Giving ex-offenders a second chance

By Brian Kreissl

Because the New Year is considered a time for renewal and a fresh start, I thought it might make sense to devote this post to the issue of recruiting candidates with criminal records.

Far too many ex-offenders struggle to find stable and legitimate employment after their conviction, with the result that their rehabilitation and reintegration into society are compromised. Some may feel they have little or no choice but to return to criminal activity as a way to make ends meet.

That doesn’t help the individuals in question or society in general. It also represents a missed opportunity for employers to make the world a better place and further their corporate social responsibility agenda by helping to rehabilitate ex-offenders who are keen to become contributing members of society.

Employers protecting themselves

There is no question employers need to protect themselves from potential loss, liability and physical danger as a result of hiring dishonest or potentially violent individuals. For that reason, background checks are an absolute necessity.

Few would argue that employers aren’t justified in protecting their legal, financial and reputational interests by screening out candidates with a history of criminal behaviour — especially if the conduct in question was particularly egregious, recent or relevant in some way to the job in question. For example, an organization would be completely justified in refusing employment to an accountant with a history of embezzling money from his employer.

Being too tough on those who make mistakes

To be clear, I am not talking about those types of situations, nor I am I necessarily referring to those who committed serious crimes such as murder, sexual assault or arson. It seems to me that while we are sometimes too lenient on violent or repeat offenders, our justice system can be very harsh when dealing with otherwise decent people who make a single mistake.

In many cases, the only difference between those with a criminal record and those without one is the fact that the former got caught. If everyone who ever drove after consuming one too many drinks, smoked a joint, got in a fight, engaged in minor pilfering, scrawled graffiti or vandalized property had been apprehended, convicted and sentenced, very few people wouldn’t have criminal records. I am reminded of the old adage: “There but for the grace of God go I.”

While some Canadian jurisdictions prohibit discrimination against candidates based on conviction of a provincial offence or a criminal offence for which a pardon has been granted, other jurisdictions go further by banning discrimination against those with criminal records for offences that are irrelevant to the job in question. This second approach makes the most sense to me, and I also believe that even those with relevant convictions shouldn’t necessarily be rejected out of hand.

Everyone’s circumstances are different, and a finding that someone has a criminal conviction should only be part of the selection decision. Isolated incidents, extremely minor offences, irrelevant convictions or property crimes committed when someone was absolutely desperate could potentially be overlooked. Simply asking the candidate to explain what happened can be particularly insightful.

Even those convicted of serious crimes often deserve a second chance. In such cases, however, it is best to work with non-profit organizations such as the John Howard Society to help accommodate ex-offenders. It is also important to find the right types of jobs for those individuals.

‘Ban the box’ legislation

Some jurisdictions in the United States have passed so-called “ban the box” legislation. This refers to the prohibition of questions about criminal records on application forms and applicant tracking systems. There is also a growing movement to pass such legislation in Canada.

While I think this type of legislation is a good start, the problem is that questions about an applicant’s criminal past are bound to come up at some point. Criminal background checks in particular – which companies are strongly advised to conduct when hiring new employees – will uncover an applicant’s criminal record (unless a pardon has been granted).

Another problem uncovered by some studies is that this type of legislation can actually result in discrimination against people of certain backgrounds. That is because, in the absence of information about a candidate’s criminal history, some employers assume some people are more likely to have a criminal background than others and end up discriminating against and rejecting those individuals rather than shortlisting them for interviews.