The state on Monday launches a new online system to check criminal backgrounds that would provide wider and easier access for employers, but limit their searches of criminal history to 10 years back.
That limit, part of a new law that updates the system known as CORI, for Criminal Offender Record Information, is sparking a debate that pits the rights of employers to know the history of job applicants against the needs of people with decades-old convictions to work and move ahead with their lives.
It is also raising questions about the role of lightly regulated background-screening companies, which can dig far back into court records, sometimes reporting erroneous information about applicants to employers.
And you would never know it, Mass. citizen.
A coalition of 125 community organizations, religious institutions, and labor unions has proposed barring screening companies from using the state’s central system if they continue to rely on court records to gather more information than they can get in the registry. No other state has prohibited screening companies from using its CORI system if they also use the courts.
“The intent of the CORI law is to ensure that criminal records that are nonconvictions, very old convictions, or inaccurate would not be used against them and prevent them from getting housing or employment in the future,’’ said Steve O’Neill, of Ex-prisoners and Prisoners Organizing for Community Advancement, an advocacy group in Worcester.
But the National Association of Professional Background Screeners, a trade group in Schaumburg, Ill., opposes limits on gathering information.
“We find that we have more accurate information when we go to the primary source,’’ said board member Christine Cunneen, chief executive of Hire Image, a Rhode Island screening company. “I think it would actually harm Massachusetts employers to put restrictions on what information they’re allowed to use.’’
The Massachusetts CORI law was passed in 1972 to restrict dissemination of criminal histories to law enforcement agencies but evolved into a central registry to check the backgrounds of employees and volunteers at health care facilities, schools, and other organizations that deal with vulnerable populations.
Do you see why I am against databases and spying and all the other tyrannical s***?
It's always introduced under one premise and THEN EXPANDED! Just like the CAMERAS AT INTERSECTIONS were to CATCH TERRORISTS and now they are being used to track people and hand out traffic tickets.
Under the latest CORI overhaul, all employers, landlords, and background screening companies can access the Internet-based registry. But these checks will reveal no more than 10 years of criminal history, with the exception of homicides and sex offenses. They also will not include old arrests that did not result in a conviction.
The rationale for the limit, according to the state, is to provide greater opportunities for offenders who stay out of trouble to reintegrate into society.
Jenna Knight, 40, a recovering crack cocaine addict and alcoholic, racked up several felonies, such as writing bad checks and breaking and entering, two decades ago. She has been sober for 17 years and earned a bachelor’s degree in 2005, she said, but has not been able to land a job because background checks turn up her old offenses. As a result, she gets by largely on Social Security disability payments.
“I wanted to be self-sufficient,’’ said Knight, who lives in Worcester. “I didn’t want to live off the state all my life.’’
More than 90 percent of companies conduct criminal background checks on at least some job candidates, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, a professional association in Alexandria, Va.
Donald Washington, a case manager at a Worcester social services agency, said such checks kept him from getting jobs for years after he completed a prison sentence for stealing from his employer in the early 1990s - though he never faced another criminal charge.
“Once your debt is paid to society, how much more do you have to pay?’’ said Washington, 55. “The most dangerous person is a desperate person.’’
To discourage checks that reach long into the past, the coalition of community and other groups, known as the Commonwealth CORI Coalition, has proposed that the state lower its $25-per-search fee for screening firms if they agree to disseminate only the information they get from the online CORI system.
If the firms continue to report criminal histories from court records, the coalition has asked the state to deny them access to the online system, which is expected to produce search results within minutes and could save users time and money. The Patrick administration is reviewing the coalition’s proposal.
“We think it’s an intriguing idea,’’ said Curtis Wood, an undersecretary at the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, which administers the CORI system. “We do believe that the data that we’re going to be producing on May 7 is the most accurate and up-to-date record that anybody can get.’’
Steve DiFillippo, the restaurateur who owns Davio’s and Avila in Boston, said he might use the new CORI system to run checks on wait staff and busboys, who are not currently screened. But DiFillippo, who describes himself as a “huge second-chances guy,’’ said he still plans to use outside screening companies for prospective chefs and managers to get a longer view of their pasts.
“If someone’s 40, you should be able to look at what they did in their 20s,’’ he said. “You’ve got to make sure your place is safe.’’
Last month, the National Consumer Law Center, an advocacy group in Boston, issued a report detailing errors committed by background check companies. Mistakes include matching people with crimes they did not commit; omitting information about a case, such as an arrest that did not result in conviction; and revealing sealed juvenile offenses. The National Association of Professional Background Screeners said the error rate is very small, and the association is taking steps to help reduce errors.
People can challenge incorrect criminal histories, said study author Persis Yu, but they often do not find out about mistakes until after a prospective employer has decided against hiring them.
“By the time they find an error on a background check,’’ Yu said, “it’s too late.’’
--more--"
"Ex-convicts in Massachusetts still face tough sell in job market; Change in records law has not been a panacea" by Martine Powers | Globe Staff, May 24, 2012
The fortunes of former convicts seeking employment have changed little since the passage of a 2010 law that overhauled the state’s criminal records system, according to a report scheduled to be released Thursday by two Boston nonprofits.
The report, written by the Boston Foundation and the Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, compiled the experiences of 28 employers, advocates, criminal records officials, landlords, and legislators. It gives a first look at the real-world effects of changes to the Criminal Offender Record Information system, widely known by the acronym CORI, which had been lauded by activists as a game-changer for people with criminal records looking to reintegrate into society.
The law’s “Ban the Box’’ provision prevents employers from asking about criminal records on initial job applications. That has allowed more former convicts to get interviews, but has seldom translated into jobs, the report said....
One reason might be because there really are no jobs. I know what the Globe says, but I look in the newspaper all the time and what used to be 3 or 4 pages of want ads is down to one page, two if "lucky."
Len Engel, managing associate for policy at the Crime and Justice Institute, said, “People think that when you change a law, the game is over; you’re done. But that, really, is only half the battle. The other half is the implementation of the law.’’
He's so right about that. So many times we don't even need new laws, we only need the existing ones enforced (just another government failure).
The report outlines a litany of problems that persist - and, in some cases, have arisen - since the law’s passage.
Even when criminal history boxes are removed from applications and former offenders make the first cut, that is no guarantee they will get a job. Employers who do a record check may discover an applicant’s criminal past, and that discovery may wind up costing the candidate the job, the report said.
Some former offenders remain unaware that most employers are not allowed to ask about criminal records on job applications. Others do not know that they have a right to report employers whose applications fail to comply. Some mistakenly believe that the 2010 law prevents potential employers from ultimately obtaining criminal records.
Additonally, many employers have not updated their job applications to reflect the change in the law, including some state government agencies, the report said. Businesses that operate nationally, using one application countrywide, often fail to remove the criminal record box within Massachusetts, the report said.
In other cases, nationwide applications include three options job-seekers can check. They can check a box saying they have been convicted of a crime, a box saying they have not, or a third box indicating they live in Massachusetts and choose not to answer. Checking that third box, the report said, sometimes leads potential employers to assume a criminal past.
Lyn A. Levy - executive director of Span Inc., an organization that aids former prisoners transitioning into society - said she had not yet seen the report, but that its findings ring familiar.
“Having a [criminal record] is still one of the biggest deterrents to effective rehabilitation for men and women coming out of incarceration, even with Ban the Box, which is a wonderful thing,’’ Levy said. “It’s just not enough.’’
State Representative James R. Miceli, a Wilmington Democrat and longtime opponent of overhauling the criminal records system, said he was disappointed in the report’s conclusions. He said too much of the report focused on helping former offenders suppress their criminal history.
“If you’re making it harder for folks to obtain information about people they’re thinking about hiring, you’re not doing a service to the public,’’ Miceli said.
Steve O’Neill, executive director at Ex-Prisoners and Prisoners Organizing for Community Advancement, said some of the organization’s members have been disappointed to see that employers have denied them a job because of their criminal history, even after the 2010 law was passed.
“The framework is there, and it’s a great framework, but the problem is its implementation,’’ O’Neill said. “Our men have been really disappointed at the number of employers still using that question on their application.’’
Advocates of overhauling criminal records have hopes for a new online system, iCORI, set to debut this month. The system will allow employers to obtain criminal records from the state more quickly than through private vendors and will automatically exclude most felony convictions a decade after the former offender’s release.
But O’Neill said the steep price of those state-generated reports, $25 per file, will force employers to continue using private vendors who provide criminal background checks and are not required to omit long-ago criminal offenses.
The few members who have been able to find employment, O’Neill said, have been able to do so by talking about their criminal offenses in an interview.
“Our members are dynamite people, dedicating their lives to volunteering and working, but they often don’t even get a second look,’’ O’Neill said. “Even moving that question one step later in the conversation - I think it does help.’’
--more--"
Also see: Massachusetts Justice: Plenty of Money For Prisons
