted to have their records sealed. After this process, if the convicted person re-offends, they are no longer eligible to have their records sealed. A summery of the legislation presented to congress follows:
“To amend sections 2937.06, 2947.07, 2953.32, 2953.321, 2953.33, 2953.35, 2953.36, 2953.52, 2953.53, 2953.54, and 2953.61 and to enact section 2953.322 of the Revised Code to modify the list of offenses the official records of which may not be sealed; to require a court to inform a defendant before accepting a guilty plea and before sentencing of the circumstances under which the official records in the case may be sealed; to require the sealing of the official records of a person who is found not guilty of an offense, who is the defendant named in a dismissed complaint, indictment, or information, or against whom a no bill is entered by a grand jury; to prohibit the release by private individuals or entities of information contained in sealed official records; and to permit certain offenders who are not first offenders to apply for an order sealing their official records. (S.B. 197 as introduced.)
The loudest opponents of the legislation- Ohio’s Chamber of Commerce- feel that employer ignorance will place employers and employees at risk. Again, studies on recidivism rates say this just isn’t true. Only those less than three years away from their last conviction are at any significant risk for re-offending and wouldn’t be eligible for records sealing anyway. Records sealing should provide benefits for employers since employers could not be held liable for employees who re-offend, if the employer has no knowledge of a prior conviction.
Several incarnations of a bill making it illegal for the licensing bodies to discriminate based on felony conviction alone have passed through Ohio’s legislative body with out much luck. Most recently, House Bill 130, passed in December of 2008 originally included language…
“To replace commission of a felony, misdemeanor, or crime of moral turpitude, where the bill eliminates commission of one of these offenses as grounds for disciplinary action, it generally substitutes "conviction of a criminal offense substantially related to the fitness or ability of the applicant or licensee to perform the duties and meet the responsibilities of a [licensee]," or words to that effect. However, there are several exceptions to the inclusion of the language regarding conviction of a criminal offense substantially related to the practice of the particular profession.”… (H.B. 130 as introduced.)
While H.B. 130 did include language,
“…to authorize courts to participate in the supervision of released prisoners, to provide released prisoners with identification cards and additional procedures for access to social services, to make other changes relative to opportunities for prisoner training and employment, to modify procedures for the judicial or medical release of prisoners and intervention in lieu of conviction, to grant the Adult Parole Authority more flexibility in determining periods of post-release control, to adopt other cost-control measures, to create the Ex-offender Reentry Coalition,”the language pertaining to licensing restrictions was removed prior to the passing of the bill.
Criminal justice reformers, as well as, employers in Ohio- in order to be effective and fair to all segments of the population- must recognize that felony conviction carries an unfair and irrational stigma. Ohio should re-examine its policies on records sealing and professional licensure denials to insure that the intended consequences are warranted. While many laws are indeed needed to protect the population from unscrupulous employees and professionals- current laws unfairly punish Ohio's citizen's especially in light of the most recent data on recidivism rates. Could we possibly forgive a felon after five, 10, or 20 years of clean living? Should we punish mothers and fathers who may have been convicted of only minor crimes for the rest of their lives? Many people who have been convicted of felonies in minor isolated incidents or those who have been successfully rehabilitated are now faced with a lifetime of job discrimination.
With the new correction reforms currently making their way through Ohio’s legislature, more convicted felons will be expected to find employment in spite of holding a criminal record. New legislation is an effective way to combat employer hesitancy in hiring and employment discrimination; will return discretion to seal or not seal records to Ohio’s judges; will open the doors of vocational and university education and will reduce the burden Ohio’s taxpayers face when providing for the housing, medical care and feeding of felons and their children. Most of all, new legislation will reduce the stigma attached to felony conviction and help put people to work when they most desperately need it. New legislation brings Ohioans new hope for the future.
Contact your state legislators: The Ohio House of Representatives or The Ohio Senate.
Ask what they are doing to help Ohio’s convicted felons.
