COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY City Hall, Room 400 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, June 2, 2025 10:00 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT KENYATTA JOHNSON COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE-RICHARDSON COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS COUNCILMAN MICHAEL DRISCOLL COUNCILMAN CURTIS J. JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN NICOLAS O'ROURKE COUNCILMAN JEFFREY J. YOUNG, JR. COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PHILLIPS CAROLINE STACK, CLERK P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN JONES: I note that the hour has arrived. This is the Committee on Public Safety to review Bill Nos. 241057 and 250373. Will the clerk please read the title of the bills?
Bill No. 9 241057, amending Chapter 9-600 of the Philadelphia Code entitled Service and Other Businesses to add a new Section 9-640 entitled Mandatory Posting of Warning of Unlawful Transfer of Firearm to require licensed firearms dealers to post signs warning that purchasing firearms for another is criminally punishable, all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 250373, amending Chapter 9-3500 of Title IX of the Philadelphia Code entitled Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards to amend definitions, add clarifications, and enhance remedies, all under certain terms and conditions. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you so very much. Will you please call the roll.
Councilmember Young. Also joining us is -- CHAIRMAN JONES: Also joining us is the author of Bill No. 5 250373, Member Rue Landau and President Johnson, for the record. So let's get started. Council President, would you like to say a few words? Come on up.
I'm okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: You're okay?
Yes. CHAIRMAN JONES: All right. So I will start with Bill No. 18 241057, which I'm the author of that bill. And it's in conjunction with the administration in reference to straw purchases. It's truly appropriate that President Johnson is here for this bill because it kind of started on a trip we took to Oaks, PA, where we were at a gun show. And at that gun show we took notice of things. The first thing that we observed along with former President Darrell Clarke was that that is the most guns I've ever seen in one location, including the forensics lab that we've all toured. I've never seen that many tables, that many people. It was -- it was reminiscent of a, you know, a sale at Macy's or something like that, and people were shopping. What we second tier notice was that there were couples of people. And in the relationship of the purchase, one person was pointing out the type, the ballistics, the type of gun. But when it came time for the actual purchase, the other person actually filled out the paperwork, which struck us as odd, which struck us as peculiar. The one person knew all about the type of gun, what it could do, what its magazine capacity was. The other person seemed to be relatively clueless, but yet they were the one purchasing the gun. What we later found out was all too often that straw purchases are the reason that people that have no 11 record tend to go with people who have an -- have a record to make purchases for them. Some of them are benign and well-meaning, or this is my husband, he's trying to protect the house, but others are more commercial and of a sinister motivation. And what we'll hear from is how often -- one of the questions I want to get an answer to is, how often do these guns wind up at crime scenes? How often do they get transferred through the parking lots of Oaks, PA to people who didn't even come up with the people that bought them? And we find that to be a problem. And the administration felt that we needed signage to be able to say to people, when you go up here and you start looking at guns for someone else, it is a crime, and you will be punished for it. If we can make a dent in this transfer of firearms in the city of Philadelphia, we will save lives, literally. So with that, Ms. Stack, will you please -- oh, are there any other members of this committee who'd like to comment? Seeing none. Ms. Stack, will you please bring the witness to testify?
Francis Healy, Deputy Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department. CHAIRMAN JONES: Welcome, Deputy Commissioner. How are you today? Please state your name and begin your testimony.
Good morning. My name is -- CHAIRMAN JONES: Your mic is -- hold up.
Okay. Sorry. Again, my name is Francis Healy. I'm Deputy Commissioner of Philadelphia Police Department. I'm here on behalf of Commissioner Bethel. And thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today regarding Bill No. 18 241057, sponsored by Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Driscoll, and Councilmember Squilla, which proposes amendments to Philadelphia's Charter -- or, I'm sorry, City Code Chapter 9-600. I'm here today to voice the Philadelphia Police Department's full support for this bill, which seeks to amend Chapter 9-600 to require licensed firearm dealers to post mandatory warning signs about the illegality and consequences of straw purchasing. Straw purchasing is the act of buying a firearm for someone who is prohibited by law from doing so. It's a serious offense that directly undermines public safety in our city. It is a federal and state crime, and more importantly, a significant -- a significant pathway through which firearms end up in the hands of individuals who use them to commit acts of violence. Any measure that we can interrupt this pipeline, such as a clear warning at the point of sale, is a common-sense step towards reducing gun violence in our communities. We commend Councilmember Jones for introducing this important legislation. Clear visible signage warning the criminal penalties associated with straw purchase will act as a deterrent and an educational tool. Many individuals, particularly those acting under pressure or misinformation, may not fully understand the gravity of such an action. A prominent warning stating that straw purchasing are punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a total of $250,000 fine, provides necessary notice and may stop a crime before it starts. The bill is also practical and enforceable. It places minimal burden on licensed firearm dealers while empowering them with clear, consistent tool to communicate legal risks to the customers. Furthermore, the department is prepared to support implementation by producing and distributing the required signage at no cost to the dealers. We are confident this bill 5 will contribute to reducing gun violence in our city and send a clear message that straw purchasing is not a victimless crime, it's a direct threat to the safety of all Philadelphians. The Philadelphia Police Department stands ready to assist in the implementation of the -- and strongly urges this passage. Happy to answer any question at this time. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you for your testimony. I want to recognize the attendance of Member Young as well. Help me to understand how big a problem this is. It's my understanding they're over -- what was the -- I think it was 300,000 cases of straw persons nationally. What kind of problem does this propose locally? COMMISSIONER HEALY: Well, I don't have -- I can -- I can come back with better statistics. I don't really have direct statistics for today's testimony, but the driving impetus behind this bill is the fact that many times this is domestic related very often. You'll have a wife or a significant other come in purchasing firearms on behalf of somebody who's prohibited. And you can clearly see it at the gun shop. However, when a paperwork's filled out, as you mentioned earlier, it's the innocent victim. So when that gun is ultimately found and somebody's going to be arrested, it's that person who's got arrested for straw purchasing. And I don't think sometimes these individuals even have a clue that they're engaging in a criminal act. So the issue is putting that signage up there. We actually recommend putting it in both English and Spanish. It's not -- it's not a burden. It's not a -- it does not impede the ownership or a right to any firearm whatsoever. This is a notice to potential purchasers of a potential penalty. So there -- this doesn't cross any preemption boundaries under the state. And I think it's good effort for the -- like I said, these people are being victimized. No.
1, they're being victimized by their partners, that then they're ultimately being arrested for these crimes. And like I mentioned, they're serious penalties associated with this. So a simple sign, and we are willing, the number of gun shops in the city is not that significant. We're willing to post those sign or develop or print up them signs ourselves on behalf of the gun owners -- I'm sorry, gun shop. CHAIRMAN JONES: How many licensed gun dealer shops are there in the city of Philadelphia's footprint? COMMISSIONER HEALY: I believe it's under 10. CHAIRMAN JONES: It's under 10. So this isn't a burden at all? COMMISSIONER HEALY: No, it's not a burden for us at all. CHAIRMAN JONES: Okay. Anybody else? Member Lozada?
Deputy Commissioner, is there any data that shows where in the city of Philadelphia these straw purchases are happening when compared to other parts? Is there any data that shows us where it's happening more often than not? COMMISSIONER HEALY: There's data that -- I don't have it with me. There is data as to which shops are -- people go to more often than others. As for this type of offense, I don't have direct data on that. I can talk with Gun Violence Task Force, who's through the DA's office and the state. I don't have direct data, but it's just general. What we see is -- and I don't mean to be -- it's often young women are victimized in this. They walk in, they don't know exactly what you mentioned. They know nothing about firearms. They know nothing about guns. They're just there to purchase a gun on behalf of somebody else not knowing what they're doing is a crime. So a simple sign, hopefully they see that and they can at least -- you know, they -- if they -- if they turn around and say, what's going on here, that's enough for a gun dealer to say, we're not selling. So it -- it's twofold. It's for the victim itself, but also for the gun dealer to see the reaction of somebody, quite frankly.
I'm sorry. And then my last question is, as the bill is written, the signage is only required to be in languages of Spanish and English. But as we know, Philadelphia is a diverse city, are we looking at expanding the signage and the way that we inform other communities beyond just Spanish and English? COMMISSIONER HEALY: We would be open to any language and we could use our resources to put it into any language you think that would be necessary. We did Spanish and English, quite frankly, it's the primary language as most people are using in the city, but we're happy to expand that scope easily.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you. Member Harrity.
Yeah. Just real quick, if we can also -- I know you probably don't have it with you, but also if you can give us any numbers you have on what neighborhoods these straw purchase firearms are being used in. I mean, I know they're used in all neighborhoods, but is there -- is there -- from the crime data, is there any numbers that show, like, hotspots? COMMISSIONER HEALY: I'm not aware of that per se, but I -- I'll -- whatever data I can find from the gun violence task force, I'll be happy to share. I'll send that.
Yeah. And that was what I was getting at. I mean, if we had numbers like that and we knew that this area would have, that means that somebody in that area is the straw purchaser. So, you know. COMMISSIONER HEALY: Yeah. From our -- from our experience, most --
Or at least a pass-through. COMMISSIONER HEALY: Most of the gun shop in Philadelphia are acting above board. The issue is this gives them the opportunity to actually, when you see somebody's reaction to that sign, that will give them pause. Okay. And then they can, you know, they can decline the purchase or the sale. But the issue is not only, like, notice to the potential victim, but also that kind of behavior. You'll see, if you told me this was okay to do this, you know, that's one person. Then all of a sudden they're in an argument in a gun shop, that's a clear indication right there that the gun shop will most likely withdraw that sale. So --
Yeah. I get it. I'm just trying to figure out where these kids are getting these guns from. COMMISSIONER HEALY: Well, this is one way. There's multiple ways. Okay. The issue is a lot of times people -- probably one of the biggest ways guns get into the wrong hands, people leave them in cars and they're stolen constantly. That's a big issue in the city. A lot of the clubs and nightclubs have metal detectors in them. So what they'll do is they'll leave their gun in the car so they can go inside the club. Of course, there's people watching them when they do that. So that's another issue we're trying to address.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Any other questions? No? So one of the things -- you got to watch what you learn in a barbershop, sitting around, and there were people that were literally taking orders in barbershops to say, what you looking for? I can go get it. How do we delineate between the one-off couple misguided purchase versus somebody who does this as a criminal enterprise? And are there examples of that? COMMISSIONER HEALY: Well, the Gun Violence Task Force does that very job. The issue is they're involved in the investigation of all the illegal gun. And so if there's a notification like that of a trafficking network or organization, yes, they work on those organizations and take them apart with their -- from the state level. But they also work with our task force members as well. So we actively work on those organizations. That's an -- that would be an organization. I mean -- and there's quite a few I gather, but the drug -- or the drug -- the Gun Violence Task force is the one that would be the lead on that enforcement. And I'll work -- I'll reach out and get all the data I can regarding the -- CHAIRMAN JONES: Could you -- and we'll -- I'll share it with the committee, particularly the geography of where this might be occurring, because there might be an overlapping map that says, all right, where there is drugs, there is illegal purchases of firearms. And then if we can kind of take that data to make good information, we can work with you guys on deployment. COMMISSIONER HEALY: Okay. CHAIRMAN JONES: All right. COMMISSIONER HEALY: I'll get whatever data and maps I can for you, probably by the end of the day. CHAIRMAN JONES: Member Young.
Thank you. And good morning. I do have one question. Since we're trying to, you know, regulate the unlawful transfer of firearms a little bit, you know, by making it clear what the rules are, how proactive is the police department in marketing to the residents of the city, that if you are of a certain age and you don't have a certain record, you can't apply to get a gun license? Because there are a lot of people in this city who are eligible to have a gun license for -- who carry guns but who do not have that license for one reason or another. So how active are we in marketing the idea that you can go and be a legal firearm owner in the city of Philadelphia? COMMISSIONER HEALY: Yeah. Based on recent litigation, I'll say two to three years ago, we've revamped our entire system. It's electronic system. It goes through our main website, the Philadelphia police website. And you can walk you right through to the application process and it then takes you to a third party vendor that actually you can fill out the application and submit the application. So we streamline the process. It takes much less than 45 days. The law is 45 days. It's a matter of, I think, like weeks or days now. So we've really expedited the process. So if you legally want a gun permit, there's no impediment for you to get one. And we actually help facilitate it through our website.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you, Member Young. Are there any other questions? Seeing none. No. 15 Seeing none. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Stack, who is the next panel?
There are no 19 further panels for Bill No. 241057. CHAIRMAN JONES: Are there any others that wish to testify on Bill No. 241057? Any public comment?
No one for public comment, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN JONES: Okay. Thank you very much. We will now move to 250373. And I'd like to recognize Ms. Landau, our member who is the author of this legislation.
Thank you so much, Chair Jones. Thank you for having me, Public Safety Committee. I am not a member of the committee, which is why I am sitting back here, but I'm so happy to be here today as they consider this piece of legislation. I'm here to speak about Bill 250373, which updates the Fair Chance Hiring Law. Philadelphia's always been a city that believes in second chances. In 2011, we made history by becoming the first city in the nation to pass a citywide Fair Chance Hiring Law, covering all employers. Back then, I had the privilege to work with Chair Curtis Jones, and helped to implement the policy as I was the director of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations. As a key player in banning the box, I've seen firsthand what Fair Chance really means to so many Philadelphians. It means a shot at dignity, stability, and the ability to provide for yourself and for your family. This is something that Chair Jones in particular has been also championing and working for his entire career here. But as any advocate will tell you, policy only works when it keeps up with the times. Today, I'm proud to continue that work by having it -- hearing an update to the Fair Chance Hiring Law to make sure this law does exactly what it's meant to do. Give people a shot at employment without being punished for their past. These updates are grounded in hard data and lived experiences. That's because people deserve to be seen as more than a criminal record. They be -- they deserve to be seen as full humans with stories of resilience, rehabilitation, and the drive to move forward. Over 300,000 Philadelphians, that's one in five adults, are living with a criminal record. These are our neighbors, our coworkers, our family members, and they are disproportionately black and brown, LGBTQ+, disabled, and working class. Systems of inequity have followed them from the courtroom to the job interview, and it's up to us to break that cycle. This bill will clarify what is required of employers under the Fair Chance Hiring Law. With an individualized assessment, this bill ensures that employers are only rejecting applicants based on their criminal records if they can show that their specific record poses a specific risk given the duties of the specific job. The bill also clarifies that the law applies to all sources of criminal history. Whether that -- whether that information is found by the employer themselves, using public records, by a third-party service, or on a PennDOT driver's license. It will also change how employers can consider misdemeanor convictions older than a few years past. This aligns the law with the latest research on recidivism risk. This update also aligns the Fair Chance Hiring Law with long standing state law prohibiting any consideration of summary offenses. This bill will also improve notice requirements for job applicants that an employer is considering rejecting because of their criminal history, provides more options for people to assert their rights by allowing people injured by violations of the Fair Chance Hiring Law to go directly to court -- to go to court, and protect those who exercise their fair chance hiring rights from retaliation. As expected, there were some concerns from key leaders and advocates about some of these provisions, and I have had many meetings, calls, and conversations in order to mitigate these difficulties, including with members of the administration, which is an employer who champions hiring people with records and also complies with the Fair Chance Hiring Law. As a result of these discussions, I've been able to strengthen the law with a few key changes to the initial version of the bill.
These changes include, amending the look back period from misdemeanors from three to four years, amending the notice requirement to only apply to employers who employ over 10 -- over 10 employees, clarifying the written requirement to make employers answer four questions instead of a free form narrative, and authorizing the administration to come up with an optional template that employers can use. We heard loud and clear that offering an immediate private right of action under the bill 21 wouldn't work for the city or for employers, so that amendment to the bill being heard today will not include that provision. We are removing it. And lastly, when passed, the bill will go into effect 90 days following adoption to allow employers and the administration to develop processes and prepare for compliance. By passing this update to the Fair Chance Hiring Law, we have the opportunity to recommit to the principles this city has stood for since we passed the first Ban the Box in 2011. We are happy to -- and look forward to our continued conversations with all of the stakeholders after this committee hearing and are always available for those conversations. Fair Chance Hiring doesn't mean hiring just anyone. It means giving everyone a chance to be considered based on who they are now, not just who they were. To the advocates, legal experts, people with records, and community leaders who've helped shape this legislation, thank you. And thank you to the individuals who've shared their stories with us, and who we will hear from today. Your voices drive this work. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: I would like to put on the record my sincere thanks to you from those original bills in 11 and your tenacity to represent people who are negatively affected by discrimination in ways before they even get their story told. When we evolved from Donna Reed Miller's original interest as Chair of Public Safety back then, we went and kind of put teeth to this bill. And I remember you in my office. Let me tell you about her. She was a advocate then representing the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission. But there was a critical part, my colleagues, of trying to get something passed and trying to kind of amend or, you know, you -- we try to get along -- go along to get along, right. And there was a critical factor that would've affected so many individuals. Me, I was ready to take the deal. Like I can get nine -- I told you, I said, I can get nine votes right now for this if we take this part out. True to your convictions, she turned around on me, shut the door and said, we will not concede that. That is a critical part. And look how many people it affects. And I took a deep breath, we walked down and we passed that bill that has helped so many. So I'm thankful that you've continued along this path, moving this legislation to help more people. And so thank you for that. With that --
Chair. CHAIRMAN JONES: Member Harrity, Chair recognizes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Landau, again, as my colleague said, thank you for your leadership on this issue. I was glad to hear in your statement that, you know, in the city we're good with these hiring practices. You know, it's no secret that I'm a second chance guy. You know what I mean? I got -- I got more than one chance. And I don't believe that our mistakes should be life sentences especially something like misdemeanors, for sure. And I've heard myself of horror stories of how people get around these rules which is actually really crazy. Something like if they do it after the hiring or something -- I've had people who are actually hired, friends of mine, and a couple days later when -- right before they were about to start, they got a call saying, Hey, sorry, but something came up. We didn't know about this, yada, yada, yada, whatever the excuses they use is. So I'm glad that we're strengthening these rules. And I'm glad that the city is sticking to their guns with hiring because the bottom line is we're short one every five jobs in the city of Philadelphia, and we need help and people deserve second chances. So thank you for this legislation. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you, Member Harrity. Member -- anyone else want to make a comment? Seeing none. Ms. Stack, can you bring forth the first panel to testify on this bill?
Camille Duchaussee, Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Philadelphia. CHAIRMAN JONES: Welcome. Have a seat. State your name, for the record, and please begin your testimony.
Good morning, Chairman Jones and members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Camille Duchaussee and I am the Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Philadelphia. I am testifying in regard to Bill No. 18 250373, introduced by Councilmember Rue Landau. I'm here today on behalf of the administration to express our strenuous support for the creation of more robust protections for justice system impacted individuals, whether seeking employment or advancement by reducing or removing unnecessary and discriminatory barriers. In particular, the incorporation of language that will strengthen safeguards against retaliation for individuals who exercise their rights under this bill is a significant addition. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Landau, for meeting with the administration to discuss our concerns around the private right of action and notice of rights provisions among others. While we appreciate the adjustments that have already been made and support this legislation, we respectfully recommend and ask that the bill -- that Bill No. 250373 be held at this time. This will allow the administration to continue working in partnership with Councilmember Landau and other stakeholders to address other elements of the bill 5 that may have unintended consequences. As currently drafted, some elements include language and/or create challenges that may inadvertently harm the very individuals we seek to protect or place undue burdens on both public and private employers in a way that could impact hiring practices negatively. By holding the bill, we are confident we can -- we are confident we can work together to create refined language that mitigates these concerns and ensures that the final version of the legislation effectively balances protections for job seekers with the practical needs of employers. Again, we are in support of this bill and remain committed to the fair chance hiring principles and to ensuring that our policies reduce rather than reinforce the structural barriers faced by justice impacted individuals. We look forward to continued dialogue and collaboration with city council, Councilmember Landau, and community stakeholders to realize the shared vision of a more equitable Philadelphia. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any of the committee's questions. CHAIRMAN JONES: Before I recognize the author of this legislation, couple of things I'd like to get on the record. So I've been around since 11 and there has never been a iteration of this bill 23 that I haven't heard this exact same comment from.
Sure. CHAIRMAN JONES: Like I understand the fear of what intended and unintended consequences these things might have. But from the doom and gloom of 2011, where people came in east chamber -- chambers and said that businesses would have to close because of their inability to hire people, that they couldn't protect themselves by way of insurances, liabilities. And none of these things happen. In fact, what I'd like for you to do, and you don't have to have it right now, but I would like you to provide it to the Chair so that members of the committee -- how many members of the Philadelphia workforce have we given this opportunity to and they've been, like, successful. Like we -- one of the things that I will say about most administrations, they said, for example, we will -- we will dive in head first and see what it means to bring people on without this burden of predetermination based on convictions. And I know departments that have benefited from this in light of some of the shortages we've had in the workforce, that this has kind of helped that out. I know in the streets department it reads like who's who. Like guys I used to get my lunch money taken from are now solid citizens. And, you know, instead of being the defendant, please rise, they're the tax payer will pay. And so I understand the administration's reluctance sometimes for these kinds of incremental changes in what it will mean. But no disrespect, I hear this -- I've heard this since 2011. So with that, I will recognize Member Landau,
Thank you so much. I -- you know, to me what has been amazing is to watch this societal sea change that has happened since the bill first came in 2011. We did hear all of these fears that came up and employers were convinced they would be forced to hire people with records from just a week ago, and they would lose all their employees and all these awful things would happen. And none of it happened. And, in fact, what did happen was that kind of more of the hearts and minds and society caught up with what we needed to do. We needed to give people a second chance. And employers realized back then with the -- with the box, we actually had a physical box that asked people if they had criminal records on both paper applications and online in 2011, by getting rid of the box, banning the box, asking about criminal records, they opened up their pool of incredibly loyal and talented employees. And we have just moved on since then. So the city of Philadelphia, as I said, has been an incredible champion of hiring people with records. You give more people opportunities than anyone. But I would suggest that the changes that we're making really come with the times and how they're changing. We've had more studies now. We've had folks who studies have come out to show that, I'm sure you'll hear about, is that people who have committed misdemeanors who then have gone years without committing another crime at all, are as likely to commit any crime including a misdemeanor than us. I think this is the moment where we continue to change the law to match where we are in society and just give the -- a greater pool of applicants again to employers and more important -- most importantly, give folks with records, especially small records, a second chance. CHAIRMAN JONES: Member Harrity.
Thank you. Thank you. How will these changes impact our own hiring practices within the city? And what are the potential penalties and -- for noncompliance? Because, you know, we as a city, we hire ex-offenders.
So why would we be against strengthening the rules for hiring ex-offenders? Listen, I'm sorry. I worked on these issues with Senator Street when I was his chief of staff, and I'd heard so many horror stories over the year. Senior citizens who were not allowed to go to a federal or state run facility nursing home because they had a felony record because in 1969 they bought a dime bag of weed, which back then was a felony, and now they cannot get into a nursing home.
Listen, again, mistakes are not supposed to be life sentences. Bad people we need to hold accountable, but they -- we --
Jobs. You know what I mean? That we hear it all day every day from the employers to the city. You know, why are we making it harder?
Councilmember Harrity, I promise you, we are not at odds. We absolutely agree with the premise, and we are not against strengthening protections for those who are seeking opportunities regardless of whether they've had a misstep.
Because what we are seeking is that we just give some time to exploring the unintended consequence. The unintended consequence of creating a process that disincentivizes our private employers from engaging and recruiting and seeking out opportunities to welcome and employ returning citizens. So we -- we're just asking for an opportunity to better explore how to strengthen. We want to do the same thing. We want to strengthen protections and the opportunity. We can't -- we cannot meet our public safety goals, we cannot --
Councilwoman Landau, how long have you and your staff been working on this bill?
How many meetings do you average you had with the administration about this?
Yeah. I think it's just a disagreement as to whether or not this will deter employers from recruitment. And we're willing -- we're continuing to have additional conversations. I go back with -- to what Chair Jones says, I think some of this is a fear factor and not a reality that some of the tweaks in this bill would deter employers from going to job fairs where they are recruiting people with records, returning citizens to get a job. I personally think more conversations will clear this up, but I do not see this as a barrier.
And that's what we're asking for. We're asking for the time to continue what has been a very productive and collaborative conversation. Because at the end of the day, we can achieve our public safety goals and we cannot achieve our economic -- access to economic opportunity goals if we don't create more stringent protections for all of our residents and all Philadelphians who want a work opportunity.
Well, I get it. You'll have some more time once it comes out of the committee to be able to maybe go back and negotiate. Councilwoman Landau, I know she's a compromising person. She's compromised already with the bill from what I understand. So, you know, I believe that you'll have a little bit of time, but change has to come.
We agree. And absolutely. I want to again reaffirm that we are in support of this bill. We are an employer, the city of Philadelphia itself is an employer that very much has operated consistent with the bill. The bill does not change -- the existence of the bill doesn't change -- of the legislation doesn't change. And so we still are going to expect that our employers, whether they're private or specified as they are in the current ordinance, continue to work with all of our residents to give an opportunity. I don't mean a second chance, a chance, right? And so at the end of the day, we ask that the bill be held. I don't think holding the bill has a detrimental impact on our -- the community that we are attempting to protect. But at the same time, I think it gives us a little bit more time to have a conversation and drill down on some of the more nuanced aspects of this amendment that I think -- and again, yes, there's a -- there's an element of we don't know what the impact will be, but let's have that conversation about what data suggests and what our experience -- our empirical experiences and activities have been relative to hiring of our citizens who have been impacted by the justice system.
Yeah, I get it. I'm from the neighborhood. Let me explain to you how this stuff works in the neighborhood. You get out of jail, right? First month is fantastic. Your wife, your significant other, your family, they're happy to see you. You're there, they don't care. They just may want to see you. But what happens is, the second month comes and the wife comes home from work and you're still sitting on the couch. And then it starts, when are you going to go out and get a job and start bringing into this house? But he can't get a job, he's tried to get a job, because he has a criminal record. So what happens? The cycle continues. So he feels the urge to go out to support his family, him or her. And what do they end up doing? The same thing that sent them to prison in the first place. And the cycle continues. Jobs. That's how you stop the cycle.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you, Member Harrity. Are you okay with that? Are there any other questions for --
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, you know, just reading through the legislation and the amendment, I know the administration's concern or one concern was the private right of action. And so can you just elaborate a little bit more on what the -- or have the administration been and talked with the employers to talk about how or if this new private right of action that is in the amended version would affect their industries or affect commerce or affect business? Because I'm -- I'm looking at it. I look through all of our -- I look at things a little differently in our code, and I see compensatory damages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees. Like to the average person, this doesn't mean anything. But to someone who's an attorney or a business person, they mean absolutely a lot. And so can you just talk about what the administration's concerns are about those particular provisions?
If I am correct and I will defer to Councilmember Landau, that based on the conversations and the articulation of some of those concerns, that that private right of action provision has been altered or removed from the legislation.
That's correct. It's -- the amendments to the private right of action have been removed. It -- so the procedure will remain as it is now that a case is filed with the Commission on Human Relations. And if it -- at some point, if it cannot -- if it -- if there's no resolution 18 in a certain period of time, the complainant can get a right to sue notice to go to court. But we've changed -- we removed any of the new changes to private right of action. So the procedures remains as it has been since 2011.
It's the same as it is for any case filed with the PCHR based on any protected category. So a discrimination case or a Fair Chance Hiring.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you, Member Young. I'm seeing no other questions. Thank you for your testimony. Can we bring up the next panel to testify on this bill?
Jamie Gullen from Community Legal Services, and Keisha Hudson, Chief Defender from the Defender's Association. CHAIRMAN JONES: Welcome. Please take your seats. State your name for the record and please begin your testimony.
Good morning. Thank you-all so much. My name is Jamie Gullen. I'm the Managing Attorney of the Employment Unit and Youth Justice Project at Community Legal Services. CLS is thrilled to be here today to support Bill No. 10 250373. And we thank Councilmember Landau for introducing this bill to strengthen Philadelphia's Fair Hiring Law. CLS's Employment Unit has been working for decades to ameliorate the barriers to employment our clients face because of their records. Every year we work with nearly 2,000 low income Philadelphians who come to CLS's Employment Unit because they cannot find jobs or advance in their careers because of their records. That makes up about two thirds of all the low-income clients who seek CLSs Employment Unit every year. So this is really not a niche issue. This is an issue that's central to our workforce in the city and is fundamental to the safety, wellbeing, and economic security of communities across our city. Whenever possible at CLS, we help our clients clear up their records, and we've advocated for years at the state level for enhanced access to record sealing through the Clean Slate Law, which has been very successful. But unfortunately, people really can't wait seven to 10 years to have access to the ability to get a job, which is the current waiting periods under Clean Slate. So despite the success of Clean Slate, we know that people need to be able to access jobs now. So today we ask Council to take an important step forward in creating a fair, safer, and more just city where all people can access meaningful employment. And I want to just note the urgency of this moment with Congress on the precipice of passing legislation that will include new onerous work requirements for our residents to access the basic things they need to survive, like healthcare and food assistance. It is really critical in this moment that we ensure every Philadelphian who is able to work can get a job. And unfortunately, that's just not the current reality in our city. Every single day at CLS, we talk to clients who have been denied job after job, essentially shut out of the labor market altogether, often despite having extensive qualifications or work history. We also conducted in-depth interviews with dozens of CLS clients about their experiences to inform recommendations to changes to the law. And I'd like to take a moment to thank all of our clients who share their stories and experiences with us, and in particular, our clients who are here today to share their experiences with you. Access to good jobs enhances both public safety and economic prosperity. Employment is one of the most important factors in keeping people from returning to prison, yet post-incarceration, the unemployment rate for folks is about 60 percent worse than during the Great Depression. And Research has -- CHAIRMAN JONES: For the record.
Yes. Even several years after returning home from incarceration, studies showed that the unemployment rate for formerly incarcerated individuals is around 60 percent. And research has also shown that people with records are 50 percent less likely to receive a job callback than those without records. And that penalty was three times as severe for black applicants with records than for white applicants with records. So this is really a critical issue. And we believe with a few relatively minor changes to our Fair Hiring Law, we can ensure that people with records are able to work, provide for themselves and their families. So just to take one of the provisions, shortening the lookback period for misdemeanors. This will help people move beyond minor incidents far sooner. And as Councilmember Landau alluded to earlier, this is really supported by the research. Studies have shown that for most types of offenses, after three to four years, a person is no more likely than somebody without a record to commit a new offense. So put another way, any probative value that would've been attached to that criminal record in the hiring process completely evaporates after three to four years. CLS works with many clients who are held back by these types of minor records. And just to give you one brief example, we recently worked with a client who had been denied a job by a national retail store for an incident that happened in 2018, when she was in a Wawa and a man pushed her child to the ground and she ended up in a conflict with him. She was arrested and convicted of misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and she and her son for years have struggled to get by. She hasn't been able to find steady work, and she and her child even experienced homelessness as a result. So these are the types of minor incidents, understandable incidents. As a parent myself, I can't say I wouldn't have ended up in the same situation. But these types of minor incidents haunt people for years and years and years. Another change in this bill 15 is that it will make it easier for people with more recent records to advocate for themselves with employers by clarifying the type of rehabilitation information that employers need to consider and ensuring that they actually review and consider it. This will allow people like our clients to be able to show their experiences, qualifications, and other positive attributes that will make them a great addition to the workplace. The future of our city rests on the ability of people with records to find jobs, build careers, and support their families. And this bill is a critical step forward in that effort, and it comes at a really critical time for our country. Thank you to Councilmember Landau, to the Public Safety Committee, to Chairperson Jones for your commitment to fair hiring and for allowing CLS the opportunity to present this testimony today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you. We will hold questions until the Chief Defender submits her testimony.
Good morning, Chairman Jones, Vice Chair Lozada, and members of the Public Safety Committee. I'm Keisha Hudson, the Chief Defender of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. And I want to thank Councilmember Landau for introducing this bill to further strengthen the hiring practices for people with prior contact within the criminal legal system. And I want to thank, again, this committee for your continued efforts to ensure Philadelphians who have been entangled with the system have an opportunity to put their past behind them and be evaluated on their merits when applying for work. We strongly support Councilmember Landau's efforts to make the ordinance even stronger by clarifying that type of individual assessment employers must do before rejecting a prospective applicant and providing job seekers with sufficient notice and time to provide evidence of their rehabilitation when they learn potential employees or employers are considering rejecting their application because of their criminal histories. Removing barriers for justice system-involved job seekers is not only good for individuals but it's really a long-term investment in public safety. We estimate that percent of people currently 13 incarcerated in the Philadelphia 14 jails have at least one previous 15 jail admission in the past 12 16 months. 17 Let me say that again. 18 Roughly a quarter of the people who 19 are on State Road have had one other 20 previous jail admission in the 21 previous 12 months. This issue of 22 repeating jail admissions is not 23 unique to Philadelphia. 6 million people arrested and jailed nationally in 2023. More than one in five were booked in jail more than once during the same year. People with multiple jail bookings are unemployed. They are unemployed, they do not have often a high school diploma. This is what we see with our clients here in Philadelphia. They're experiencing homeless and they're living in extreme poverty. Because the issues people -- because the issues people returning to the community face are systematic and systemic, the figures are strikingly similar in communities throughout the nation. Therefore, it is imperative that we as a city continue to do that -- all that we can to reduce barriers for people facing employment. As many of you are aware, our office received it -- received a grant and we first -- we launched our first reentry program called the Bridge Home. This focuses on -- focuses on creating comprehensive release plans to support petitions for release on county parole, and providing individualized case management for people eligible for supervised release planning, release from the city jail. This process involves various steps. It includes pre-release planning, release preparation, and post-release support to ensure successful transition home. It is a very individualized process. And to date, we do have one reentry specialist that we hired with that grant. She's able to represent at this time. Her caseload is 19 people, and we -- she started in January and she's successfully worked pre-release and post-release and with nine individuals. One person, people. And 5 since January, she's gotten nine 6 people home with very, very clear 7 comprehensive pre and post-release 8 plans for successful reentry. 9 To better meet the needs of 10 our clients and the courts, we are 11 hoping to start this with our youth. 12 Last year we represented 2,900 youth 13 independency and delinquency. We 14 currently do not have the capacity 15 to work with our youth who are 16 coming out of detention and 17 placement. 18 And we would ask Council 19 and have asked Council this budget season for an additional 500,000 to bring similar reentry program for our children. Though all our clients are unique individuals, many face significant systemic barriers to reentry, including limited employment opportunities in the days, months, and sometimes years following their release.
Legislation, like the proposed modifications to the Fair Chance Hiring Initiative removes some of these barriers and provides a pathway for direct service providers like our reentry specialist to support our clients in advocating for themselves while seeking employment. I want to thank you all for inviting the Defender Association to testify. We represented last year almost 33,000 adults and almost 3,000 children. We hear the stories every single day of what a barrier it is. And it's a multi- generational barrier for successful transition into steady employment and into employment that has fair wages, employment that is sustainable, where they can hopefully build some sort of generational stability. And we know and hear the stories of how hard it is for our clients to transition into successful steady employment. So thank you for having us here to testify. CHAIRMAN JONES: Chief Defender, one thing about you, you are consistent if nothing else. You weave in why your department is important and necessary and why you need more money. And I want everybody up here to remember that, that, you know, from different aspects of the paradigm of criminal justice, the defenders are integral part. And if we're going to make a difference, we not -- we need to recognize their importance. So, okay. Any questions? Let's go with Jamie -- Member Gauthier.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to commend the bill sponsor and both of you for working on this legislation. I was really startled to hear the stats that were noted earlier around unemployment levels among people who have touched and gone through the criminal legal system. And when people are free from incarceration or free from whatever entanglement that they've had with their criminal legal system, they should be free. They should be free to find housing, they should be free to find employment. And if we do not put more measures in place for that to happen, we're dooming people to a continual cycle because they will not be able to earn money for themselves and their families in legitimate ways. And so I think this is really important legislation that we're considering and just wanted to thank all of you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Defender, how many people that you wind up representing are unemployed for whatever reason?
So unemployment it's one of the many metrics that we track when someone first comes into our office and we are representing them. We actually ask very detailed what we call bio social information about them. And I would say the overwhelming majority, and I can get you the specific data point, are unemployed. The majority of those who are unemployed do not have a GED. And the majority of those who even have a GED and a high school diploma are not reading on level. They're not reading and excelling where one would typically want them to be if they had a GED or a high school diploma. I can get you the specific data point. We do track it. We track unemployment, we track housing, of course we track educational gaps that our -- that our clients experience when they come into our office. And so that's data I can get to you. It -- you qualify for public defender because you cannot hire a lawyer. By its very nature, we are pointed to people who are poor. And we know that one of the ways and the streams that people get into the system is unemployment. It is also, I have to emphasize housing. A housing first model for people establishes stability. When you're interviewing and employers asking you really pertinent questions, that address is one of the first things they're going to ask you as long -- as well as other identifying information. Then you can get that employment. And so I -- we always want to also emphasize the need to think about the fact that a lot of our client population is on unhoused. And without a stable residence, it then becomes even more of a barrier to get employment and maintain consistent employment. CHAIRMAN JONES: So it's real clear that if you don't have a job, if you don't have a stable residence, your probability of re-offending is high.
Yeah. CHAIRMAN JONES: And it's just plain as the -- plain as the stat show. Are there any questions? Member Harrity?
You know, I -- it's no secret everybody knows I try to live by life experience. And a lot of people know that me and Senator Street have known each other since high school. But we didn't actually really start hanging out till he was in college. And the way we met when he was in college was because I had a brother who got railroaded for a first offense. He was given for a fight between two kids. They were 18. He was given two and a half years without eligibility for parole. Anybody that knows that and our lawyers here know that the only way that he can get out at that point is if the judge reconsidered sentenced. So just to put it in perspective, my brother did nine years for that two year and a half year bit because he couldn't stop smoking marijuana. He never committed another crime, never. And nine times I filed for reconsideration from the judge. And the judge knew he didn't commit another crime. So nine times that judge reconsidered sentence. But after the ninth time of him violating, the judge was a little upset. And he actually said in the courtroom that it really upset him to have to send him back to jail because he had never again committed another crime except for smoking marijuana. So he went upstate. You know, when he was in the county, it was always short term. So they don't have as many programs. So when he went upstate, he was able to get his GED. And then when he got out he was lucky, he was -- we were able to get him into Laborers' Union. I could tell you because he got sent upstate for smoking marijuana. He no longer smokes marijuana. It was a hard lesson to learn. And he was in that thing from 18 for smoking marijuana, like -- so that's why I am very passionate about this and I always have been, because I've seen it firsthand. Why was he smoking marijuana? Because when he got out of jail, he couldn't get a damn job, and he got caught in the cycle hanging out with his friends and playing around. He tried -- every time he got out of jail, he tried to get a job, but the only people that wanted to hire him weren't really paying. So that's why I'm in support of this bill. I -- you know, could you elaborate on how the changes in this bill might reduce homelessness, improve family stability as in the case of your client, Ms. Jefferson?
Absolutely. Thank you so much for that question. I think one of the most important things that Councilmember Jones' question also is making me think about is that even when folks are able to access a job, usually it's under the table or part-time or not stable, people move between jobs more frequently. We really need to set people up, not just to have any job, but to have good quality living wage jobs that they can support their children and families on and to have career pathways that they can pursue. And so I think that's a big goal of what we're trying to achieve with this bill and other efforts is to say, you know, people need to be seen for the skills, qualifications, educational attainment, rehabilitation efforts that they've undertaken. We need to look at all of those really carefully and see the strides that people are aiming for in the futures that are possible for them rather than just looking at what's on a piece of paper that doesn't really tell their story, and it certainly doesn't tell us what they would be capable of if they were given a chance. So I think really thinking about good quality jobs, future career pathways, that's what's going to allow people to provide for their families, to have stable housing. And as Chief Defender Hudson said, to have the ability to have a better, you know, generational outcome for their children as well.
Absolutely. Shout out to PTTI. I went to the graduation last month of the kids in the Youth Study Center. And when I talked to them, I told them, right now, coming out of the Youth Study Center, they got an actual leg up on all the kids that graduated because they're walking out of there with their OSHA certificate. And anybody that's in the union knows that you can't walk on a job without hours of OSHA 5 training. And they were able to get 6 that and complete that and now 7 they're -- after they're getting 8 out, they're continuing their 9 education at PTI. That's what it's 10 about, rehabilitation, helping them to come up. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you for sharing, Member Harrity, your life experiences. Are there any other questions?
Chair, can I make, just -- can I make just one quick statement. First, I wanted to thank both of you so much for all of the work that you do. You really do hear all the stories on the front line and know the barriers that people are facing now. It's always so hard for me also to hear how you talk about the very clear systemic barriers we have to people with records, to poor people, to people of color in the city. It's so obvious what we have to do to fix it. And it's up to us to make sure that we are fixing these clear issues to help people get their GEDs, to help them get their employment, to help them get housing and all of these things so that they don't end up being the folks who are in the revolving door of our prison system. And to Jamie Gullen, thank you for connecting the dots for us about the bill that is pending in Congress. I think that is essential for us to hear. That we're about to have work requirements for basic human needs and supplements that people have that will cause an extra extreme barrier on people if they can't get a job. So we have to fix this in Philadelphia, and we're doing this right alongside you guys. So thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: For the record, Member Brooks is here. Thank you for attending. Member Young.
Thank you. So one thing was mentioned is that, you know, employers only have a piece of paper to go by when making these decisions. And the Chief Defender had a statistic that said, you know, percent of the 17 folks that are currently 18 incarcerated in the Philadelphia 19 jails have a previous jail admission 20 in the last 12 months, right? 21 So if I'm an employer and 22 all I have to go by is this piece of 23 paper and I see a record that 24 someone is coming in and out of that system, what other factors do you think they should use to determine the credibility of that potential employee when they have to -- particularly, I'm thinking about some of the smaller businesses in my district that like -- the bars or restaurants that may have 10, 9 employees that would fit underneath 10 this legislation. 11 Like, what other things 12 should they look at when trying to 13 take a risk on an employee, to help, 14 you know, better, to help further 15 move along their business? Because as a business owner, that's a real risk that you take, that someone can be in and out of jail once a month, twice, you know, three, four times a year. That's a risk that you take on, you know, in running your business and trying to provide for your family, for your community. So what are some other things that they should look at if, you know, you believe that a pattern of incarceration is something that they should not be looking at?
Thank you for that question, Councilmember Young. And I'll just mention again, as we are in a city where we are actively trying to decarcerate our population because of the Remick litigation, because of the conditions there, and the million judgment against the 14 city, we have to really pay 15 attention to who is in our jails and 16 why they're there. And those 17 clients are very low level 18 misdemeanor, they're pretrial, they 19 haven't even been convicted yet. 20 But I think what's 21 important to note is that we can all 22 identify someone who may not have 23 the same kind of education and 24 skills as us -- for things that we take for granted. Working with a client or re-entry specialist working with someone to highlight things that they did in high school, to highlight prior training, to get character reference letters, to get, you know, the church mentor or their prior football coach to write a letter to them, to have someone mentor them, to teach them how to write a resume. These are things that, again, we were taught and our clients do not possess those types of skills where they can go out and make -- and present their best selves. Working with clients pre -- you know, pre-release is also important because that month that they're home is a really vulnerable time for them to be back into the system again. And so trying to get them connected to employment before they even leave the jails is critical because then you have -- they have something that they can use as a platform to be able to hopefully not recidivise. But once they're released, you know -- and the beauty of the public defenders is we know when our clients are leaving the jails. Nobody else knows. We know when our clients are leaving the jails. But to be able to know when they're going to be leaving and be able to have them set up for success before they get out and they're in the streets and they're homeless and/or unemployed, they're going to come back to us. I think employers will see the best version of our clients when we work with our clients to help them present the best versions of themselves. And those versions are there. How do they know to access it? They need an advocate. Both our youth and adult clients need advocates. These are not the -- you know, they're needing the help and the counsel, and that's why we're hoping to be able to expand the work we do in that area.
Could I just add one note to that? CHAIRMAN JONES: State the name again?
Sorry. Jamie Gullen from Community Legal Services. I just wanted to note that there have been more studies recently as well that look at the hiring and sort of longevity of workers after they've been employed under these types of policies. There was one study, particularly out of Johns Hopkins, when they did more of this individualized assessment of potential workers and then hired them on to work at the hospital. They actually saw lower turnover rates than for their employees without criminal record, so I think that speaks, too. Well, there certainly are a lot of barriers and challenges our clients face, having that job is such a linchpin for their stability, and often I think when folks are given that chance, they really want to make the most of it and, you know, can be very loyal to good employers who have given them that opportunity. So while I certainly hear the concern, I think research is showing us that when we give people that chance, they're actually going to have less turnover than other folks do.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you, Member. Are there any other questions? Seeing none. I want to thank you for your testimony, and we appreciate it and heard some of that. I know you are attorneys, but I've got to believe that if I were representing someone and they said take the deal, I would ask, read that colloquy to them one more time, and over -- I think it's 200 things that they can no longer do as a convicted felon; is that right?
There's a list -- the list of collateral consequences are very long. I mean, we spend a lot of time with our clients explaining that. Our pretrial detention population is a high statistic of clients who plead guilty because they want to come home. So it -- regardless of whether they're innocent or guilty, our clients who are incarcerated just want to get out. So our plea rates are really high, right? It's 95 percent of people plea who are in pretrial detention. That statistic changes if people are addressing their case when they're home out on bail. But that frequent, you know, pretrial detention population, they're going to plead guilty. Those consequences will be there, but we explain those consequences to them, and like Community Legal Services, we have a grant, and for the past several years through the Promise Grant with United Way, we do robust expungement clinics, help them, advise them on how to get pardons. But the -- our system was built to drive a plea process, and once that plea process is underway, the collateral consequences start to pile up. CHAIRMAN JONES: So we -- they -- we just need to make sure they are aware of what they are actually giving up for a very, very, very long time. All right. Hearing no more questions for this panel. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Stack, who's the next panel to testify? Ms. Stack: Bianca van Heydoorn, Executive Director of the Youth Sentencing and Reentry Project, Ashley Miscevich, Manager for the Chamber of Commerce of the Greater Philadelphia, and LaTrista Webb, the Executive Director for the Elevation Project. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you for your patience. Please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify to the Committee on Public Safety. I'm here in support of the Fair Chance Hiring Law Amendments, Bill No. 2503 --
Oh, I got you. My name is -- my name is Bianca Van Heydoorn, I'm the executive director at the Youth Sentencing and Reentry Project. I am here in support of Fair Chance Hiring Amendment, Bill 250373. YSRP uses direct service and policy advocacy to transform the experiences of children prosecuted in the adult criminal legal system, including supporting them throughout their case and as they return home from incarceration. We work both with youth who are currently being prosecuted as if they were adults and former so-called juvenile lifers who have been resentenced and are now returning home after decades of incarceration. At YSRP, we have the honor to witness every day why no one should be defined by a criminal record. We see our colleagues and our friends who were once told that they were irredeemable and disposable serving as leaders and mentors in their community, helping to ensure that young people in the system today have a better experience than they did. We see people who are recently released from incarceration, finding ways to rebuild their lives for themselves, for their families and communities, despite the odds being stacked against them. And they all aspire for meaningful employment. The Fair Chance Hiring Law plays an important role in ensuring that people trying to rebuild their lives after criminal legal system involvement have meaningful opportunities to do so. I want to highlight a few of the ways that it particularly impacts young people and the other main groups of folks we work with, so-called juvenile lifers. The juvenile lifers are people who were initially sentenced to life without the possibility of parole when they were children. Philadelphia holds the dubious distinction of being the city and the country, and therefore in the world with the most children sentenced to this draconian punishment. After the Supreme Court ruled in the Miller and Montgomery cases that these sentences were unconstitutional, most of these folks have been resentenced to parole eligible sentences and have come home in -- on parole. But because their original sentence was life, they are on lifetime parole with no possibility of getting off parole under the current law. The bill before us makes an important clarification and a Fair Chance Hiring Law to ensure that the lookback period ends at incarceration rather than at the end of parole, which for our community would only come when they die. Given the struggles we see with juvenile lifers going through every day to get and keep employment, this is an important expansion of the protections of the law. Second, the bill clarifies that juvenile records may not be used in hiring decisions. These records are already supposed to be sealed, but they do pop up and disrupt employment opportunities for young people. So this is also a helpful clarification. I want to thank City Councilmember Rue Landau for bringing this bill and my colleagues on this panel for so eloquently supporting it, and the colleagues that went before me. As a leader of an organization supporting folks returning home from incarceration, and as in my own role as a fair chance employer, I urge your support for this bill in order to make Philadelphia a more welcoming place for returning citizens and to contribute to the economic thriving of this city as it was described, where over 300,000 people carry the distinction and the stain of a criminal record. Thank you for allowing us to testify today. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you for your testimony. Please state your name and begin your testimony.
Ashley Miscevich, Manager of Local Government Advocacy at the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia, testifying on Bill 4 250373, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I first want to begin by thanking Council Woman Lozada -- sorry, Rue Landau. You've been a wonderful partner of the chamber in these conversations and we appreciate being able to sit down and express our concerns and have really productive, you know, progress. So thank you. And we do want to affirm our commitment to working with all members of Council collaboratively on legislation. The Chamber deeply cares about Fair Chance Hiring because we know the impact it has, not just for individuals, but for our region's economy. Over the past year, we launched Fair Chance Hiring Implementation Series in partnership with Philadelphia Works and others, engaging seven major employers who together represent over 40,000 jobs. We hosted the Fair Chance Hiring, Building a Pathway to Employment, which is a fair chance program attended by over 100 businesses. And just last month celebrated the graduation of our first employer cohort, who are actively building pathways for justice impact individuals. Reentry matters because we know the data. Nearly 400,000, it's 400, not 300,000 Philadelphians have had contact with the justice system. And according to the Society for Human Resource Management, 85 percent of HR professionals report that individuals with prior convictions perform as well or better than their peers. That's why we believe it's critical that policy supports, not discourages these hiring practices. We really appreciate the thoughtful amendments that have been proposed and believe this moves the bill to much closer where it needs to be. However, we do still have a few concerns that remain. The requirement that employers provide a written narrative every time they conduct an individualized assessment and -- is a significant departure from the current practice. This introduces a real legal and administrative burden, especially for small and mid-sized businesses that may not have in-house legal or sufficient HR staff. Even for employers who are deeply committed to fair chance and inclusive hiring practices, the added risk of litigation, the complexity of getting the language right and the time required to produce individualized narratives for each candidate could deter participation. Importantly, no major peer city requires this. Cities like New York, LA, and San Francisco all require individualized assessments, but they do not -- they do so in a way that standardize communication and reduce legal exposure. We're also urging to retain the current seven-year lookback period for misdemeanors and to allow -- to continue allowing employers to consider relevant summary offenses related to driving records. This is about ensuring employers have the flexibility to assess job related risks, a blanket reduction in the misdemeanor lookback window from seven to four years, prevent employers from evaluating recent offenses that could be material to performance or public safety. Likewise, summary offenses might sound minor in legal terms, but they often include things like reckless driving or license violations, issues that are critically important when hiring for roles that involve operating vehicles. In many industries, delivery, transportation, mobile healthcare, this type of information is necessary to make responsible informed hiring decisions. We are not asking to reintroduce broad exclusions simply to retain the ability to evaluate risks on a case-by-case basis, just as the current law and the Equal Opportunity -- or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance allows. As drafted, this bill would presume an employer acted in retaliation if any adverse action occurs within 90 days. And to overcome that presumption, the employer would need to meet an unusually high legal burden far above what is standard in civil law.
This means an employer who rejects an applicant, issues discipline or even chooses to not move someone forward in an interview, could be presumed to have acted unlawfully unless they can prove otherwise to a near certain degree. For businesses, this creates real fear, fear of making a mistake, fear of being sued, and ultimately fear of engaging with justice to impact individuals. Most peer cities prohibit retaliation and we do support that provision. But they apply a fair fact-based approach, a preponderance of the evidence standard, just like in federal civil rights law. We strongly encourage adopting that standard here. We want all -- we want to protect all workers from retaliation, but we need to do so in a way that doesn't unintentionally push employers away from the very practices that we are trying to promote. We support the goals of this legislation and we are excited to be a partner in this and this work, and we support the city's commitment to Fair Chance Hiring. But we want this to be clear, consistent, and feasible for all employers that we rely on to create second chances. We're committed to working closely with the bill sponsor and look forward to those conversations to strengthen this legislation and enhance its impact, reduce the unintended barriers, and ensure it encourages more employers to confidently adopt fair chance hiring practices. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our testimony today and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you both for your testimony. If I heard you correctly, one of your concerns is particularly as it relates to jobs that require maybe vehicle licenses --
Correct. CHAIRMAN JONES: Yet the prior record, DUI, suspension of a license that could come up are your concerns; is that correct?
That's what we've been hearing from our employers, particularly those that have jobs -- you know, jobs specific to driving where that is the role of the employee, correct. CHAIRMAN JONES: So what I'd like to do is ask the author to kind of address how that -- and I think I know the answer because this came up before, but I'm going to allow you to elaborate.
You want me, sorry, to speak to DUIs coming up in PennDOT reports? I think the problem with the PennDOT reports is it's pulling in even more criminal record -- the criminal history so that employers then can see more than they should be able to see in other forms. So it was just -- as we talk about making sure that the law is current with the times, people can now run in, you know, a Google search on someone's name that sometimes could bring some information up. And that was what the restriction of the -- of the PennDOT was doing. CHAIRMAN JONES: To my recollection, going back to prior iterations of this legislation, it was the first blush of the interview that the Ban the Box was guarded against that you summarily didn't throw that application away sight unseen. And that an explanation could be -- or further research could go into some of the particulars of cases, thus protecting them from just, you know, being told you need not apply.
That is exactly the -- right. I mean, there's an individualized assessment that happens with every single one of these, right? We look at the basics, even with the first initial part of the law that we passed back in 2011. You look at the nature of the crime, when it occurred, and the specifics of the job that the person is speaking, what is the connection there? What is the nexus? And there's -- the law even explains what people should look at in order to figure out what this balance is. So I think it is very important to do an individualized assessment to get people an opportunity to explain their issues. But I do -- I want to make sure that we're clear on two other things that just came up in the testimony. One, an employer does not -- there's been an amendment to the original bill that was introduced. Employer does not need to write a narrative response at this point. We're going to have a form with just four check boxes. So that's already been resolved. And something I want to make very, very clear, that state law that has been in place for about 50 years does not allow an employer to utilize summary offenses if there is no connection to the job that you are seeking. That's been state law for so many years, we just never memorialized it in city -- in the city law. CHAIRMAN JONES: Got it.
Yeah. CHAIRMAN JONES: Does that address at least some of it?
It does, yes. And I think when relative to the driving record, we'd like to be able to use that as part of the assessment because, again, in an industry where, you know, you have drivers like an Uber, and I'm just using it as example, but I mean, that is the core function of their business, right? Or you look at other employers that they have drivers for, you know, their operations is that there are, you know -- that is a key function and they would need to be able to look at their record in order to do that. So I think being able to have access and to use the driving record as part of that assessment is what we're asking for. And because, you know, those infractions are typically seen as a summary offense, the driving record I think would be a key tool for those particular positions where it could be a concern for the employer, yes. CHAIRMAN JONES: Understood. Any questions?
Chair, can I -- I just want to -- can I just tell a quick story of my time as a legal aid lawyer? It'll be fast, I promise. CHAIRMAN JONES: Please do.
I represented low income tenants. And I remember a client that I had who had some moving violations on their driver's records, got a job driving a truck -- a small delivery truck for a company, and the truck had a broken taillight that he didn't know about. He gets pulled over, they run his license to -- back then -- to find out that he has more -- many moving violations, and he gets incarcerated and held based on these moving violations, and he can't afford bail to get out. So while he was awaiting trial, his landlord didn't receive the rent, files a complaint against him -- against him, there's a judgment entered against my client because he can't show up to court because he doesn't know about it. And when I step into the case, it's to open the judgment and to try to get him a payment plan once he gets out. But I will say that it is essential that we are really taking this idea of any kind of driving record and moving violation seriously. We cannot look at any of these situations on -- with a wide brush stroke. Each case is absolutely individualized. And again, I think what happened then would not happen now. We've evolved in our criminal justice system, but to know that he almost lost his housing because he couldn't afford the moving violation tickets, then couldn't afford the bail, this is the cycle that we're really trying to stop. So, as I said in my opening, we are still talking to the Chamber of Commerce along with all other employers and are completely happy to do that. But we've had many conversations and we'll continue them. But I just want to make it clear that not every situation is the same. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: You. I appreciate your willingness to continue the dialogue.
Could I just make one statement? And I want to thank you for that because we have employers, as I said, you know, the Chamber is really actively engaged in this space. And we want to bring the employers to the table that are pursuing those hiring practices that are recruiting, you know, justice impact individuals so that the issues that you've brought as part of why you've amended this legislation, we can help to address them in a way that is fair and balanced based on what is, you know, practical within their HR teams and what is fair. So we thank you and we look forward to continuing the discussion around this. So thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Is that it, guys? Thank you for your testimony. We appreciate your input and thank you. The author of the bill is willing to work through some of the questions and concerns.
You forgot I was sitting here, Councilman Jones? CHAIRMAN JONES: Yes, please.
Hi, I'm LaTrista Webb from The Elevation Project. We are a reentry program in the illustrious 4th District of the city of Philadelphia. And so I think it's all kind of been said, so I won't be long. But to answer your question, there are over 800 collateral consequences in Pennsylvania. They go anywhere from housing, licensing, insurance. People who are incarcerated are affected well above employment. Councilmember Harrity, you said you're from the neighborhood. I believe I hang out in the streets. And so I believe that the people in the streets would say that Reentry and Criminal Justice Reform is a big part of public safety. It's often left out of conversations, and you're so right, if we don't talk about the things that the people need when they come out of prison, they will commit the crimes again and they will be back in the system again. And then we'll be talking about overpopulated prisons and maybe opening new jails and prisons. So it is important that we include criminal justice reform in public safety conversations. Councilman Jones, I said this to you privately last week, and I want to say it publicly, I want to thank Jamie from Community Legal Services and I want to thank the Chief Defender for all their work that they have done around expungements, and -- lord pardons, I forgot what it was called that fast. You guys helped to make it popular so much that elected officials started fighting over who could have the bigger one. They worked you guys to the bones. I fight for my own money, but when you guys finish giving me some money, I believe that those two groups, community legal services and the Defenders Association of Philadelphia should be considered in your budget for all the work that they've done just around expungements and pardons. When we're talking about Fair Chance Hiring, they've been boots on the ground for years, as Jamie has said, but really for the last couple years, making sure that as we all were having these parties and events that all of you have attended across the city of Philadelphia, but that people were getting their records cleared so that they could get jobs. But when we talk about Councilmember Landau's bill, I think it's important that we consider all of those collateral consequences. A lot of them come from the state and so we can't fix them in this room, but we can fix hiring. And so I'm going to stop with that because I believe there are people with lived experience in the room 22 and nobody's stories are better to be told than theirs. CHAIRMAN JONES: For the people out there watching, when is your next event and where?
There is no 4 record clearing, so if you're watching, do not come to get your record cleared. I still love you, Jamie. So the next event is June 21st. It is on Parkside, 4950 Parkside Avenue. It is a salute to black men in a society where right now we're not supposed to claim too much of our culture and who we are. We have named this event, Dear Black Men, We Love You, and so it is a salute to black men. We will have a concert by Jadakiss Health Resources for the community. It's all around reentry and helping formerly incarcerated men. We hope to have some employers there. If HR for the city is watching, we'd like to have that city bus pull up. We'd like to have the fire department come out, but it is a salute to black men from one to five. Jadakiss will be performing, and yes, that's our next big event. CHAIRMAN JONES: So particularly for my At Large members, all are welcome. But my At Large members, every time I go to one of their events, there's not enough resources to cover all of the people to need them. They have to turn them away. People want to get a second chance. People want to get expungements, and you had more applicants than you had attorneys. And we need to kind of -- that's on my list so that you know. All right?
And I think that goes to show why this law is important. People want to get their records cleared. You didn't tell the story this time, but you always talk about that cousin who it was like years ago when she got the record, right? CHAIRMAN JONES: She doesn't want me -- she doesn't want me to tell it anymore.
She don't want you telling it no more? CHAIRMAN JONES: She was definitely --
And so it's like over years, right, and then 11 people still can't get employment. 12 And so that's the part we miss. I 13 think when we had these 14 conversations, people are thinking 15 about the people who are out there 16 committing crime right now, but 17 we're not talking fair chance hiring 18 for people who possibly will be 19 incarcerated and possibly need to be 20 incarcerated, right? 21 So criminal justice reform 22 doesn't mean that we empty out the 23 jails and we let everybody free. It 24 means that there are a group of people who 25, 30, 15, 10 years ago did something and now they're still suffering for it. I look at all of you, but I don't know the worst thing that you've ever done. But none of you up there are completely innocent. We're talking about people where the worst thing that they've done when they go on a job interview, somebody's able to say, Oops, you did this, and you want to work here? Like, that's not what it's supposed to be about. And so that's what's important. I don't wear the worst thing I've ever did on my forehead. If I did, I probably wouldn't have gotten the city hall today. And so that's the kind of things we're talking about, 20, 30 years ago, people who committed crimes a long time ago, that candy bar you took out to Walmart 20 years ago when you were in college because you just wanted a candy bar, that grape you ate while you were in the supermarket years ago, and it 4 still haunts you to this day. 5 CHAIRMAN JONES: So my 6 cousin who was -- 7
I knew he was 8 close. 9 CHAIRMAN JONES: -- one of 10 those cousins that are kind of stuck 11 up, always used to be at the family 12 reunion, you know, putting on their 13 airs. I'm out at your event and 14 she's got a hamburger and popping. 15 She's walking around getting in line and I'm like, why are you here? Came to find out that when she was in college, she got into some trouble, blah, blah, blah, yak. And I -- she -- you would walk by her and never think ever that she needed help. And so we have neighbors and family members that go through this and wear that scarlet letter on their foreheads for the rest of their lives. So thank you for what you do.
If I -- if I may, Councilmember Jones, I just want to add two points to what my sister just said. The data around when someone -- what risks someone may pose is shorter than we think, right? And with respect, yes, 10, years ago, no one should be -- 12 have an albatross of a criminal 13 record for that long. 14 But the point at which 15 someone poses no more risk than 16 anyone else in the -- in the 17 community is even shorter. And why 18 we are in support of the lookback 19 period being shorter because we also 20 recognize that the risk to community safety and to an individual's ability to support their families also means access to employment sooner or after incarceration. So that that very vulnerable period that people have when they first come home can be met with the opportunity for meaningful employment. And we can interrupt a cycle sooner. So it's -- I just want to echo that it's the both and. CHAIRMAN JONES: Life affects us all and our family members and we have to do our best to elevate, elevate all of us. So, any questions? Member Gauthier?
Thank you so much for your testimony. My question is: Do you have estimated number of the number of young people that are affected by their criminal records and how this bill will be able to provide access? Like, do you have, like, an estimated number? Because I'm certain it is pretty high and I just wanted it to be on a record.
Sure. I'm reluctant to give specific numbers, but I will harken to the testimony that the Chief Defender gave where they -- they work with over 2,500 young people, nearly 3000 young people a year. We personally work with several hundred young people a year. And I would argue that if you are young and brown and broke in Philadelphia, this has the opportunity to touch you. And I also say that we should be thinking about the future job seekers of Philadelphia and the economic stability that we want for the city. Even if there are roughly 2,500 to 3000 young people who are living currently with a record, if we keep going the way we're going, not only are they not going to be protected in terms of employment, but those coming behind them will not be protected as well. And so we have an opportunity to contribute to public safety right now, and also do the handholding that we need to do with employers so that they actually understand what risk looks like. You know, employers are not equipped in understanding penal code, in understanding summary offenses, and so looking at a record and making a hiring decision without having the skills that they need to understand that record is some of what we need to protect against. And then also equip employers with what -- with a better understanding of what rehabilitation, I put in quotes, looks like, so that they can understand how to make a hiring decision with evidence of rehabilitation and evidence that one job seeker with a criminal record is not necessarily more of a risk than a job seeker without.
Thank you so much for your testimony. And I want to also thank you guys for the work that you do. I've been following, and I -- you know, we talk about out of school time program, we talk about recidivism, we talk about access to opportunities, and I do feel like this legislation, you know, would give access to opportunity for young people in my neighborhood because I know what it's like when they, like, they still call me Ms. Nikki, “Ms. Nikki, can you get me a job? But my -- I got something on my record.” You know, it's a hindrance and, like, how can we provide more access for people to start their lives over? So thank you guys for the work that you do ongoing and thank you for providing testimony. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you, Member Brooks. Any other questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony and it helps. It helps enlighten us. Ms. Stack, next panel to testify, please.
Jigar Mehta from the Asian American Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Slaughter and Kali Lamb. CHAIRMAN JONES: Please come up to the -- to the desk, have a seat, state your name for the record and please begin your testimony. Thank you so much for your patience as well.
Hi, my name is Kali Lamb. I am a research associate with the Clean Slate Initiative. We work nationwide to pass automated record clearing laws, state to state, for people who've completed their sentences. Before that, I had the privilege of being a paralegal with Community Legal Services and the employment unit. I was there for two years and I daily worked with, like, a caseload of about 50 people that are experiencing these barriers to employment. But before I get into why this bill is so important, I want to talk about why employment is so important. I had a lifelong substance use disorder. I became addicted to substances when I was a teenager. It was close to years 13 of active use. 14 It was slight but 15 progressive my whole life. In 2019, 16 and the same week right before 17 Christmas, I lost my job and my 18 apartment. I became unhoused on the 19 streets of Kensington, and I lived 20 in a stairwell around the corner from here. There was a group of about 10 of us. I started getting arrested for retail theft and drug related offenses, and it was a cycle. I would get in jail, I'd be sober, I want to do well, and I'm released right back to being unhoused. I don't have family up here. I didn't have a lot of support. I say that because I want you to understand how hard it was to turn everything around. My most recent conviction is 2022. So under current laws, I probably cannot get a retail job in Philadelphia. Today I own a house. I bought my first house last year. I bought a car last month. Thank you. I have three dogs that I care for that have health insurance that I am able to -- I can't express to you how much that means because my identity until my mid-thirties was first a drug addict and then something else, or a criminal and then something else. And today I'm able to succeed. And the entire catalyst for that was CLS and getting a job that made me proud of myself because I have never been proud of myself. I made terrible decisions my entire life. So the first step to self- assurance and being able to contribute to my community was having a job that loved me before I could love me, that valued my lived experience, that taught me to be proud of the journey I've been on and taught me my value and that I'm more than just my bad days, right? So that's why employment is important because it can be the catalyst to so much. It's not just a job, it's how we feel about ourselves. It's how we stop re-offending, right? Next to housing, that's top tier. So why this bill is important? Every single amendment in this bill is directly related to the experience of a client or clients of CLS. Every word. The first amendment in this bill is a simple change of wording. I want you to know there's a client that was in litigation for about a year over that word because he was denied employment. So that's why these amendments are important. My roommate today is someone that I lived in that stairwell with right at Broad & Chestnut. He's been sober for three and a half years now. He was chronically unhoused. Both of his parents died from substance use disorder. And the reason that we have this provision in here about employers including a questionnaire about your rehabilitation, that started with this roommate of mine. He applied for a job and he has charges. They go as deep as burglary, right? They're not that simple, but they're all related to his addiction. And he was sent a pre-adverse action letter explaining that they were likely going to not hire him, a copy of his record, and they included a criminal conviction questionnaire. It asked the circumstance that led to the conviction. What have you done since then? And why can we trust you? It outlined the steps that should be taken to show you as a whole person and more than just a criminal record. And he filled that out and he has now been in that same position for going on two years.
He gets to work, and I'm saying this as if this is under oath, this is 45 minutes to an hour early every single day. He is a phenomenal employee. And had he not had the ability to explain who he was and what he has done and the amount of work he has put into changing who he is, he wouldn't have that job. This bill doesn't really change the substance, right? All it does is clarify how we move within the law as both employers and as people with lived experience trying to navigate it. Because if there's one cohesive element between all of my clients, and honestly employers as well if I'm really honest about it, they don't understand these laws. They don't understand how they work. I heard some testimony earlier about how it might be an issue for employers. It's tedious, right, to have to write out why you're not hiring someone based on their record. But that's the law. As it's written today, you must give an individualized assessment. So I don't understand the extra step to write that down for the person that you are saying, I'm not going to hire you because I think you pose a risk to me as a business. I don't understand how it doesn't -- how it makes sense that we don't explain that now. So that the person can then respond and say, hey, but look what else I've done since then. I also heard some comment about New York City. And I wanted to clarify, New York City has excellent employment laws and protections, and it's very similar to the provisions that Councilmember Landau introduced. There's actually a form for employers in New York City to fill out check boxes and simple statements that they have done an individualized assessment and they return that to the applicant. So it's actually very, very similar. And if New York City can do that, I think Philadelphia can as well. I know I've been going on for a little bit, but I think what's really -- the fact that I really want to push, this changes lives and it's so many adults in Philadelphia that are impacted by this, by criminal records. I heard Councilman Jones say before that -- we were talking about like the colloquy, right, when you're pleading guilty, all of that. I've said numerous times in the colloquy there's not a single time that you are told you can be denied employment when you plead guilty to this misdemeanor. I never knew that. I never knew pleading out to felonies, that this was going to be an impediment for years. And also, as someone who now does research on collateral consequences, I can confirm that there are over 48,000 collateral consequences of arrest and conviction. So again, I appreciate people that are not directly impacted prioritizing this piece of legislation, these amendments, and staying up to date with the needs of our communities. And this is a bill 9 that brings the voices of the people it directly impacts to the table. And I don't think we see that enough. And I'm really impressed and proud of it. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions, if you have any. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you for your testimony. Can you state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
Hello, everyone. My name is Muhmee. I'm here today -- CHAIRMAN JONES: Do you have a last name, sir?
I'm here today to support Bill No. 25037 -- 373. I'm an exoneree who's been exonerated almost a year ago. During my time of incarceration, I made a conscious decision to completely change my life and reinvent myself for the better. What most people don't know is that many individuals leaving prison want to transition into being a productive citizen. And they're toiling while in there to make themselves of more value. While in prison, I educated myself and strove hard to prepare for my second chance of freedom. Of course, we all know that through time come maturity, wisdom, and self-restraint. So I was ready to make my contribution towards our productive society. I was eager to punch the clock and pay my taxes in full. However, upon my release, things didn't go according to plan. In fact, I wasn't prepared for what stood in my path of being a part of the working class. Rejection. Every which way I turned for employment, I was met with rejection. After being rejected so many times, it begins to bother you. It starts to mess with your head and weigh heavy on your thoughts. I decided to take a step back to see what was the cause of all this rejection. It was because of my record or your jacket, what they say. I remember applying for -- to be an advocate for a juvenile facility in the hope of giving them a little faith and some golden direction. Once again, I was turned away. When I respond with a question of my own, “May I ask why,” they told me it was due to my prior conviction. I told them that I was resolved of all charges and even presented proof. It didn't matter because it was still on my record. Therefore, I was not permitted to work with troubled youth. I applied -- I even applied to be a custodian for a transportation company to clean out their vehicles after they've been used, parked and done for that day. Again, I was met with rejection due to my record. Even if you meet every requirement, possess specific skills or credentials or give an outstanding interview, surprisingly, you'll be met or greeted with disappointment due to rejection. Eventually, self-defeat begins to set in. If those who came home from incarceration don't have a strong support system or a great sense of resilience, unfortunately, they end up becoming a part of their recidivism rate instead of the working class. It took me months before I was able to get a fair shake and show that I was so much more than what a document displayed of me from old. My shot at a chance of equal opportunity came from those who I've met along the way and striving to attain greatness. People like Jerome Loach from Eastern State, who's a senior coordinator for the LEAD Fellowship Reentry Program, Christy DiStefano, who's a part of HR at Peersta, my PO, Ms. Sledge. Cindy, who is a coordinator at STAR Reentry Program, and many more. They saw who I truly was and refused to let a piece of paper deter them from helping me reach my full potential. Due to them believing in me, I am now a CPS, Certified Peer Support specialist, helping others battle against mental illness by aiding them in their struggle to get well. Because they supported me, I am now a CCIP advocate for PAN, Philadelphia Anti- Drug/Anti-Violence Network, which allowed me to help individuals receive much-needed resources and allowed me to interact with the youth to try to deter them or turn them away from the streets. Therefore, I believe it is imperative that you support this bill to ensure that those who are re-entering back into society have an equal opportunity for gainful employment. I believe that it is unjust to put an individual through difficulty or deny them access to make an honest living due to poor decisions from their past. Please support this bill. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you so much for sharing that. And thank you for your resilience, because a lesser person would've given up and done something different. But thank you for sticking in there and we benefit from it as a city. Any questions?
Hello. My name is -- CHAIRMAN JONES: State your name and begin your testimony.
My name is Jigar Mehta. I'm with the Asian American Chamber. Thank you, Chair Jones and City Council. When we talked about 4,000 individuals that have been incarcerated, what we're really saying is 4,000 justice- impacted families. They have children. And what happens when these men go to prison, they get caught into this complex system called Philadelphia, where you now become a family of three or four, and now you -- now these children are being raised by a single mom. When that happens, and there's a severe decline in income in that family, the children suffer the most. There is a 72 percent more likelihood of that child that has a justice-impacted father to have PTSD. There's a 50 percent chance they're going to have anxiety. That starts a path dependence on that child of deteriorating health. When you have health that is deteriorating, you get caught into a negative feedback loop. That means you start losing executive function. When you lack executive function, you cannot learn. When you cannot learn, you -- again, your health starts to deteriorate. And now what happens, you can't get a job, there is no 2 knowledge, there is no opportunity for you. The next step is, it's like a virus. It affects not just you, the individual. We know hurt people hurt. So what happens is they go to school, and now they hurt people in school. And now people that have similar situations start to gather. So now the school deteriorates. The neighborhoods deteriorate. Then what happens, it starts to grow. And this virus spreads throughout the city, throughout the state, and throughout the country. So there's intervention that's required. And I'm grateful for what is being put together. But we need to find out solutions while they're on the inside. We have to get them before the three years. My personal experience, the reason I'm interested in this, is I grew up with a single mom. I've been through the PTSD, the -- all the bad stuff. I ended up, God's grace, went to an Ivy League school, went to Penn, graduated. I ended up working at the World Trade Center. I got a job at Deloitte. My address was One Union Square South. Deutsche Bank was my client. And one day, I get a phone call, say, you got to come into the office, get in the office. They did a look back seven years. In 2019, I was still a knucklehead. I was doing dumb stuff, hanging out. We used to do the five-finger discount, run through a mall, grab what we can. Whoever we got the most expensive stuff won. They got everything. We were stupid. This one time, I didn't do it. I did do it plenty of other times. The one time I didn't do it, the cops caught me. Because I was just hanging out. My friends left. They said, hey, who are you with? You know we're not going to say who you're with. We go to the jail, and they put me in a box for six hours. Then they say, you want to go out? Fine, just sign this. It's a non-moving violation. It's just like a speeding ticket. All you got to do is go to the clerk, pay 112 bucks, you're out of here. I didn't even have 112 bucks, so I put on a payment plan. That ticket, I get called in. They say, you got until Sunday. It was Friday. I had until Sunday to move out of my apartment that was being paid by Deutsche Bank. And I was fearful I was going to lose my job at Deloitte Consulting, where I had to fight for that. And all that because I was 19 and dumb? So luckily for me, Deloitte gave me a second chance. They just laughed. They're like, listen, don't worry about it, man. You're going to Europe. You're going to hang out. Deutsche Bank wants you in Europe. So I got a chance to live in Europe. I got a second chance. I'm sitting here because of that second chance and because of Deloitte. Right now, there are plenty of people out there that are more qualified than I ever will be. That are never going to -- you meet some of these children, they're smarter than-- they got the street cred. They got the street knowledge. They're better than any of us.
They'll run circles around us. We just need to give them knowledge, opportunity, and love. Those are the three things we need to give them. We're working right now with a juvenile lifer who was exonerated for years. I mean, 4 went to prison for 24 years, Johnny 5 Berry. We have a team that we're 6 putting together right now to try to 7 figure out how to solve this. And 8 we've got Johnny Berry. 9 We've got Office of Reentry 10 Partnerships with the city of 11 Philadelphia. We've got Hal 12 Construction, Hal charities, we've 13 got Hal Construction to create 14 training programs for these men. 15 We've got the Liguori Academy in 16 Kensington to help provide a 17 training academy. We've got 18 Philadelphia Youth Basketball. 19 That's a part of this to help with 20 the training program. 21 We've got Regional Housing 22 Legal Services that work on 23 affordable housing to help Johnny 24 create a new nonprofit called Onward to be a developer. Only we are responsible for the dream. We've got Cadre Design who's helping us design affordable homes so we can leverage the land from the land bank so we can say we want 100 percent of the employees that are formerly incarcerated to help build these homes to rebuild the 30,000 units that the mayor wants. Hundred percent. They can do it. They just need the love. They need the opportunity and the training to be able to do it. So I want to be frank. I don't know what's in this. I had -- you know, I got it on Friday and I saw you on the street and I said, can we meet? I would love to -- you know, I don't know the process. I don't know how this could affect developers. I will tell you, I met with a lot of developers. Now, I'm not going to say they don't care, but they're like, why would we take that chance to use these men? And that's why we have Hal, because they care. I mean, I'm not saying they don't care. I'm saying they would say, we'll take that chance. I would love to sit down with them, with you, to just talk about this to try to better understand, you know, what exactly, will this disincentivize as other people have said? I don't know the answer right now. So I would appreciate that effort. Thank you very much. Thank you.
You got it. Thank you so much. And -- CHAIRMAN JONES: Chair recognizes Member Landau.
You got it. I look forward to the meeting. And while I have the mic for one second, I want to thank all three of you for sharing your incredible personal stories and experiences. I know it's not hard to say it publicly, but my gosh, it sure helps others throughout the city of Philadelphia, from those of us who are helping to create policy, but to other people who don't feel alone. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you, Member Landau. What I want to say to you is you are proof positive, different origin stories from very different directions intersecting at the same problem. And what you proved today by your testimony is that broken crayons can still color. Broken crayons still have a purpose in this life. And we're going to get -- I remember I had a whole box of broken crayons and made pretty pictures. So thank you. Thank you so very much. Any -- oh, Member -
I just wanted to thank all of you for your testimony and for sharing such personal stories. I think it's very important to hear the real stories in order to understand the potential impact of the legislation and why it's needed. I particularly wanted to thank you -- I don't want to say your name wrong, I'm sorry.
I particularly wanted to thank you. I don't know if you are coming to this wearing your Chamber hat, but I think it's important, and I was not expecting this to be your testimony. You know, sometimes --
-- I think there's a -- there's a misconception that business goals don't align with what's best for people. And I appreciate you, you know, clearly having a business view since you sit on the board of the Chamber, you work for a big company, but being able to, from your personal experience, you know, represent a -- to the business community, why this is important.
No, and thank you for everything that all of you -- by the way, my wife is a huge fan of yours. I'm just going to let you -- she's with Regional Housing and Legal Services. Huge fan. But thank you for your whole staff, so --
I love Regional Housing Legal Services, so I'm a fan of hers as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Yeah, we were braced for something quite different in your testimony, but thank you for being refreshing. Ms. -- Member Deck. Ms. Stack, do we -- who's our next group? Thank you for your testimony.
Tess Hart from Triple Bottom Brewing and Jessica Paz from Wash Cycle Laundry. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you guys for your patience. Please come up to the desk. Have a seat. Thank you. Please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
My name is Jessica Paz. I work for Wash Cycle Laundry. We are a commercial laundry. It was funded here in Philadelphia, and we are still working here in Philadelphia. It was funded in a laundromat. We're still working in a laundromat, but now we have 130 employees over two different states. Thank you. So -- sorry. We wash over a million pounds of laundry for hotels, small business, and other big business with big names, like in the airport. Our employees earn between $17 and $30 an hour, and they also have the opportunity to grow and show more responsibility in between those different charges that are in those rates. We have been an employer that recruits heavily from high barrier groups since we began. And we have had a focus on supporting people with criminal records since 2011. And we have also -- we have always done this in partnerships with non-profit organizations, like the Fair Chance Hiring. Hiring, sorry. Ten years ago, like, it wasn't because we feel like we needed to do it. It was more something of like, something nice to do. But after COVID, that changed, because before COVID, like, normal commercial laundry, we have an open position, they will post an ad on Indeed by Monday, and by Wednesday, they already had a line outside of people that wanted to work for them. But that changed after COVID, and has been able to employ people, like, with changes -- with challenges, sorry, that other companies will not hire, gave us the opportunity to have a fully staffed company during this time. That was really hard for a lot of other, as I said, companies, laundromats, that were -- that needed to, like, say sorry to their customers, because they were not able to deliver on time, or, like, apologize, because they were literally not able to deliver anything to hotels, or as I said, small businesses. That didn't happen to us. Thankfully, we were able to fully staff our Landry Company. And we were able also to provide that secure service to our customers. And even to this day, like, the first thing that a lot of hotels ask is, are you guys fully staffed? And we are able to say, I'm proud to say that we are. Thank you to non-profit organizations that provide to us different people that are open to work and that they want to grow and, like, have better chances in life as well. To be clear, like, COVID almost took us to bankrupt. But after that, like, we were able to times three our customers, yes, and start contracts with big name hotels that are, like, worldwide name hotels. So, like, having the staff complete on the plan help us grow and provide the service as well. We have a lot of successful stories. Like, we got a delivery driver that all of our customers love because of his personality, like -- I'm going to say, like, a month ago, he went on vacation for a week. All of our customers were, like, getting crazy. Like, hey, like, where is the delivery driver? You know, like, he's really good. We want him back. We also have other stories, like, we got an employee that started working for us, and he came with experience from the jail on Landry. So, as soon as he started working for us, he was able to, like, go to one of the best employees that we have. So and that also, like, these employees have made great contribution to us, but they have also secured housing and stability for themselves, you know, like, and do things that maybe they never thought that they were going to be able to do, like going on vacation to Orlando. Of course, like, we take precautions on how we hire for the floor. It's a little bit more flexible than what we hire, for example, to do delivery driving, especially to places where, like, we go to government buildings or we go to the Boston Logan Airport, where our drivers need to get a badge to be able to access secure areas. But, like, it doesn't mean that, like, we don't give them the opportunity as well.
However, as a business, we have realized that whether or not somebody engaged in criminal behavior, whether or not they are arrested for that behavior, and whether or not they are convicted for that behavior are very different questions. Our founder, CEO, and my boss graduated from Penn, so I'm able to say this, but, like, imagine if every Penn graduate, whoever possessed illegal drugs, or had a misdemeanor drug conviction on the record, like, do you think that Wall Street will stop hiring Penn graduates? Why should any business do the same thing? Sorry, why should any business be any different? Believe it or not, most businesses just want to follow rules. We don't actually want to spend any time debating whether somebody's misdemeanor, disorderly conduct conviction from six years ago means that somebody could sue us if we hire them. That's actually the benefits of this legislation, like the Fair Chance Hiring Law. It provides a little bit more of bright red lines on what is okay and what is not okay. I urge to support this important legislation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you for your testimony. Please state your name and begin your testimony. And I will ask people who are going to testify a brief -- if you are in support and kind of somebody said it before you, you can abbreviate it a little bit so I can keep my quorum so we can vote it out. Thank you. Please proceed.
Hello. My name is Tess Hart and I am co-founder and CEO of Triple Bottom Brewing Company here in Philadelphia in District 5, and I am here today to lend my support for the proposed amendments. We are a small business that opened in 2019, and since day one, we've been a fair chance business, which for us means that it's part of our mission to create high-quality, fair-paying jobs for people coming home from incarceration. We do this not just because it's the right thing to do for people who have already done their time, as we've heard earlier, but also because it is right for our business and for our city. I think it is fair to say that I am in this work because I'm motivated by the mission. I believe that everyone in every community should have the opportunity to craft something great, and I have met too many people who have had doors closed in their faces because of something that happened to them or a mistake they made a really long time ago. These folks have completed their sentences and yet are still paying a price above and beyond what the courts dictated because for some reason we as business leaders have decided that they should continue to be punished by being excluded from the opportunity to rebuild their lives through a good day's work. I think that's wrong. So yes, I am motivated by doing what is right for our community members who have been justice-involved, but I'm also a business owner and doing what is right for individual people would be nearly impossible to sustain if it didn't also mean that I was doing right for my business. As you all know, the past five years have not been an easy time for small businesses. We opened our doors six months before the pandemic hit and we have had to work so much harder than we ever imagined to keep our business afloat. But even though it was hard, many of our small business colleagues had an even more difficult time because their staff did not want to come back to work when businesses reopened and our staff did. The period after the worst of the pandemic was behind us was known by many as the Great Resignation. And throughout all of my industry networks people complained that they couldn't find or retain the employees they needed to just get back to their original operations. We did not have that experience at Triple Bottom. We were having to turn potential employees away. We weren't hiring because our team had chosen to weather the pandemic with us and return to work. Not only could we maintain our original operations, but we actually had enough staff to expand, adding new sales channels that we were able to promote our existing employees to take over management of. Our team wanted to stay because they wanted to see our business grow and I believe that the biggest reason that happened was because a significant portion of our team members are returning citizens. Then as today, they were loyal, hardworking, and flexible with the changing needs of our business because we had given them a chance when everyone else closed a door. And then the rest of our team who were not justice impacted chose to stay because they wanted to be a part of an organization that gave chances to employees and helped them grow and thrive. Our business model has changed since we opened our doors. Seeing the need for more employment opportunities for justice impacted individuals, we established the Future of Service Apprenticeship Program last year which offers 6 weeks of paid leadership development 7 and on-the-job training to people 8 overcoming barriers to employment. 9 We actually have a showcase tonight 10 if anyone wants to come through. 11 And our second cohort will 12 graduate next week. We will hire 13 some permanently at Triple Bottom as 14 we did with the last cohort, but we 15 cannot hire all of them.
So we need 16 more businesses to realize that people who have been incarcerated have so much to offer our organizations, not just through the high retention rates that I talked about, but through their creativity, hard work, and eagerness to learn. I believe a job can change a life. I've seen it dozens of times with our employees who have achieved stability and then started setting new goals that they could not have imagined before they had a steady paycheck. And I also believe that the idea that a job can change a life is something that's pretty universal, that we can all relate to. I've had a job that changed my life. It changed how I thought about my potential and what I could offer the world. Someone earlier talked about feeling -- that feeling of pride. I think that many of us here have had that feeling when we know we're doing good work in our job. It's such a hopeful feeling. And I'd like us to imagine that feeling of hope that could fill our city if we stopped overlooking the great talents of people who have been incarcerated. As business leaders, it makes no sense to ignore talent wherever it might come from. And as community leaders in this room, the argument is so clear. Having a job dramatically reduces a person's likelihood of re-offending or offending in the first place. If we want safer communities, we have to make jobs accessible to anyone who's willing to work hard and learn the skills they need to succeed in them. So I'm really glad to offer my support to the proposed amendments to this legislation because it's the right thing to do and because it will make our neighborhoods safer and our businesses stronger and more resilient. And it is what Philadelphia deserves. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you for your testimony. Thank you guys for sharing your experiences. It helps us to formulate a good public policy position. Any questions? Member Gauthier.
I mean, I have a similar comment as before. Thank you for representing a business perspective that goes a little deeper. I think that's very important for this conversation. You know, I'm hearing you all talk about giving second chances to people but not as charity because it brings value to your business. And I think that's important for a larger business audience to take in. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you, Member. Any other questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Ms. Stack, who do we have next to testify?
There are no 22 further panels for Bill No. 250373. CHAIRMAN JONES: So are there any people from the public that are interested in testifying on Bill No. 241057.
We have public comment. CHAIRMAN JONES: We have public comment. Okay. Can you call up the first group of people to testify?
I have Tonie Willis, Briheem Douglas, Adele Williams, and Monte. CHAIRMAN JONES: And if we could limit and edit and bring it down a little bit so that we can keep our -- and move this out of committee. Appreciate you for your patience. Have a seat. Please state your name for the record and begin your testimony. I can't hear you.
Yeah. CHAIRMAN JONES: Tell them to come on up. Please begin. State your name.
I'll start. Hello. My name is Briheem Douglas. So yeah, once again, my name is Briheem Douglas. I'm an outreach coordinator of the Unite Here Philadelphia Hospitality Academy and also the vice president of Unite Here Local 274. And I'm here to support this bill on fair chance hiring. We're for real. So I was here before back in April. I feel like I didn't get enough time to speak, but this is super important. Thank you again for allowing me to speak about this. And I just want to reiterate a story about a man named Chris, a true story. So let me tell you about Chris. He went through our training program. He graduated from our academy back in October of 2022. He passed testing, received his certifications, went to an interview, and secured an offer letter from one of our big time employers here in the city. After securing the offer letter of employment, he had to submit a background check, right? He was a convicted felon, so therefore the company didn't move any further. But we didn't stop there. Spring of 2024, we tried again with the same company, but a different location. Chris went on another interview. They loved him and therefore offered him a job again. But guess what? Yet he had to submit another background check. And at this point in time, you can only imagine his nerves, right? So once again, after securing and accepting the offer, the company declined. And going on an interview and them liking them, they declined again. So let's consider this, right? Imagine completing a program, pass testing, graduate with stackable certificates, and going on an interview, you do so well that the company say, yes, we want to hire you. But the very necessary steps that you are taking to better your conditions is still being held back from your past troubled conditions. And I do want to take this time to thank spaces like the Philly Black Worker Project for all that they do and will continue to do in the future. Partnership is so important. Chris needed work ASAP, so we sent him to a temp agency, and guess what happened? He got hired. That isn't even the part that would grind your gears. Imagine now going to work for that company in one of their buildings that didn't -- couldn't hire you as a member of a union with benefits, but will let you work as a temp worker there which receives no benefits. Let me just put this in real context. Chris was hired as a temp by the same company that denied him employment as a direct hire. That's what happened here. We are proud once again to support this resolution. We are happy also to keep these conversations going and moving forward. Chris is not the only one with this type of story. We often see this in our hospitality industry. There are a lot of layers to pull back, and this is a start, and I'm really happy about that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you for your testimony. Please state your name.
Hi, my name's -- hi, my name's Adele Williams. I'm a CPS. I'm studying to be a CRS, CYS, and a certified family recovery specialist so that I can reach all areas of the realm. I'm here today. You heard about how we've been denied jobs because of our records, but I'm here to tell you that we don't stop there as Why Not Prosper. We go into the prisons and we try to train them from the prisons, help them get started with the trainings from the prisons so that when they come out of prisons, not only do -- when they come out, we help them get their IDs. We help them get their birth certificates. We give them some money because when you come out of prison, you're broke. You don't have no money. You know, sometimes you don't even have family members to help you get these things, so we make sure that you have the things. We still come -- when you come out, we try to keep connected with you so that you can get these trainings so that you don't have to keep going back in this revolving door. You know, because it is hard when we go out here, like he said, and we be denied from these jobs. You know, like we do the necessary things that we need to do, but you still hold it against us. We're not who we used to be because if you looked at me for who I used to be, I got 15 years clean, you know, and I'm not that girl anymore. You know, I'm a productive member of society. That's who I am, you know, and I paid my time and it's time for people to give me a second chance at life so I can make a better future for my children, my grandchildren, and anybody else who's around can see that I'm different today. And I just want this law to be passed so that you-all can give us a second chance. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you. Thank you for sharing. Thank you.
-- Council members and colleagues. My name is Tony Willis. My name is Tonie Willis. I'm the founder and executive director of Ardella's house. I'm not -- thank you. I'm not even going to read what I had put together because it doesn't make any sense to reinvent the wheel because people before me basically said what I was going to say. But I am going to say this, like Michael Jackson, a man in the mirror. We have to stop labeling people as convicted felons, convicts, because I am a woman with lived experience. I have been impacted by the criminal justice system. So if I was hiring someone and someone said they're a convicted felon or someone who's been impacted by the system, a convicted felon or a convict sound like they might have shot up the whole place, but they might have been out shoplifting. So we have to be mindful of the labels that we put on people. And formerly incarcerated are returning citizens, returning from where? They're citizens. They're coming back into the community. I hate all those labels that we put on people. It's important. And I don't think I have to convince anyone that's sitting up there about this bill, how important it is. Those that know me know we do housing for formerly incarcerated women. We just brought our second house, Councilman Jones, in your district. I get calls sometimes from women who are about to lose their places because they found out that they are women that have been impacted and are about to lose their job. But I always tell the women, be honest and tell them in the beginning. And they do tell them. Sometimes I feel they just do it because they're short staffed. They need help and they hire them. They keep them for maybe about three months until the background comes back. Then they wind up letting them go. Then I have to call Community Legal Services about what's going on. But then they wind up losing their place. And they call me and ask me, do we have room 3 for them to move back into the house? And it shouldn't be that way. I'm going to keep it short, like I said, because we've been here all day. But I know that everybody that's sitting up there, I know just about everybody up there, and I know you-all know the right thing to do when it comes to this bill. And I thank you. CHAIRMAN JONES: So, Ardella's House is in my district, but if you throw a rock across the street, it's in your district. And the young people that I've met there have a beacon of hope because of what you do that they are accepted back into a community that welcomes them and encourages them and pushes them out to be more than a stereotype. And so I'm thankful that you are in my district and you have a second location. And you owe me the first meal from the first time. You told me we was going to eat together. I'm still hungry, so let you go.
It's not too late. CHAIRMAN JONES: It's not too late. All right. Do we have any other questions?
My name's Monte -- CHAIRMAN JONES: And we have two more, correct?
Yeah. CHAIRMAN JONES: Okay. They -- construct or make their way up.
Hello, my name's Monte. I keep hearing fair chance and risk. What's a fair chance? Is the fair chance me just filling out the application and not having to check the box, I'm a convict? Or is the fair chance me getting an interview and then being denied? What's the fair chance? You say risk. A fair chance is taking risk. When you take risk, you put a person in a position to show you what they can do. Since I've came home, I've been faced with a whole lot of discrimination, indirect discrimination. They asked me about my record before they even look at my resume. My resume will show you that I'm reliable. I'm motivated. I'm determined. Sure, I fell on hard times where I had to reach out to certain people to help me. I needed them. I need a job. I need money. I have to survive. I'm 33, and I can tell you right now, I never had that fair chance. I get a job, they give me an offer, and they'll tell me to come and work before the background check comes back. And then a week to two weeks later, after I already done got three, four job offers from somewhere else, they say, oh, we can't take you. We can't have you no more, after I done show I can come to work. I can get there on time. I took four buses and a train to get to work. I left out of my house at 1:00 in the morning, every morning, to get to Hatfield, PA by 6:00 o'clock a.m., and I got there at 8 -- 5:53 every morning. I told my bosses that there was no excuse for a person who can live down the street to say that they can't make it to work. These are people with clean criminal records. I have a criminal record. That fair chance was supposed to allow me to show my -- to shine, basically, and I wasn't given that opportunity. You would rather have someone without a record that's going to give you a headache than to have somebody with a record that's going to put that effort, going to put that foot forward to do right. That's what I've been doing, and I've been getting rejected. I'm tired of getting rejected, because each time I get rejected, the first thought that comes to my mind, I got to make some money. How am I going to make some money? So I'm going to call my cousins, because my cousin's in the street. Now, I face the risk of getting a criminal record, which I have, for selling drugs. I even have burglaries on my record, because I was sleeping in abandoned homes. I have a burglary on my record because I was found sleeping in an abandoned home. When you look at the charge, it says, not for human accommodation, or whatever it says. So that shit tell you is an abandoned home. No one lives there. But I'm being -- I went to Impact. They told me I couldn't work there because I had a burglary, but I'm taking out trash. I went to McDonald's. They said I couldn't work there because I sold drugs, but I'm flipping burgers. It's hard for us. And a lot of people up there, they sit, and you-all are slumped, and you-all think, because you-all heard these written statements. I'm not going to go off this paper, because I don't need to, because the same statements I've been making, I've been making them for years. I'm 33. It's hard. It's even harder when you're not given a chance. Keep talking about fair chance. There's no fair chance for a felon. What's the real fair chance? What is it? I'm asking that question because I really would like you to tell me. CHAIRMAN JONES: Let me, if I may, ask a counter question. What is it that you do -- what is your profession?
Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JONES: Okay. Hopefully you can cook good? Because everybody --
My girlfriend over there. She's my girlfriend right there. CHAIRMAN JONES: Yeah, all right, we're going to find out.
I'm good. And the resume says that, though. CHAIRMAN JONES: So let me just further say, and I say this not in jest, say this from my heart, that your struggle is a lot of people's struggle. But what I also tell them is that when you can't find a job, we can create one, start a business. We have at 49th and Parkside the Philadelphia Container Village, where we have the ability to bring people on that used to be not hustler hustlers, but used to hustle out of the back of their car to be able to get their first start in business. And I say that to you because nobody cares about who -- what your record was if you make a good meal. And we have found that to be true. So one of the things that I also offer people is the entrepreneurial option that we need to think about. If I was -- if some of my best friends came home like that, and one of the things that I would have done, I would have went right down to Home Depot. I would have took my little ones. I would have bought some spray paint and some stencils. And I would have went out to the blocks and started spray painting people's addresses on their curb. And if I charge $10 a house with 50 houses on there, that ain't a bad day. So what I'm saying is the same drive that you have right now, we just got to find fertile soil for it because life ain't fair. It ain't fair. And I tell my kids and others, life is going to be hard. It's hard when you get up and got to go to school every day, go to class in the snow and all that. But it's going to be hard when you got to go through a cell block. Choose your heart. Life's going to be hard. But some of it is worth struggling through. And I'm saying to you that with the drive you have, don't give up. Don't give up.
But what has happened is that I get intimidated because if I'm going go into a job and I know I got a background, we're wasting each other time, basically. CHAIRMAN JONES: No, I get that. But what I'd like you to consider is for people who have found that barrier to be insurmountable, that one that kind of opens its own door is running your own business. If -- for me, because I've started enough of them in another life, that if you -- the best entrepreneurs or people who had some other life experiences, if you know what I mean, and I'm saying that you have to be able and willing to transfer some of those skill sets into running a legitimate business. And one of the things that I'm working with some of the guys at Abu Edwards' Black Male Engagement is I want to do a workshop to look at that option. And somebody with your skills, you know, you got a future. Member Young.
And I just want to say that your story is similar to the stories of my friends, family. Like, we all from, you know, certain communities --
I keep hearing you-all keep talking about what other people said. I said what I said.
Councilman, we're not talking about other people's lives right now. We're talking about my life.
I'm talking about everybody in the city who goes through this. That's why we're doing this legislation.
Listen, bro. You've been up there in slump. I don't even want to talk to you. You've been up there in slump and not even caring. What I'm saying, I'm a citizen, I can speak like this. I'm a citizen. I don't work for -- I don't work for any of you. I am a citizen, and I'm telling you how it is. All that you-all are talking about, oh, this person, this person go through that. Oh, we all go through shit. Yeah. But it affects us differently. CHAIRMAN JONES: That's fair.
Because when you start putting other people into the equation, that's what you do.
No. 13 So when we are passing legislation that's going to affect the entire city of Philadelphia --
Yeah, and you heard from them. And you heard from the other people. Now you getting real.
See, me, I'm a straightforward type of person. I'm going to say how it is. I'm not going to read off this. I could have read off this paper and got the fuck out of here. But I'm an angry black man who can't get a job. I can't support my family because you-all keep talking about a fair chance and I don't get no fair chance. You keep trying to throw somebody else in there and I don't like that.
And you don't have to say anything. CHAIRMAN JONES: Don't go back and forth.
You see? Because when I'm done talking, you-all going to go back there, you-all going to deliberate with each other, and then you-all going to do what you-all want to do anyway. But I'm going to give you the real. I'm from the inner city. I'm from the streets. People come home every day and say, man, I'm going to get a job. I'm going to get a job. And you know what they go off? They go off that paper. That paper that say -- what's that? The list of jobs that's felon friendly. But, listen, that list, that list is a dud. That list don't give us no 23 jobs. That list don't give us no 24 opportunities. Fair Chance don't give us no opportunities. Because if you can't take the risk, you're not giving me a fair chance. CHAIRMAN JONES: So --
You say -- you-all say -- you-all say -- CHAIRMAN JONES: So, I'll tell you what --
So that's what I was speaking on, right? That's what I wanted to speak on is the fact that how there are employers out here who aren't willing to take that risk. And so what this legislation would do is give them the opportunity to have those clear rules on what -- on how to take that risk on our citizens. So this wasn't necessarily something that was specific, right? This legislation impacts everybody in the entire city. And we need to hear stories like yours and others so we know what this bill really does and how this bill really impacts people in our community. You are not the only one from the streets, bro.
You are not the only one, right? So when it comes to --
You-all said a misdemeanor. You said a misdemeanor. You said a misdemeanor.
Ever since I've been sitting here -- I can listen. I hear. You-all never talked about people with felons. You-all said misdemeanor, bro. Misdemeanor and a felony is different. See, I'm going to get up and I'm going to leave. Because all I came here is for you-all to hear. You know what I'm saying? They're going to read off of papers and they're going to try to keep it professional for you. I'm not. Because I don't work for none of you. You-all work for me at the end of the day for real, for real because I'm the citizen. CHAIRMAN JONES: So --
You see what I mean? See -- CHAIRMAN JONES: No. You have the right to feel the way you feel, bro.
I'm not. This is how I feel at the end of the day. CHAIRMAN JONES: You have a right.
So I'm going to talk as a man and as a citizen. CHAIRMAN JONES: You have a right.
What do you mean? (Crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN JONES: You have a right to feel how you feel. And you have put it on the record. We have heard it.
And I know that's all you-all going to do. So I'm going to continue to talk how I talk. They trying to calm me down. They wanted me to read this. But it's hard. It's hard. It's really hard. And you-all keep talking. You-all keep talking. (Crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN JONES: So would you -- do you want us to pass this legislation? That's what we're asking.
So yes. So that's what we're up here doing and talking about.
Let me finish, sir. I let you talk. Let me finish, right? So I'll let you say, you know, you were talking about, you know, you getting your story off. And that is great for you to tell us your story.
And what we're saying is that your story, I know you -- it's -- you're up here. But we could bring a hundred other people.
But -- listen. Listen. What I'm saying is that there are hundreds of other people in the city that's dealing with the same thing that we talk to on a regular basis, right? We're not -- you're not the only one that's just, you know, in these situations in these neighborhoods. My neighbors, my friends, my cousins, everybody, we're going through this, bro. And what I'm trying to tell you is we understand. That's all I'm trying to tell you is that we feel you, right? We really feel what you're saying. And that's why this legislation right here is important for everybody in the city. Because one thing you said is that you had a job up in Hatfield, Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, this legislation don't cover Hatfield, Pennsylvania. It only covers Philadelphia. And that was my point. We have to make sure that we hit the folks that really, really, you know, are going through this and make sure that it's just not just a Philadelphia thing, that people in our entire region, our state, understand the importance of having legislation like this. So it really affects everybody. CHAIRMAN JONES: So thank you for your testimony. I'm going to keep my quorum. And we're going to move to the next speaker. Who's next?
Hello. Mohammed Abdul-Heidi, founder of Down North Pizza, and I am in support of the bill that's trying to be passed. I just want to kind of reset the room to kind of help furthermore guide the conversation. Down North Pizza is in the heart of Strawberry Mansion. It's been named probably one of the best pizzerias in Philadelphia. And at Down North Pizza, we exclusively hire formerly incarcerated individuals and provide them with the various resources for survival post-incarceration. Very intentional about going to Strawberry Mansion, because as we all know, when we talk about crime, Strawberry Mansion is at the core of it. But since this is a public hearing, I'm going to talk about some numbers, because I know numbers shapes policy. Zero is the number I want to start at. We've been in Strawberry Mansion since 2020, and we've had zero public safety issues. We've been in Strawberry Mansion since 2020, and we've had zero employees go back to prison. We've been in Strawberry Mansion since 2020, and we've had zero employees have parole violations. And we also had employees get off of parole early. Not saying that I or the business had anything to do with it, but we provided the conduit to help them show who they really are. We've also been awarded New York Times' 50 Best Restaurants in America, Bon Appetite's Best 9 Restaurants in 2021. I've been 10 awarded a James Beard Leadership Foundation Award in 2024, and all attributed to the work behind Reducing Recidivism in Strawberry Mansion. I also want to say that if you want to improve the livelihood in neighborhoods, we need to invest in the people, not only the neighborhood. And I've learned that when you invest in the people, that's where you get the largest return. We were talking about risk a lot today, and I did exactly that. I took a risk on building out a restaurant in what people would say is the worst neighborhood in Philadelphia, hiring what some people would say are the worst people to hire, and putting forth one of the best products that come out of Philadelphia. And I only say this because at Down North Pizza, we're on an economic revolution. When you look at crime, at the core of crime is poverty. People need money. It's just that simple. And what we wanted to do to make sure we provided a fair, equitable rate of pay, and because I do own a building, we have apartments upstairs, so people would like to rent the space, because they need somewhere to stay, we have that option. We also have programs that will help them pay the rent. Homelessness and unemployment are at the core of recidivism. So we look to target those issues. And we just, you know, why other employees are struggling trying to hire people, we're struggling trying to find spaces for the various people who are formerly incarcerated. Recently, we just opened up a second restaurant called Out West, and we do the same thing. We exclusively hire formerly incarcerated individuals in this cafe space, and we're enlightening people on coffee and also premium breakfast sandwiches. This revolution that we're on is a huge risk. And honestly, I don't know everything about all the policies and political things that go into shaping laws, because for me, I found the lane in just doing the work, and that's what I want to do. And I took the risk. Took my own money, took my own buildings, and wanted to put forth and show people what could and would happen if you put some of the worst people together in a room to do some great things. And that's it. CHAIRMAN JONES: One of the -- so they're located in the 5th District across the street from the 4th District, but I see lines of people from the suburbs out in front of your store getting deep dish pizza. So thank you for what you've proven. We are trying to find him another location across the street, which is a city location which we are dealing with challenges on rehab. But thank you for what you do. MALE VOICE: Shoot your shot. Say the name, in case I missed it.
Down North Pizza, It's at 2804 West. CHAIRMAN JONES: Where's your second location?
5127 Walnut Street. CHAIRMAN JONES: Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Okay. Please state your name and begin your testimony.
Good afternoon, Chairman Jones. Thank you. Good afternoon, chairman Jones, Vice Chair Lozada and members of the Committee on Public Safety. My name is Ed Grose. I'm the Executive Director -- excuse me -- of the Greater Philadelphia Hotel Association, also known as GPHA. GPHA represents approximately 100 hotels throughout the region and nearly all hotels in Center City. Philadelphia hotels employ over 10,500 people, over 80 percent of which are Philadelphia residents. This year, our membership will generate approximately $123 million in tax revenue for the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. GPHA sincerely appreciates the opportunity to testify on this matter. GPHA members are long-time champions of Fair Chance Hiring and actively participate in events and programs that promote inclusive hiring. I'm sure Council can appreciate laws that impact hotels, how hostelers review applicants, especially those who interact with guests, their families, and have access to hotel rooms must be done in a careful and considerate way. GPHA stands ready to work with Councilman Landau, this committee, and all the stakeholders and businesses who champion Fair Chance Hiring to deliver a win-win-win for all of Philadelphia. In closing, GPHA fully supports City Council's commitment on this issue, and we look forward to working with Councilmember Landau -- Landau, sorry -- on ways to update, refine, and improve our current fair criminal record screening standards law. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN JONES: Thank you both for your testimony. Are there any others to testify on Bill No. 11 250373? Seeing none, this concludes our public hearing on the -- on the bills, and we will now open our public meeting. And with that, can you please -- Caroline, call the roll --
Present. CHAIRMAN JONES: With that, we have a quorum. And I now call on --
Vice Chair. CHAIRMAN JONES: -- the Vice Chair for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 241057. Sorry.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 241057 be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next session of council.
Second. CHAIRMAN JONES: It has been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor of supporting this bill say aye. COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN JONES: All those opposed? The ayes have it. This bill 241057 has been reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for the rules of council to be -- no, we don't need to do that until next. All right. Do we need to do that now? No, that's the amendment. So the amendment has been approved. I now ask you to call upon for a motion for two --
For the amendment. For the amendment. CHAIRMAN JONES: Yeah, we already did that, but -- we have an amendment for the second one?
Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN JONES: Oh. So I now call upon the Vice Chair for an amendment to 250373.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I offer an amendment to Bill No. 250373. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of this committee. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 250373 be approved.
Second. CHAIRMAN JONES: All those in favor signify by saying aye. COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN JONES: All those opposed? The ayes have it. We will now go back to a Bill No. 241057 as amended for a motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. -- CHAIRMAN JONES: 241.
241057 as amended be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council.
Second. CHAIRMAN JONES: It has been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor? COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN JONES: All those opposed? The ayes have it that Bill 22 No. 241057 as amended be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next session of Council.
Mr. Chairman, can I be recorded as of aye on the bill that I missed? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN JONES: One second. One second. Okay. We don't do that on these kinds of votes. You actually have to be -- when we're At Large, you can do that. That's the rules. Chair again, recognizes Member Lozada. CHAIRMAN JONES: Okay. So correction.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. There's a correction. Bill No. 20 241057 does not have an amendment. Bill No. 250373 -- CHAIRMAN JONES: Does.
I move that Bill No. 250373 as amended be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and move that the rules of counsel be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council.
Second. CHAIRMAN JONES: It has been moved and properly seconded that this bill be moved from the committee with a suspension of the rules. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN JONES: All those opposed? The ayes have it. And --
Motion carries. CHAIRMAN JONES: -- motion carries. And now you can leave. This concludes the business of the committee of Public Safety on these following bills. Thank you all for your patience. (COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY MEETING concluded at.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me of the above case, and this copy is a correct transcript of the same. _______________ Samanda J. Rios