Committee Hearing, November 1, 2006

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, November 1, 2006 1:15 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER, CHAIR COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS BILL 060578 - An ordinance amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by enacting a new Chapter 9-3000 entitled "Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards," to establish provisions and requirements for the screening of criminal records by certain employers within the City of Philadelphia, all under certain terms and conditions. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2

Good afternoon. The Committee on Public Safety is now in session. I'm Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, Chair of the Public Safety Committee. Also in attendance, to my left is Councilman Frank Rizzo, Councilman O'Neill, and to my right, Councilwoman Joan Krajewski. Would the Clerk please read the title of this bill.

Bill 060578, an ordinance amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by enacting a new Chapter 9-3000 entitled "Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards," to establish provisions and requirements for the screening of criminal records by certain employers within the City of Philadelphia, all under certain terms and conditions.

Thank you. I'd like to begin by thanking 3 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 those who have taken an interest in Philadelphia and its problems in the ex-offender community. Today we'll be discussing should ex-offenders be given a second chance. The answer sure should be yes. We are here today to discuss how to help ex-offenders get back on their feet after they have paid their debt to society. When we help them, we help ourselves. Everyone ends up paying somehow or another when ex-offenders are not helped. Ex-offenders are discriminated against, and nobody seems to mind. Unfortunately, discrimination carries many hats, and today we will be looking at the blatant discrimination targeting ex-offenders. It is somewhat disturbing that this discrimination is not even considered discrimination, but rather caution or the exercise of good judgment. This is not the case. It may be easy to say, I will not deal with an ex-offender, so I will always be safe, 4 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 but studies have shown you cannot ignore them. They will affect you. Ex-offenders should be given a second chance. Everyone complains that our prisons are overcrowded, and just yesterday we held a hearing on this very issue. And guess who pays for this problem? When ex-offenders return to prison, that means less money for schools, recreation centers, police or anything that may be necessary or dear to your heart, but something that is echoing in everyone's statement is that these inmates keep coming and returning. So we cannot just say, I do not want to deal with them or throw that employment application in the trash. We need to look at the heart of the problem. Why are these inmates returning to prison? Well, if they cannot get a job and no means for supporting themselves or even their families, then what are they going to do? Guess what? Most return to illegal activities even though they may 5 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 have sincerely promised everyone, including themselves, never to return to those ways. We need to give them a second chance. Not all ex-offenders are bad. Do not get me wrong, there are definitely areas of employment that should be given the utmost scrutiny when deciding who should supervise or be entrusted with certain responsibilities. This bill will not prohibit all employers from conducting background checks. This bill just prohibits employers from blatant discrimination in areas that do not require sensitive screening. This bill will not prohibit employers who are mandated to conduct criminal background screening, employers such as police, child care, bank employees, school employees, security guards, et cetera. This bill also addresses those other entities that may not have state or federal-mandated background screening. 6 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 This bill states that denial of employment may be based on two areas, if there is a direct relationship between the criminal offense and the specific license or employment sought; number two, the issuance of a license or the granting of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public. With that in mind, would the Clerk please call the first group of witnesses to the table. And Commissioner King actually wants to go first. COMMISSIONER KING: Good morning, Councilwoman.

Good morning. COMMISSIONER KING: Thank you for allowing me to go first. I just have a short statement that I'd like to read for the record.

Thank you. 7 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 COMMISSIONER KING: Good afternoon, Councilwoman Miller. My name is Leon King and I'm the Commissioner of the Philadelphia Prison System. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the proposed Fair Criminal Record Screening Standard. The Philadelphia Prison System released 32,905 inmates in Fiscal Year '05. Of that number, 6,099 were transferred or returned to state correctional facilities or another authority. The rest, nearly 27,000 people, are returned to our communities, mainly under some form of court supervision. The Urban Institute survey of 2005 indicates that between half to two-thirds of inmates believe that they will need help finding employment upon release. It is patently clear to all of us that they deserve and would benefit from equal employment opportunities. We consider employment to be 8 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 one of the fundamental keys to success for ex-offenders, along with adequate housing, education and freedom from substance abuse. We believe this so strongly that our largest program for sentenced inmates is the JOBS Project. It isn't an acronym. The goal of the program is to give inmates the life skills and the vocational training they need to find employment upon release. The JOBS Project is distinguished from previous efforts along this line by creating a relationship between the inmate participants and community-based reentry partners who will work with them upon their release. We believe so strongly in the employment of ex-offenders that we have written vocational training for inmates into the contract for one of our largest private contractors, Aramark Correctional Food Service, who has hired inmate program participants upon release. 9 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 The Prison System itself, through the City's civil service procedures, hires ex-offenders on a case-by-case basis, fully cognizant of their status, but having reached a decision that employment history, personal history and references may outweigh past criminal history. Taken into account, we do have concerns about legislation that would remove a basic screening instrument from our employment background procedures. Employees at the Philadelphia Prison System are tested and tempted every day by inmates who want to continue their criminal activities while in jail. The safety of the other inmates may be compromised by an inmate who successfully manipulates a prison employee into bringing contraband into the facility. If one employee is so compromised, the safety of other employees may be at risk. And, finally, public safety, which is a central part of our mission, may be 10 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 compromised. Our staff works as a team. They rely on each other to control the environment and manage an inmate population that outnumbers them on the cellblock about 64 to one. We would fail the men and women who work in our jails and we would fail the inmates who rely on our staff to keep them safe if we were to add men and women to that team who did not pass the rigorous standards that we have set for employment. Part of our responsibility to the public is to be fair in our employment practices. I believe that we have a fair process and make good hiring decisions overall. I would urge this Committee to proceed with caution when considering any legislation that would unduly limit our ability at the prisons to adequately screen prospective employees for any of the sensitive job titles in our correctional facilities. And that concludes my 11 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 testimony, and I will answer questions, if you have any.

Thank you. I know that you have a meeting to go to. Does anyone have any questions for this witness? (No response.)

Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KING: Thank you.

The Clerk will please call the next group of witnesses.

Harriet Spencer from the Mayor's Office for the Reentry of Ex-offenders; also Sharon Dietrich, Community Legal Services; and City of Philadelphia's Personnel Department and also Seth Williams, for the first panel.

Good afternoon. Ms. Spencer, do you want to start?

Absolutely. 12 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and City Councilmembers. I am Harriet Spencer, Director, Administration and Planning in the Mayor's Office for the Reentry of Ex-offenders. Thank you for the opportunity to testify concerning the reentry of ex-offenders from prison and jails back into the Philadelphia communities. I would like to acknowledge all of the reentry partners in the audience today, because it is with their assistance and resources that together we are able to provide services for our reentry population. Let me begin by thanking City Council for the support that the Mayor's Reentry Office has received in the development of legislation focused on reentry, particularly Ordinance No. " With the support of your staff, Madam Chairperson, and the staff of Council President Verna, an ordinance was drafted for the consideration of City Council and introduced on June 15th of 2006. This proposed legislation provides that individuals and businesses supplying goods and/or services to the City, as well as individuals and businesses receiving financial assistance from the City, practice fair hiring practices relating to the screening and identification of persons with criminal backgrounds. I'd like to also acknowledge the support of Councilman Wilson Goode, Jr. for his legislative leadership in shaping the Ex-offender Employer Tax Credit bill, which amends the existing Job Creation Tax Credit law to grant a $5,000 per job credit against business privilege taxes to companies that create new jobs for ex-offenders within the 14 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 City. These legislative initiatives break new ground in our City. Such efforts clearly demonstrate that you, the members of Philadelphia City Council, are sensitized to the barriers faced by ex-offenders in their quest to make positive contributions as citizens and neighbors in Philadelphia. Mayor Street established the Mayor's Office for the Reentry of Ex-offenders in June of 2005 to effectively provide for the comprehensive needs of ex-offenders in this City. As the Director of Reentry Services, I recognize the importance of creating and maintaining a qualified, productive and trustworthy workforce. The conducting of background investigations is a very necessary pre-employment component and practice that enables any and all organizations the ability to hire individuals who will contribute to the stability and success 15 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 of the organization. Additionally, background investigations, when properly conducted, contribute to the protection of the public safety. On January 20, 2005, Mayor Street signed an Executive Order authorizing background investigations for any and all City employees, thereby ensuring the City's ability to maintain a workforce that will contribute to its ability to achieve its goals and objectives. The City will maintain its right to create and maintain a healthy and productive workforce and to provide for the public safety by employing the use of background investigations on prospective employees. Madam Chairperson, the ordinance under discussion today is of great significance for our City, given the impact it may have on the local economy. 25 million for reentry services in FY07. One of the current goals of the Reentry 16 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Office is to secure employment for up to 500 ex-offenders in FY07. To ensure that ex-offenders are appropriately placed in positions of employment, background investigations will be conducted. 50 an hour, almost 10 million in salaries will have been generated, provided that all ex-offenders work throughout the year. 31 percent, approximately 425,000 in new tax revenues would be generated. Because employed ex-offenders generally don't go back to prison, we save the City of Philadelphia another $16,060,000. It costs $32,120 to house an inmate in the Philadelphia Prison System.

Studies show an unemployed ex-offender is three times more likely to return to prison than an employed ex-offender. To obtain such hard-dollar 17 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 returns from employing ex-offenders, government is taking the lead on addressing employment restrictions and disqualifications based on criminal records. For example, on April 25th of this year, an Executive Order was issued in Florida charging state executive agencies with producing a report on employment restrictions and disqualifications based on criminal records that are under their jurisdiction. Based on findings, executive and other state agencies will be charged to eliminate or modify disqualifications not tailored to protect the public safety and also to create case-by-case review mechanisms to provide individuals with criminal records the opportunity to make a showing of their rehabilitation and their qualifications for employment. The Executive Order also encourages the private sector to adopt similar reforms. Background investigations serve 18 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 an important purpose in the employment process. It is critical for employers to begin to identify and access reliable sources of background data in order to avoid denials of employment, which often result from the retrieval of inaccurate information from many of the commercial databases. The critical nature of how data on ex-offenders is utilized was highlighted in an article appearing on October 17th of this year in the New York Times written by Adam Liptak. Liptak points out potential harm caused to ex-offenders seeking employment as a result of commercial databases which now contain more than 100 million criminal records that are seldom updated. According to Debbie Mukamal, the Director of the Prisoner Reentry Institute at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, 80 percent of large or medium-sized employers conduct background checks. And it is appropriate 19 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 for employers to know about job-related convictions in order to make a responsible decision concerning employment. These same databases are used in criminal background checks ordered by employers and contain outdated, incomplete and sometimes inaccurate data. We believe that there is a need for an enhanced collaborative effort between the Mayor's Reentry Office and local employers. By working together, we edify one another and hopefully we become more sensitive to the issues surrounding the hiring of ex-offenders. A good starting point would be to convene a meeting with local businesses who currently hire ex-offenders and seek to understand how thousands more are hired through temporary agencies. The results of such a survey could be utilized to motivate our chambers of commerce, business associations and labor unions to work with us to enhance our newly formed 20 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 ex-offender employment collaborative. The Mayor's Office for the Reentry of Ex-offenders invites City Council to join with us in replicating the work of urban cities such as Baltimore, where focus groups with employers were convened in order to learn about and possibly alleviate the concerns of employers with regard to the hiring of ex-offenders. In Baltimore, it was determined that about a third of the employers in the focus groups had knowingly hired ex-offenders. The rest either did not know the criminal backgrounds of their applicants or chose not to hire ex-offenders. A majority of the employers were unaware of tax breaks or bonding programs that are designed to encourage the hiring of ex-offenders. The top concerns about hiring ex-offenders were liability issues and employee drug use. A large number were 21 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 concerned about hiring people with convictions for violent crimes. As more and more people have a criminal record, relief from the collateral consequences of conviction is a necessity.

It is my firm belief that the proposed ordinance serves as an effective catalyst to provide such relief. Thank you for your consideration and ongoing support, and that concludes my testimony.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of City Council. I am Sharon Dietrich. I'm the Managing Attorney for Employment and Public Benefits at Community Legal Services right across the street. I thank you for having me here today. I want to commend Council for taking on this important bill and this important issue. When I started at CLS 19 years ago as an employment lawyer, this was simply not an issue that came 22 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 up. It was so unique in fact that I still remember the first time I ever saw a client who came to CLS saying, I can't get a job because of my criminal record, because we had never had a demand for that kind of representation, and there were no obvious remedies to it. So over the course of the years, that first person has turned into a torrent of people, such that now this is the single most common reason people come to CLS for employment representation, more than any of the many, many other reasons people might seek employment representation. So the subject of what you're dealing with today is very important and I commend you for it. I want to discuss basically three things. First is, what is going on in other cities on this same subject. The second is, what the existing law is concerning criminal records and employers' ability to make decisions so 23 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 that you know we're not starting from a fresh slate. And the third is to talk a bit about the provisions -- what I see as the main provisions of this bill and why they're both appropriate and necessary. All right. What's going on in other cities? Well, it started in Boston a couple of months ago, or I suppose now it's going on a year. Boston City Council became the first city in the country to say, We need something that specifically addresses the needs of our ex-offenders to find work, and so they enacted an ordinance that I believe went into effect earlier this summer. So it's only been in effect for a couple of months even though it's been passed for about a year. But Boston is being hailed as a city that has really taken the first step to deal with this problem. And it was quickly followed by the Mayor of Chicago stepping up and saying that that city needs to change its own hiring practices 24 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 so that ex-offenders have a chance at city employment. And then the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted what they called the "ban the box" ordinance, which said that we're no 7 longer going to put on the city's hiring application a question right up front that says, Do you have a criminal record. So that way, ex-offenders will have a fair shot to apply for city employment. So those were the first three cities. They received favorable coverage from the New York Times in March, and since then, a number of other cities around the country have also moved on to consider this issue, places like Oakland; Cambridge, Massachusetts; the twin cities; Indianapolis; Newark; Los Angeles. They all have initiatives that are very much in discussion at this point, if they have not been passed already. So we are not acting in a vacuum in terms of what other cities are doing. 25 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 But in addition to that, we are not acting in a vacuum in terms of what law already covers this issue, and it's important to understand what already exists so that you can see that this bill 7 is not really a revolutionary undertaking. Employers are already subject to a bunch of laws that in many cases are not followed that closely, and I'll talk about why this bill is necessary in light of these laws, but there are laws that apply. First of all, Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the race discrimination law, it has long been held that if an employer has a policy that says across the board we're not hiring ex-offenders, that will have a disparate impact based on race.

And, in fact, now Chief Justice Clarence Thomas when he was in charge of EEOC in 1980, they promulgated a policy concerning how that all is to be taken into account so that race discrimination can be avoided. And 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 the policy that EEOC enforces says that employers are to look at the seriousness of the crime, the nature of the offense and how long ago it happened. So in order to avoid race discrimination charges, employers under federal law are already supposed to be looking at those criteria. " So state law essentially says an employer can't just decide they're got going to hire anyone with a record. They have to figure out whether there's a fit between their job or a lack of fit between their job and the person's record. 27 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 The third law that applies in this context is another federal law. It's called the Fair Credit Reporting Act. And FCRA essentially applies to credit agency reports, which most of us are accustomed to think about as credit ratings, but many more credit agencies have been doing background checks. There are more all the time. ChoicePoint is the most well known. And when FCRA applies, then certain steps need to be taken, and I'll be talking a little bit about them later in my testimony. That applies only in circumstances where a background check is done by one of these independent organizations. It does not apply when an employer directly contacts the State Police or contacts the City courts to try to figure out whether someone has a record. So in light of the fact that we have these existing laws, why do we need this ordinance? Well, I would submit to 28 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 you there are several reasons. One is, these things are all piecemeal. They're not in one place. They're not well known by employers, and they are, in many cases, disregarded. This is why CLS has so much work. We're busy trying to enforce these laws on a case-by-case basis. Another reason is, not all of these laws apply equally to all people with criminal records. The discrimination law obviously applies to African-Americans and Hispanics. It does not apply to white ex-offenders. The Fair Credit Reporting Act applies only to employers that use commercial screening reporting agencies. It does not apply to employers that are doing their own background checks. So I believe that the City can pull all of these principles together into one ordinance that will make very clear to Philadelphia's employers what the law is with respect to hiring 29 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 ex-offenders. And another thing that the ordinance does is, fills in certain gaps that are not addressed by any law right now, and as a result, we end up with a comprehensive piece of legislation that I think would go very far to helping ex-offenders avoid discrimination in Philadelphia. Now, what is in the ordinance 12 and why is it necessary? " This is an example of how this bill is not revolutionary. State law has already been construed by the state Superior Court to say that employers are not supposed to consider arrests if you were not convicted. Unfortunately, I can tell you that at CLS we see many cases that violate that principle. 30 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 What state law does not say, nor does any law say it, is that employers can't ask about arrests. Employers may in fact legally ask the question, Have you ever been arrested, even though under the law they're not supposed to consider the answer. I would submit to you that does not make a whole lot of sense and invites people to consider information that would violate the law. And so that's one of the pieces about this bill that I think is a really useful supplement to existing law, is the fact that it would be illegal to ask about arrests for which you have not been convicted.

Not arrests on pending charges where you still could be convicted, but cases where the charges have been resolved favorably in your behalf. A second provision that is very useful is that employers are not permitted to perform background checks unless it's either required by law or 31 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 they make a good-faith determination that the sensitivity of the position warrants the check. Again, this provision does not say, Employers of Philadelphia, you can't do background checks. Not at all. In fact, it says if you're mandated by law, you have to do them, or if you determine that your position warrants it, go ahead. But it at least requires employers to step back and say, Do I really need a background check for this provision. Currently, according to the Society of Human Resources Professionals, 80 percent of the employers in this country are doing background checks. I guarantee you that not 80 percent of the jobs in this country really require background screening. A third provision that is important and is not addressed by any law would require background checks to be done through the State Police rather than through court records. Now, you may 32 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 wonder why that's important. Well, for one reason, there's different information reported in the State Police records than there is in court records. The State Police does not report those arrests that have not led to a conviction. So if the charges against you were dropped, you're found not guilty, State Police doesn't tell employers that. Additionally, the State Police have procedures to correct records that are incorrect or where there's a case of criminal identity theft. Harriet says that she's me or I say I'm her when I get arrested. Currently, if that happens to you in the Court of Common Pleas, it is almost impossible to eliminate that connection between the two records. The State Police are going to have a procedure to fix that. The City courts currently do not. Another reason is that the State Police records are designed to be understandable to the public, whereas the 33 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 court records are not. And so a lot of people misunderstand the court records, and the fact that the court records exist is something that they hold against the job applicant. And, finally, State Police does background checks by Social Security number, whereas the courts do not. So we see very commonly at CLS where two people of the same name get mixed up, and if you're unfortunate enough to have a very common name, you may have a hard time proving that you're not the person who has a court record, and that doesn't seem fair. So that is why I believe it makes sense for background checks to be done through the State Police instead of the criminal courts. The fourth provision that's quite important is that background checks would not be done until the employer has basically almost decided to hire the person, consider the other qualifications. Now, this has been part 34 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 of both the Boston ordinance and the San Francisco campaign, and the idea behind it is, let the ex-offender put forth their best foot before they get screened out. Anyone who has anything to do with the hiring of ex-offenders can tell you that often people get shut out as soon as they answer that question "have you ever been convicted," and that's the end of the consideration of their case. And as Boston and San Francisco have recognized, that's not fair. And it also allows employers often to not provide the reason why the person was turned down for the job. If you make it one of the last steps of the hiring process instead of the first, then it's clear this was the reason, and whether or not the reason was legal can be adequately assessed.

The fifth part of this that is quite useful, this bill, is the fact that when an employer makes a tentative decision "I'm not going to hire you 35 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 because of your criminal record," it would require the employer to give the person a copy of the record and give them a few days to respond. This is required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act and it hasn't kept employers from making the decisions they need to fill their openings. What it allows people to do is first check that record for accuracy, because often we see the records are not accurate, and, secondly, again to explain why they would be a good hire irrespective of their record, potentially talk about their rehabilitation or talk about the underlying circumstances of the crime. Finally, and very importantly, for an employer to reject a person based on the criminal record, they would have to look at certain factors to make an assessment of whether that's an appropriate decision, and the bill lays out things like the relationship between the offense and the job, the time that 36 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 has elapsed since the offense was committed, how serious the offenses were. All three of those things are part of the EEOC policy. So, again, this is nothing new. It does not mandate that employers hire every ex-offender that applies. It simply says, Employer, please just give this a full consideration so that this person has a fair shot. So those are all the reasons we think that this bill is important over at CLS, and we commend it to your attention, and I thank you very much for your attention.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Miller and members of the Committee on Public Safety. My name is Glenn Harper. I'm the Executive Assistant to the Personnel Director, Linda Orfanelli. Linda extends her regrets that she could not be here today, but she had a conflict in her schedule, so asked me to present her testimony to 37 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 you. I respectfully submit the testimony of the Office of the Personnel Director regarding Bill No. 060578, which would amend Title of The Philadelphia 7 Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, 8 Trades and Professions" and so on. 9 The Personnel Department shares your concern, Councilperson Miller, and the Committee's concerns regarding discrimination against persons with criminal records in seeking employment opportunities. Every effort is made to ensure that the City's hiring process is in accord with all existing federal, Commonwealth and municipal laws, statutes and ordinances. The Personnel Department, upon review of this proposed legislation, would like, however, to provide some additional information and share some concerns regarding the bill with you today in the hope that you will take these into consideration before referring 38 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 this bill from Committee. I'd like to particularly address Subparagraph 9-3004, Part 1, which would prohibit all employers in the City from conducting a background investigation unless they have made a good-faith determination that the relevant position is of such sensitivity that a criminal report is warranted. " The Personnel Department agrees with the Mayor's contention that background investigations of all prospective employees will enhance the City's ability to ensure that City employees are well qualified, have strong potential to be productive and successful and are likely to comply with the requirements of a position of trust and have honestly presented their background and qualifications to the City. We believe that all City positions are, 39 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 quote, positions of trust and, as such, that they are of a nature sensitive enough to warrant a criminal background investigation in any and all cases. We encourage you to consider adding verbiage to the bill which somehow acknowledges that this good-faith determination has already been made by the Mayor for all City positions. The second part of that subparagraph requires that all record checks be conducted only through the Pennsylvania State Police. Currently, and in accord with the provisions of the Executive Order, the City of Philadelphia is under contract with a third-party investigation firm. We use Sterling Testing Systems. We have been extremely pleased with the level of service that this contractor has provided with respect to timeliness and economy. In general, we receive results in less than 48 hours, and the average cost of a background investigation is less than $90. The 40 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Personnel Department would have concerns regarding the thoroughness of a criminal background report conducted only by the Pennsylvania State Police. Currently, reports that the City receives include the results of county, state and federal criminal record searches. It would be important to determine that a search conducted by the Pennsylvania State Police was equally complete. Additionally, it would be critical to determine whether the Pennsylvania State Police are prepared to cope with the increase in requests that would emanate from Philadelphia if this bill is passed into law. How would this affect both the quality and timeliness of reports requested and generated? Would jurisdictions outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or the United States be included in these searches? Is there a compelling reason to eliminate an employer's latitude to choose from whom 41 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 they will obtain their background information?

Based on the City's experience with a contractor who provides such a service and without information indicating that the Pennsylvania State Police are both capable of and willing to shoulder the entire burden of criminal background investigations for all employers in the City of Philadelphia, we think it may be imprudent to impose such a stringent requirement. And, finally, Executive Order 1-05 identifies both the Inspector General and the Personnel Director as significant parties in the conduct of background investigations for the City. Both offices have been intimately involved in the development and implementation of the City's current practices regarding the conduct of these investigations. Considering that this current bill does not require that any appointees to the Proposed Fair Criminal 42 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Records Screening Advisory Committee be well versed in human resources, we respectfully request that the language be amended such that one appointee to the Advisory Committee be designated by the Personnel Director of the City of Philadelphia. And this concludes our testimony. Thank you for your attention and consideration, and I'd be happy to address any questions that you might have.

Before we do any questions, can we have Seth Williams, our esteemed Inspector General.

Thank you very much for those kind words, Councilwoman. As you're aware, I personally first learned of the proposed bill last week, and I quickly called your office and spoke with you, and I was invited just yesterday in the afternoon to come and give testimony to the Committee. So I have some bullet points here for my own 43 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 edification to read. With your permission, I would like to supplement that with written testimony at some point in the very near future.

That's perfectly fine.

Thank you kindly, Councilwoman. Good afternoon, Chairperson Miller and members of the Committee on Public Safety. My name is Seth Williams. I am the Inspector General of the City of Philadelphia. As you're well aware, it is the responsibility of the Office of the Inspector General to investigate and reduce corruption, fraud and abuse within our municipal government. I think it's important for me to state that at the onset of my testimony. I respectfully submit the testimony of the Office of the Inspector General regarding Bill No. 060578, which would amend Title 9 of The Philadelphia 44 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by enacting a new Chapter 9-3000 entitled "Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards" to establish provisions and requirements for the screening of criminal records by certain employers within the City of Philadelphia, all under certain terms and conditions. And, again, while it is true that I am a lawyer -- and I have student loans to prove it -- I am not here to share my opinion of the legality of the bill. I've learned quickly as a City employee that I have to stay within my lane, and that, of course, is the lane of the City Solicitor and his more than able staff. I'm merely here with the permission of the Mayor and hopefully to serve as a resource maybe for your Committee as you're attempting to navigate the words that you're going to choose to use for the proposed 45 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 legislation and how it will affect the City government in reality and effect. I would also like to narrowly address my comments specifically to the municipal hiring process, not to commercial or private entities in the City of Philadelphia. I just want to talk directly to the City's hiring practices, with your permission. It is a policy of the Mayor's Administration to assist the successful reintegration of formerly incarcerated people back into the community and the workplace. We all agree that meaningful jobs with livable wages are imperative to reducing the disturbingly high recidivism rates. That is consistent with the very nature and the intent of this bill as proposed. At the same time, it is the goal and obligation of the Administration to the taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia that employees are well qualified, have strong potential to be 46 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 productive and successful, are likely to comply with the requirements of a position of trust and have honestly presented their background and qualifications to the City. That goal was made a reality by Mayor Street on January the 20th, 2005 when he signed Executive Order 1-05. And I have a copy of that Executive Order with me. Those of you may remember that at the suggestion and the hard work and cooperation between the Office of the Inspector General and Ms. Orfanelli, the Director of Personnel, that Executive Order became a reality. Prior to that, there was no consistent or codified policy within municipal government as to what types of backgrounds, to what level and to what extent municipal employees should have their backgrounds checked. And I agree with everyone that has spoken prior to me. It's not inconsistent with the proposed legislation, in that we don't ask people right when they go down 47 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 to the Concourse, the Municipal Services Building, right when they're getting application, Do you have a criminal background, have you been convicted? It's not at that point. It's only after they are being offered the position. And it's at that time that a questionnaire is given to them, and I have a copy of that, and I'm sure Mr. Harper has a copy of the questionnaire. And that questionnaire is then forwarded to Sterling Testing, a third-party contractor that Mr. Harper spoke of, and they assist the Office of the Inspector General and the Personnel Director in completing the background investigation.

So, again, the goals of Executive Order 1-05 and Bill 060578 are not diametrically opposed. It is my hope to share with you some concerns with the various aspects of the proposed legislation so that Committee members may consider possible amendments and/or changes that the policies could affect. 48 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Again, Subparagraph 9-3004 (1) would prohibit all employees in the City from conducting background investigations unless they have made a good-faith determination that the relevant position is of such sensitivity that a criminal record report is warranted. Again, consistent with Executive Order 1-05, it is my fixed opinion, as it is Mayor Street's, that all City positions are positions of trust and, as such, are worthy to warrant criminal background investigations. And, again, that doesn't mean that we conduct a background investigation, someone is found to have a conviction, they don't get the job. It just is the opinion of the Inspector General's Office that it would be malfeasant on the Personnel Director and the Inspector General or the HR Managers not to conduct said tests prior to the final hiring of a person. And, again, I would just ask that any future -- 49 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578

Can I just get one clarification?

Certainly.

Is the City's position or the Administration's position, the Executive Order, that the background check would eliminate the person or it would be just another --

Just another step along the way, that's correct.

-- part of the application to be considered?

That's correct.

Is there any belief there's a difference in some way in entry-level positions, like Sanitation Department or laborers, as opposed to obviously someone we're going to hire to work in the Treasurer's Office or the DA's Office?

Yes. Councilman Kenney, that's a very good question, and I'm sure Glenn can correct me if I'm wrong, but there are various levels of 50 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 checking, if you will, that is utilized, almost a menu, through Sterling, A, B and C, depending upon the sensitivity of the job. From Procurement Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia to other positions, there's a various range. So all jobs don't have the same level of what we're looking for. As you know, some positions require that the applicant have a Bachelor's degree. Sterling has the use of their database of a warehouse, a clearinghouse, if you will, of information that we can actually find if the person did in fact graduate from Penn State University, as I did in 1989, or if I'm just making that up and I've never even been to University Park. So part of it is that the Sterling systems allows us to verify, again, the veracity of the employee and what they put on their application. So it isn't to eliminate people. There are some people that will get hired nonetheless. We just want to make 51 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 sure -- and there are some jobs where you don't want, and clearly --

Just one final -- I don't want to interrupt your testimony. Do we have statistics on the numbers of people who when they got to the point of potentially being offered a City job and when it's discovered that they had a criminal background, how many were eliminated? Do we have raw numbers on the number of people actually turned down at that stage?

I'll defer to Mr. Harper.

And I don't need it now. If you could come back. I just want to know when you get to the point, regardless of what the job was, what level of entry or higher level or more technical nature, when you got to the point of offering them the job or not, how many people were turned down because of the existence of a criminal record. That's available? 52 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578

I don't know, Councilman.

If it is.

Approximately one month ago I think we had -- and Lorelei Larson, one of my investigators is here also. Approximately one month ago we had a meeting with representatives from Sterling to talk about upgrades to the system and what we can ask for and what we can possibly remove from our current policy. I can quickly call him at a break. I can contact Mr. Simon and we can --

I just think it would be enlightening for us to know at the point of making the offer or turning them down, how many turn-downs were the criminal background or criminal record a factor. And I don't mean to interrupt your testimony. I just wanted a clarification.

I was wondering if you would prefer that Seth conclude his 53 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 testimony and then --

Yes.

I'd be happy to address what I know about that.

Rather than speculate, because we're probably going to have another hearing on this at some point, maybe with the Chairperson's approval, come back and give us what you find out as opposed to what you think you know.

I'd be more than happy to. I know that the data that we have --

Excuse me. You actually need to come to the microphone. You can actually sit and you can turn Councilman DiCicco's microphone on there.

Frank is now twitching.

I'm sorry. I know that the data that we have --

Identify 54 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 yourself, because we have a stenographer.

My name is, once again, Glenn Harper, Executive Assistant to the Personnel Director, Linda Orfanelli. The data that we have readily -- and I know some of it off the top of my head -- relates to the number of hits. And when I say "hits," that's sort of the euphemism that Sterling uses to --

It's not a great euphemism. You'd better change that euphemism.

I know. It's what's on the report. And I understand. The number of positive convictions, people who show up positive for some sort of criminal record. And then they break it down into convictions and misdemeanors and arrests versus convictions and others. The difficulty is, in answering your question with any precision, is that the hiring process 55 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 happens at the departmental level, at the appointing authority level. So the Water Department ultimately makes a decision. They report back to us who they selected and who they did not select, but often there's not a huge amount of detail as to why, according to the Rule of Two, they did not choose someone.

Well, it would be enlightening if we knew the number of people turned down actually had a record. That would give us some indication as to the weight that may have been put on that particular piece of information on that particular applicant, and also how many were hired with a record.

Yes.

So that could give us some balance as to is everybody with a record turned down, are ten percent of the people with a record hired, what are the percentages, without knowing their names, because I don't 56 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 think we need to know who they are individually, but just raw numbers.

I will certainly try to get that information. It's not in any one place and there's a fair amount of manual stuff. I will say this, and it's anecdotal, but if we were to turn down everyone who showed up positive for having some sort of criminal background, we probably would have a very difficult time filling the vacancies that we've filled. In the last year, we've run over a thousand checks, and about percent, 15 I believe, did show up positive. 16

But there 17 are different standards for different 18 positions. Police Department, I assume, 19 has a different standard. 20

We do not do the 21 Police Department. They do their own 22 internally. 23

Do they 24 report to you raw numbers, or no? 25

They do not. 57 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578

Are they available; do you know?

You would have to check with the police. The police have their own dedicated background unit.

Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt.

No. That's okay.

And, again, we will work together to try to have that information if there's a continuation of this hearing, Madam Chairperson, and we will endeavor to bring whatever information that you believe or other members of the Committee believe is requisite prior to this bill going out of Committee. If I could continue with my --

You can continue.

Thank you. Very briefly and I'll be done. Subparagraph 9-3004 (2) as proposed states that only the State Police may 58 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 conduct the criminal background investigation. So I was not exactly certain as to why that was included. I wasn't sure if it was because it was the only alternative known to the Philadelphia courts and their records, as previously testified, with some possible problems there. I just want to make sure. And Glenn has helped me do that and Mr. Harper has helped me bring to your attention that we are third parties and there were several third parties that made bids to the City, and Sterling was chosen and contracted through the City to conduct those investigations for us. So what we find when we conduct those investigations that when individuals are asked to give us their addresses, all of their known addresses, it helps to not just do one jurisdictional check on that person but to check in all the jurisdictions that that person has listed with us where they have resided. 59 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Lastly, Subparagraph 9-3010, the Fair Criminal Record Screening Advisory Committee, as I mentioned previously with Councilwoman Miller, the Office of the Inspector General, with the consent of the Mayor, will serve on the Advisory Board in an effort to cooperatively review the effectiveness of this bill if it is signed into law. So as to that aspect, we definitely will continue to work with you, as we will continue to gain whatever information the Committee sees fit or like us to bring at any future hearing. And with that, I conclude my brief bullet points for testimony. I'm here at your leisure to serve as a resource. I've also, as I've mentioned, brought one of our investigators, Ms. Lorelei Larson, who serves as my liaison to Sterling Testings. Thank you, Councilwoman.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. 60 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 I think we'd actually like to get a copy of your bullet points, too, because I could not keep track of the parts of the bill that you were referencing. I do know that Councilman Kenney has a couple questions.

First I'd like to make a brief statement and then I have a few questions about some of the issues in the bill.

I actually need to recognize Councilman Kenney in attendance at this hearing today and also Councilman Juan Ramos. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. First let me state for the record that I am in support of the concept of this bill. I think if we're ever going to accept or expect people to become productive and contributing members of our City, the more obstacles 61 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 we put in their way, the more difficult it is to get back on track, it's just not going to happen. And I think that the percentage of recidivism and people coming into the system, leaving it and going back and coming back is just clearly an example of our inability to get people right, and I think that the best way to get somebody right is to have them have a job. I know since I was a kid, we watched movies about the old-time guys getting out of prison and he'd get a job in the gas station or in a kitchen washing dishes and be working for a number of weeks, and then they'd find out he was a convict and they'd fire the guy, and he'd go on -- so there's nothing new in the way we treat people that have been incarcerated. So if anything like this in a reasonable way to address this process and to address this issue and to give people an opportunity to get right with 62 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 all of us and become taxpayers and parents and all the things we want, then I think we'd have to really approach this with an open mind. I recognize some of the issues raised by the City and by the Inspector General and by the Personnel Department, and I don't see any reason why over a course of time we couldn't figure out a way to kind of tighten up their issues and still protect and promote what we're looking for on the other end. So I'm looking forward to working with the Chairperson and with the City departments to try to figure out how to kind of get this in place. Just a couple questions relative to the bill itself. In Section 20 9-3004, Subparagraph 3 -- I'm sorry. That's not the one. It's Subparagraph 4, Sub (a). It says that, "The applicant or current employee shall have five business days, after receipt of the notice and a photocopy of the criminal record from the 63 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 City or County agency or private employer, to respond to the City or County agency or that private employer." Is five days enough? I mean, I have trouble getting a police report on an auto accident within five days, let alone requiring an individual who may not have access to the agencies they need to get access to to get that together. The five days pass and then they haven't complied with the law and then they're out. Is there any way that that could be even a ten-day period? I mean, I'm a member of Council and I have trouble getting records from various departments.

Again, I was going to bring to the Councilman's attention that currently with Sterling, the questionnaire, as you see it, if it comes out, it's possible that, as they mentioned earlier, that somebody could have said that they were Seth Williams 64 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 when they get arrested and I try to get a job and it comes back that I have this conviction in Georgia. Well, currently with the questionnaire, once it is found and you are told that you are being denied the job because of this conviction, the person does have five days currently to refute that, very similar if you were to try to get a mortgage and the mortgage company would tell you your credit rating is X, you'd have the opportunity to refute that, and currently it is five days.

My question is, is five days enough? I mean, if you're asking a single individual to access a system that they don't -- I mean, if they don't go to their Councilmember, don't go to their State Rep, they don't go to their Congressperson, I mean, are they going to be able to walk into the courthouse and get what they need to refute it in a five-day period? And does five days 65 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 include weekends? I mean, I don't need an answer to the question.

It's five business days.

It's five business days?

Yes.

It's five business days. I'm sorry. But five business days, is that enough? So I'm throwing out there that I know how difficult it is to obtain records and that kind of stuff. The other issue in the Executive Order that I have here indicates the use of credit reports as a way of determining a person's eligibility for employment. I mean, it's pretty easy if you're not employed to have a bad credit report. Why is that a factor, unless you're hiring a bank manager who had problems with money or gambling issues in the past, those kind of things? 66 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 I mean, if you just ran up your credit cards and you want a job as a Gas Department worker, why is that germane?

There are some positions, Councilman, that are sensitive in nature and make the person in that position easily corruptible if individuals know that they have bad credit. If I, for example, am a Procurement Technician in the City of Philadelphia and I write the specifics, the specs as they are, to contracts for services or goods to be purchased by the City and a company knows that I have a credit rating below 400, they can befriend me with gifts or whatever so that I can -- so there are specific classifications --

So credit checks are not applied to every position, similar to what the criminal background checks are not applied to every position.

That's correct.

I just 67 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 wanted to make sure that was clear.

May I address that briefly?

Yes.

Once again, Glenn Harper, Personnel Department. My understanding of the law or at least standards of Human Resources practice in general -- and I've worked for the City of Philadelphia for years 12 tomorrow, all of that time in Human 13 Resources -- and certainly as we practice 14 this specifically and to allay your 15 concerns, Councilman, we do not conduct 16 routinely credit checks on any employee. 17 It is precisely as the Inspector General, 18 Seth Williams, just described to you. We 19 conduct them only on positions where corruptibility with respect to a person's indebtedness and their access to funds would be at issue. The ones that I know we have done specifically, "we" the Human Resources Department, have been for positions like Chief Investment Officer 68 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 for pensions, but certainly not for the average run-of-the-mill employee.

Also, is the appropriation for the Reentry Program, the Mayor's Reentry Program, does that include monies for the cost of expungement of records? I know a lot of times people don't even understand their rights when it comes to expunging a criminal record, that you've been through ARD after your DUI and it's on there and you haven't taken the time to go and do anything about it because there was a cost involved with it. And I know CLS is probably experienced in those kinds of issues, but is part of that expenditure for expungement costs?

No, sir. What we proposed to the Mayor is that that is something we would like to do in FY08. So we do have it on the agenda, and we recognize that it's very important and should be done.

And I 69 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 understand. I can understand the argument -- well, not argument, but the pleasant disagreement between Sterling and the State Police, why CLS would like the State Police and why the City would like Sterling, but I do agree that the Common Pleas Court records are a mess. I mean, and you can't read them. You can't even understand the -- I mean, if you're not a lawyer and you're not a DA, you really don't know how to follow that stuff. And I do agree that somewhere in the middle between Sterling and the State Police process probably the virtue lie. Just finally, are there any licenses in the City that we're aware of that a person could be denied because of a criminal background? It says here "no 20 application for any license or employment." Is there any type of mercantile license or any type of license, that a person would put themselves in business on their own, that could be denied based on a criminal 70 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 record, that you're aware of?

I'm not aware of any.

So this is just the language that was used because the term of art?

Yes.

That's it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilman Kenney. Are there any -- I guess I would have a million questions if we hadn't met yesterday, but are there any other questions by any Committee members? (No response.)

All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Harriet and Sharon, you're staying, correct?

Yes.

Thank you. 71 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 The next panel, Pennsylvania Prison Society, William DiMascio; Ron Cuie. Is Ron here? (No response.)

Susan Kirby, Philadelphia Workforce Development. Is she here? (No response.)

Reverend Richard Smith, Reverend Robert Shine. You can come up to the table, please. Thank you. You can start, Mr. DiMascio. You can start your testimony. Good afternoon. MR. DiMASCIO: Thank you. Councilwoman Miller, members of the Committee, my name is Bill DiMascio. I'm Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Prison Society. We work with prison administrators, inmates, inmate families and ex-offenders in state and county prisons throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 72 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 I would say no one knows better than this Committee on Public Safety that we have major problems that center on the volume of crime in our communities and the unintended consequences of the steps we have taken to address it. With that in mind and with more than two centuries' experience, the Prison Society is pleased to have the opportunity to be here to support the proposed Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards. We believe it is a strategy that will help to even the playing field so that formerly incarcerated men and women can support themselves and their families. And it's a strategy that enhances public safety for all of us in the community. We applaud the introduction of the Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards and for the opportunity to discuss its merits here at this hearing. This approach will better enable former offenders to rejoin the workforce by breaking down barriers. It will ensure 73 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 that discrimination based on past criminal records will no longer be the insurmountable challenge that it is today. In addition, it will put in place a system to review employer decisions and gives the job applicant recourse if an error or problem is found. Finding meaningful employment, as I think we all know, is a critical first step in the reentry plan of all former prisoners. It's a difficult quest. Many ex-offenders lack up-to-date job skills, some have no prior work experience at all and others still have low educational attainment levels, but the job search becomes much more difficult because of attitudes and prejudices of many potential employers toward formerly incarcerated individuals. These are attitudes generated largely through the entertainment media and self-righteous, holier-than-thou political campaigns that play on people's fear of crime. They tend to demonize men 74 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 and women in many cases for poor choices that are sometimes made under extreme duress. Each year in this country some 600,000 men and women are being released from prisons. Will society be willing to give them a second chance? South Africa opened up to Nelson Mandela when he was released from Robin Island and he went on to become President of that country. Vaclav Havel had a similar experience in the Czech Republic. Remarkably, so too did Poland's Lech Walesa, the electrician and political leader, who, like Mandela and Havel, also was awarded the Nobel Prize one year after his release from prison. " Those opportunities tend to be hindered since many employers can and do block ex-offenders from getting their 75 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 foot in the door by denying access to their field based on something called job sensitivity. Many employers now have the tools to conduct background checks that take into account longer histories, including juvenile offenses. Many employers have easy access to Internet files that list arrests as well as convictions that, in their interpretation, justifies a flat rejection. And, finally, agencies and organizations, recently including the FBI, are proposing the addition of non-serious offenses in response to criminal background checks conducted for employment purposes. For the past ten years or so, the Prison Society has been operating a reentry program to help former prisoners with their job searches and overall readjustments.

During that time, it has become increasingly apparent that it is getting more and more difficult for former offenders to enter or rejoin the 76 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 workforce. Changes in regulations on background checks, especially in the shadow of 9/11, have made employment possibilities a non-reality for many. One woman attending a workshop at our office relayed this story: She had been working at the airport with no 9 problems listed in her personnel file for more than a decade. She had not been in trouble with the law since she was 18 years old, almost 25 years earlier. " Another workshop client had a series of arrests but no convictions. He never served prison time and, as far as he knew, had a clean record. He found out differently, though, when he was turned down for five jobs in a row. Although he never had a conviction, all of his arrests were listed on the website of the Administrative Office of the 77 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Pennsylvania Courts. He believes that when prospective employers saw his arrest information, they rejected him outright. Another woman released from Riverside, Philadelphia's jail for women, was distraught that she was not able to get an interview, let alone a job offer. She had years of experience in culinary work, but was told over and over again that her past was too closely linked to the job. Her crime was shoplifting. Another former offender who had been in and out of prison for most of his adult life decided it wasn't even worth trying to look for a job after hearing stories from others. In his case, he was defeated before he even began a search. The stories go and on. Former offenders are finding few, if any, employers willing to take a chance. Few are willing to give a chance. Support on this measure from City decision-makers could make a critical difference in the lives of many 78 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 City residents, their families and critical changes in our neighborhoods. This ordinance would pave the way for an individual's skills and experience to count more than their past poor decision-making. Securing a job is particularly important when you consider that the vast majority of inmates will be out on the streets again and in our communities. We hope they'll be out there with the opportunities to contribute something positive to society like their fellow former offenders, and I would mention Henry David Thoreau, Herman Melville, Benjamin Spock, Thomas Paine and, yes, William Penn, just to mention a few. We strongly support passage of the Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Reverend Robert Shine. 79 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578

Thank you, Madam Chairman and to the City Councilmembers that have convened this meeting. My name is Reverend Robert Shine, Pastor of the Berachah Baptist Church in the West Oak Lane section of the City of Philadelphia. Recently, we convened a meeting at the Temple University. The convening of this meeting focused on the reentry, reinvestment and resocialization of ex-offenders. It was our purpose in convening this meeting to provide a challenging study as to what would happen or what is happening in the lives of ex-offenders and how we can best serve them in a society once they have paid their debt to society, what then becomes of these men and women. Are they prepared now for reentry and to have gainful employment, have their medical needs attended to and are able to return to their families, finding homes, finding places where they could begin to 80 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 rehabilitate their lives and to have meaningful life thereafter. In 2003, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. 1 million people, a rate of incarceration that is ten times that in Western Europe. This figure represents a dramatic increase over the prison population 30 years ago. And in 2002, the per capita rate of imprisonment was 476 for every 100,000 persons, more than four times the rate that prevailed between 1925 and 1973. An important cause of this explosion of incarceration is the increase in the number of arrests and imprisonment for drug-related crimes. From the year 1980 to the year 1996, the per capita rate of incarcerations for drug arrests increased 930 percent, a number that dwarfed in the increases in 81 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 incarceration rates for other types of crimes, such as murder, 201 percent; sexual assault, 361 percent; robbery, 65 percent; burglary, 66 percent. The Urban Institute confirms this trend in its study of prisoners in Philadelphia at a rate -- as of 1996, convictions for all types of offenses were relatively evenly distributed, but by 2003, 40 percent of all prisoners were convicted of a drug offense, twice the rate of the conviction for property offenses and twice the rate of conviction for violent offenses. In his 2003 speech, Justice Kennedy also urged his audience to confront another reality, which brings me to this hearing today. That reality is the disproportionate percentage of the prison population that consists of African-Americans. According to Justice Kennedy, ten percent of African-American men in their mid 20's are behind bars, and 40 percent of the prison population 82 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 are African-Americans. That means that many of those who are presently incarcerated is because of the recidivism rate. That means that these men are not finding meaningful employment and are not able to socially adjust to the issues once they are released. Therefore, it is the Black Clergy's position that we support the screening status so that these men and women are eligible and will find opportunity to regain their self-esteem, be properly motivated, that they will be able to find the kind of employment and that we would advance speaking to potential employers that these men and that these women be given another opportunity, if in fact we could call it a second chance. We believe firmly that rather than warehousing these men, that the cost for building prisons is at the expense of families who need their fathers and need their mothers, are in an environment that would provide for them an opportunity to 83 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 once again build the strong family structure. It is for that purpose also that we come today to say that our families are becoming more dismantling, are breaking down more and more. That's because the families are ruined because of the life-style that follows the ex-offender.

If there are roadblocks in any legislation both from the City level and the State level, if there are roadblocks after these men and women have been on the cellblock and if those stumbling blocks that can be removed, if there are those barriers to meaningful employment, these men and women as our fellow human beings, as our fellow brothers and sisters are the men and women whom we love, we venture to want to go as far as possible to make sure that once they have returned to their family, once they have returned to society, that they are accepted and that the stigma that is imposed upon them, "ex-con," 84 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 "ex-offender," these terms seem to carry with them the kind of stigma that prevents these men and women from feeling themselves as having paid their debt and now that they want to reenter -- and many of them while they are incarcerated, they do seek to find opportunities to get their GED, to get other skills, to develop other talents while they're there. It is our intent through the study that we did two weeks ago -- and we would like to submit to you, Madam Councilwoman, a copy of our report that will convey some programmatic ideas that could further be included in the outcomes of any and all that is being done by way of resocialization of the ex-offender, and that we would move in that direction. We would like to make that submission to you post this hearing. So with that, Madam Councilwoman, thank you very much.

Thank 85 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 you. Thank you, Reverend Shine. We look forward to receiving your report. Councilman Ramos. Before Councilman Ramos, I'd just like to say that certainly the Prison Society and certainly the Clergy here in the City and all kinds of people understand and have felt the frustration of many people leaving incarceration and coming back into the City of Philadelphia. When we talk about it, Well, if we have 55,000 men or women on probation and even if that person only has one other person in their life, already we're talking about 100,000 people that reside here in Philadelphia that are impacted. Certainly most of them have more than one other family member. So we can be talking actually about a couple hundred thousand people. So in a city of our size, it is important. It breaks my heart when I try to help constituents secure employment, 86 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 and that's whether there's a misdemeanor or felony, and it's very, very difficult. I have a woman now that I'm trying to help where she was involved in a domestic allocation about years ago, and we're 7 hoping that that will not prevent her 8 from getting a particular job that I've 9 referred her for. 10 So this is a problem that we 11 all know so well that work in this area. 12 Councilman Ramos. 13

Thank you, 14 Madam Chair. 15 I just want to state that at a 16 very young age -- I was probably in my 17 ninth or tenth grade in high school -- I 18 remember one of those experiences that 19 you don't forget. As you get older and 20 older, you still can remember certain 21 experiences. One of them was that I had 22 the Pennsylvania Prison Society visit my 23 school and talk to us about what you do. 24 And I want to commend you for being able 25 to stay the course and be able to stand 87 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 up for people that are thrown away and locked up and, to a great extent, no one cares about them. And I can relate to Pastor Shine as a pastor, because I was involved in prison ministry for many, many years, and I always make it a point to, especially on holidays, go visit folks, whether I have any of them that are related to me or not. But this is a bill that I will be supporting. I think it's very important that we go and address this issue at this time, because as Pastor Shine very well explained, we have a very big population behind walls and they're coming home. We need to make sure that that population that wants to get back into society and be productive, that there are jobs for them, that they're not discriminated. Harriet Spencer mentioned in her testimony that we have 170 local enterprises, companies, in the region that hire ex-offenders. Let us in 88 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 government and other entities or anyone who has any anxiety or reservations about hiring ex-offenders, let us take a look at these companies, see what criterias they use, see how it has worked for them. So I'll be voting for this bill, and I think it's well overdue. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We have Elaine Childs and Carl Heath from FIR. Are they still here?

Yes.

Is Commissioner Harvey Portner here? (No response.)

I don't believe Peter Solomon is here, correct? I don't see him.

I haven't seen Peter, Councilwoman, but Bill Peeples is here.

Okay. 89 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Come on up to the table, Bill. And after this panel, we'll have Impact Services, Men United, the Redirection Center, Connection Training. Okay. You guys can decide who goes first. Thank you. Don't forget to state your name and identify yourself.

Good afternoon. Madam Chairman, City Councilmembers, my name is Elaine Childs. I'm here today because I was asked to speak on behalf of working ex-offenders. In October of 1999, I was arrested for the third time for possession with intent to deliver. I was incarcerated, and I was given an early release by the Forensic Intensive Recovery Program. That's FIR. And from FIR, I did an IOP treatment program. I went to Impact Vocational Training Services. They decided to start a little project and FIR needed a File Clerk, so I was chosen to go over and interview at FIR. I was hired. 90 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 I didn't have to think of whether or not to put down that I was an ex-offender since I had been a participant in their program. It wasn't really a dilemma. I'd hate to think if I had to, if it had been another organization, what I would have done. But during my soul-searching, I do believe I would have put that I had spent time in jail, because I was trying to bring my life -- to start my life back new again and I wanted to be honest about everything I had done in order to do that. I've been working out at FIR for six years. I started out as a File 18 Clerk. I was promoted to Court Liaison, and now I'm a FIR Case Manager. FIR enabled me to really put my life back together, to participate back in the community in which I live, and to give back some of what I had been given as a client of the company. The stigma of being an 91 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 ex-offender does come up every day that I work, because I deal with a clientele that are court stipulated to a treatment program. So to let the client know that I know what they're going through, I know what you've been through, I expose a little of myself and I expose that. So it has been sort of a God blessing to me. But to another person who has the stigma of being an ex-offender, it's a hard job. To go to a company not knowing whether or not to reveal this portion of yourself is a dilemma in itself. Are they going to hire me once they find out I've been in jail, or whatever? Anyone that's going looking for a job that has been incarcerated I do believe are sincere, because they've seen the other side of that coin and they're ready to bring about a change. Like I said before, the organization that I work for and hired me, Forensic Intensive Recovery, is a great program. It gave me back my life. 92 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 And like I said, I've been there six years and I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. Thank you.

Do you think you would have been able to secure the type of position you have now if you had not been a program participant?

No. 11

Do you think this bill would be able to help people in that situation?

Yes, I do. I really do.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Good afternoon, Councilman Miller, the rest of the panel. My name is Carl Heath. I'm also a FIR Case Manager, and I've been working with FIR for some time now as well, and I'm also an ex-offender, who was also part of the recovery process. I've been involved 93 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 in the recovery process for many years now. I was listening to the rest of the panel and some other members speak, and there has been several situations where I've had trouble obtaining employment due to my criminal history. There has been times that I've felt that I've been treated unjust as a result of my past, not even given an opportunity to present my particular skills or expertise in any area. However, when trying to establish myself with FIR, it was almost a given whereas though my background became an actual strength. I don't even think they looked at my background, and if they did, like I said, it became a strength instead of a weakness. When I came out of treatment many years ago, I had no hopes, no 22 dreams. I was homeless, jobless, penniless, out of my mind, not knowing which way I was going to go. You need somebody to just give you an opportunity, 94 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 so to speak. And I was given that opportunity, and I just -- I'm like a living example of what can happen if you just give someone an opportunity. So I came from homeless and penniless and jobless and all that stuff to a guy that has a home in Delaware County, a guy that drives a brand new car, a guy that is in the Master's program at Lincoln University, a guy that's been working in the system now for several years. So my life has made a 360-degree turn just by giving opportunity. People don't look at me as an ex-offender. They look at me as Mr. Heath. That's who I am today. My past does not represent who I am today. It is a part of who I am, but it doesn't totally indicate that's who I am, if you understand what I'm saying.

I do.

So it's a joy to be here, and that's my testimony, that if given the opportunity, I'm pretty sure a 95 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 lot of people can also turn their lives around as well. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And, you know, that's what this bill actually is about, giving people that opportunity without having the barrier thrown up immediately because they're an ex-offender.

Absolutely.

And may I interject on that and say, the client population that Carl and I work with, the average client has a GED or a high school diploma or above in their education. So it's not like we're working with the hard-core community or the criminal that is so intent on this kind of life-style that he's been repeatedly locked up. These are people that have struggled with an addiction, a disease, and now they're ready to start theirselves over again, and all they need is an opportunity to just continue on in their life. And they 96 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 have the ammunition as far as the brain power and the capacity to do these things. All they need is the opportunity to get in the door so that they can perform to their best abilities.

Very good. We want to congratulate both of you on your success.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. My journey is not quite over yet.

We've just begun.

We understand.

You got several empty seats up there. I'm on my way, if you understand what I'm saying.

And I'm working with him. I'm hanging on. So I'm in school also.

We have a candidate and a campaign manager.

Yes, he does. 97 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Yes, he does.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Just tell me, where do you live? Do you live in my district?

I think I'm in your district, Councilwoman.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

You're welcome. Mr. Peeples.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

You're welcome.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Reed -- Miller Reed. I'm sorry; Reed Miller -- look how nervous I am -- and members of the Committee on Public Safety. I'm Bill Peeples, the Director of the Diversity Apprenticeship Program of the Philadelphia Revitalization and Education Program, 98 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Incorporated. Today I am testifying before you on the Committee's proposed bill of the Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards. After reviewing the proposed bill, I wholeheartedly support this effort to provide the effective opportunities to ex-offenders to become gainfully employed in this City. I'm not going to rehash the statistics and demographics related to the employment of ex-offenders in the City. As a program in the City whose primary mission is to move African-Americans and other minorities into the construction building trades, I can attest to the desire of this population to seek careers in construction. Since our inception, we have had 3,581 applications to our program. Five hundred and fifty-five have graduated the program, and we have placed 217 apprentices in 12 trades. Of that number also, we had 563 participants 99 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 become employed, of which one-half, we assume, have been ex-offenders, and we estimate of the 217, one-third were ex-offenders that got into the trades. It is our expectation that if this bill becomes law, more City residents, particularly ex-offenders, will gain employment. More in this population may become members of the construction trades. DAP realizes that the actions in this bill is not a cure-all. I see many ex-offenders who are in need of soft skills, who have been incarcerated and did not get that training while in prison. There are some who have a work expectation and believe that others should do for them instead of them doing for themselves. They need to seek more self-responsibility. However, the majority of those who come to us who are ex-offenders understand that this is their last stop to move forward and gain a full-paying career. 100 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Our training paradigm is effective in having ex-offenders start to crawl before they walk. Generally, the trades will not take in their apprenticeships people who are not working. We emphasize to our participants that they must work at whatever level to get towards their goal of getting into the apprenticeships. The Mayor's Office of Reentry is making a concerted effort to give ex-offenders an opportunity to become contributing members of Philadelphia. PREP, the organization that DAP is housed under, is one of the few programs that MORE, the Mayor's Office of Reentry, has contracted with to move ex-offenders into employment. This Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards is a tool that will be welcomed if we should have it become law. I want to thank you for your time and answer any questions you have.

Thank 101 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 you. Thank you, Bill.

You're welcome.

I don't have any questions. I just want to say that I know that many people, many young men in particular, want to get jobs in the trades, because if they're an ex-offender, then they know that that is an area that's more open than some of the other areas. I actually was trying to recruit a young man the other day to be a driver, and immediately he said, Are they going to do a background check? I said, Well, just only on your license to see if you've had a clean driving record. And he was just released from prison, so we know his driving record is clean. But immediately he threw up a shield, like, I don't even want to apply for this because I think my incarceration record is going to keep me from becoming a driver just for a special day. I won't say the day, but it's 102 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 coming up soon. But he was very, very paranoid. And I think with that, it really helped me to understand further how people actually see this as being a real, real barrier to almost doing lots of other things. So thank you. Thank you for coming in. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

Do we have anyone here from Men United? Impact Services? Redirection Center, Inc.? (No response.)

Connection Training?

Councilwoman, Redirection is not here, but Lin Crowe is one of the reentry partners with the Mayor's Office and he's requesting to be heard.

Okay. Tell him to come on up. 103 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Then, Wayne, we'll have you. Good afternoon. Please start, whoever you've selected to go first.

Good afternoon, Councilwoman Miller. I am William Cobb. I'm Outreach Coordinator for Men United for a Better Philadelphia. Again, I am William Cobb, former Vice-President in Sales and Marketing of gointernet.net and currently an Outreach Coordinator for Men United for a Better Philadelphia. Go Internet was one of the largest employers of the formerly incarcerated ever in the City of Philadelphia. With well over 2,300 employees, at times 10 to 15 percent of my staff were formerly incarcerated. We employ so many probation and parolees that we seriously considered converting an office into a meeting room so the probation and parole officers could service their clients on premises. It was not our company's 104 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 intention to employ such large numbers of that particular population. We simply did not discriminate based upon criminal records. As a result, our company thrived. Once employed, it was impossible to distinguish a formerly incarcerated person from someone whom was not. Two of my former Vice Sales Executives were previously incarcerated. These individuals supervised several hundred employees, 30 to 40 supervisors and a half a dozen managers and, with bonus and incentives, surpassed $100,000 earnings mark annually. I can only recall one occasion when an employee's criminal record was called into question. That employee was being considered for a senior executive position that would give him the responsibilities of running the company's day-to-day overall operations. I was that employee. In May of 1993, I pled no 105 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 contest to robbery, kidnapping, criminal conspiracy and violation of the Uniform Firearms Act. I served a six-and-a-half-year sentence in Pennsylvania prisons and two years in a halfway house. In January of 2000, I was hired at Go Internet as a Telemarketing Sales Representative earning $5.25 per hour, plus commission and bonuses. In four years' time, I was head of the second largest employer in Old City Philadelphia. I am proof that if given the opportunity not only can a formerly incarcerated person stay crime free, but can also contribute invaluable resources to a company's bottom line or, in this case, a City's welfare and well-being. As an Outreach Coordinator for Men United for a Better Philadelphia, when I leave today, I'm going to go to your district actually, because I'm in charge of the Northwest section, and I'm 106 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 going to talk and give a report to the young men that I conversed with yesterday upon telling them that I will be testifying at City Council about a bill 6 that may hopefully open up doors for employment opportunities with them. It is a privilege and it is an honor to be here to represent this segment, which has been discriminated against for such silly, mundane reasons. The public is not safer because individuals such as myself are not entitled to take out people's garbage in the City of Philadelphia. That concludes my testimony.

Thank you. Thank you. Whoever is next.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Ray Jones. I am Director of Ex-offender Services at Impact Services. I have a brief presentation to make to this Committee.

Thank 107 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 you.

Impact Services supports the proposed ordinance amending Title of The Philadelphia Code that 6 would create Fair Criminal Record 7 Screening Standards. Although the 8 relationship between crime and employment 9 is complex, most experts seem to agree on several points. Point 1, a large proportion of ex-offenders have low levels of education and work experience and health problems. For example, 40 percent of inmates in state and federal prisons have neither a high school diploma or GED. Thirty-one percent of state and federal inmates have a physical impairment or mental condition, and 57 percent report having a drug problem. Point 2, the increase in incarceration over the past years has 23 disproportionately affected 24 African-American men, with 60 percent of 25 black high school dropouts having served 108 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 time in prison. Point 3, earnings and employment of ex-offenders is strongly influenced by employer prejudice. Many people enter the criminal justice system hard to employ and leave it even harder to employ. Legitimate employment may reduce the economic incentive to commit crimes and also may connect ex-offenders to a more positive social network and daily routines. Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize those interventions that boost employment and earnings among ex-offenders will also reduce recidivism. But prejudice cannot be legislated away. Education and incentives must be given to employers to help them realize the benefit of hiring ex-offenders. Given these facts, it is important to realize that other factors must be considered to truly have an impact on successful reintegration of ex-offenders. 109 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 The motivation of ex-offenders is an unmeasurable factor. In studying the success factors for reintegration, studies can control for criminal history, for age or education level, but it is very difficult to control for motivation. Screening for motivation will greatly enhance the success of any fair hiring practice. Making hiring ex-offenders attractive to employers is a critical factor. Incentive programs such as the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, Philadelphia's Job Creation Tax Credit and its new amendments and the federal bonding can all be helpful. Tying these incentives to the proposed ordinance 19 would be a more attractive package for employers. Supporting ways to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to non-custodial parents would be another way of increasing the success of fair hiring practices. We don't have hard data, but 110 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 our anecdotal assessment of inmates in the Philadelphia Prison System show that approximately 60 percent of the men are non-custodial fathers. The jobs available to ex-offenders are mostly low-wage jobs. Finding ways to increase their earnings with a wage subsidy like Earned Income Tax Credit could reduce the burden of child support obligations and other income factors that often drive ex-offenders back to crime. Although not connected to this ordinance, City Council support of such a measure would be helpful at both the state and federal levels. Finally, it is important to realize that work may be necessary for most ex-offenders, but it is not sufficient. Connecting ex-offenders to other programs to address their social, psychological and medical issues is the best way to successful reintegration, with family support a key ingredient in 111 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 that program. Thank you.

Thank you. Impact has been working with reentry employment issues for a long, long time.

Yes, ma'am; for 32 years.

Okay. Thanks. You are Kevin Lucas?

No. Madam Chairman, my name is Reverend Linward Crowe. I'm not representing the Redirection Center, but I am representing Kingdom Care Reentry Network. We are a subcontractor and partner in the Mayor's Office with the employment collaborative. We work with Mr. Lucas and the Redirection Center closely. They are also partners in that project, but the Kingdom Care Network is responsible for the recruitment and training, matching and certifying of mentors for the job 112 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 program in the Mayor's Office. I'd like to begin my testimony with a brief quotation from Dr. Robert Franklin. He's the distinguished Professor of Social Ethics at Emory University. He says, and I quote, I maintain that there's a significant gap, a moral capital gap, if you will, in the way society currently manages the plight of our fellow citizens who have paid their debt to society. Despite the available menu of services and supports, nearly two-thirds of individuals who were formerly incarcerated will engage in behavior that sends them back to prison. Of course, social services are important. People have to be housed, they have to eat, they have to be trained to work and function like other productive citizens, but they must also sense that they belong. They must experience the reality of being welcomed home. That is the gap that concerned citizens, especially people of faith, must now figure out how 113 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 to close. And the group that I represent is a faith-based group and has come together to try to address this need, in partnership with the City's office and other providers in the City who focus on job development. Kingdom Care Reentry Network is a partnership of area churches, community development corporations and the Philadelphia Prison System, Adult Probation and Parole and the Mayor's Office of Reentry Services. We have seen two streams converge here in the City that are extremely important for the current context that's the background of your bill. The City of Philadelphia itself has become a national leader in efforts to stem the rising tide of violence and recidivism that are sweeping much of the United States. Mayor Street has established the Mayor's Office of Reentry of Ex-offenders and its accompanying Advisory Council for Reentry 114 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Affairs. He's also the Chair of the council dealing with reentry at the United States Conference of Mayors. The Commissioner of the Philadelphia Prisons, who spoke earlier today, has called on the faith community to go beyond its traditional role of providing inside services of worship to become active mentors on the outside. The Philadelphia courts are now entering into early release arrangements for qualified inmates, matching them with faith-based organizations. In effect, the criminal justice system itself has issued a call to the church and the City to engage with its prison population in a whole new way. No longer satisfied with the traditional and largely ineffective focus of solely preaching and teaching inside its jails and prisons, the community is calling on the church to welcome home its outcasts and often marginalized offenders with compassionate support on the outside, helping those who 115 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 want it to lead transformed and constructive lives as people of promise. And so the second stream has converged, and that is in the faith community itself. There is emerged collaborative and networking efforts to try to represent the entire faith community. And Kingdom Care Reentry Network has emerged as a result of several leaders of prison ministries coming together to establish a more holistic continuum of care for the men and women returning to our communities after a period of incarceration.

Over 70 congregations and faith-based organizations are involved in the Kingdom Care Reentry Network, from large institutions like the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Salvation Army, to smaller but highly focused programs like the Philadelphia Ex-offenders Aftercare Program. Participation in a provider network such as KCRN gives even a small 116 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 but committed congregation the capacity to meet the range of needs represented by the typical ex-offender. Services of case management, mentoring, housing and job placement have become a part of the services provided. And as partners in the employment collaborative of the Mayor's Office, KCRN strongly supports the bill that is before you today. As we recruit, train and certify mentors to be part of the program, we require background checks on each one of those mentors. We require a criminal background check. We also require a child abuse background check. But those background checks, which might reveal a criminal history, are not in and of themselves a permanent barrier to service. On a case-by-case basis we evaluate the situation, the length of time in which the offense occurred, the severity of the offense and the person's reflection of transformation activity in their lives. And so we recognize that 117 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 the very people that we work with as clients have become part of the solution and are not simply a problem. So we commend City Council for raising this issue and providing this bill and all of its legal ramifications for employers, and from the faith community, we say a resounding thank you for this effort.

Thank you. Kingdom Care, I assume, has one office somewhere?

Yes. The Chairman is Bishop Ernest McNear and the offices are housed at True Gospel Tabernacle, Church of God in Christ in South Philadelphia, and it operates under the 501(c)(3) of that organization.

Thank you, and thank you for your work. I have no more questions. Thank you. Thank you for coming in and having an interest. We have Leotus Jones, Connection Training, Douglas Kissell, 118 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Toby Rich, Wayne Jacobs, Steve Blackburn.

Good afternoon, Council Lady Donna Reed Miller.

Good afternoon. How are you doing?

I'm okay today. My name is Leotus Jones and I'm the Director of Community Assistance for Prisoners. I'm pleased to be here today. I'm glad that these hearings is going on. We were here yesterday. I had to leave to take care of some business. I didn't get a chance to testify. When I came back, the hearing was over. Unfortunately, I missed yesterday, but thank God, I'm here today. Community Assistance for Prisoners, better known as CAP, is not a new organization. We were founded back in July the 4th, 1970 following the July 4th Holmesburg Prison riot. Since that time, we've been struggling and laboring and fighting to bring a lot of the social ills and problems that exist in the 119 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 Philadelphia Prison System. To begin with, Jackson versus Hendricks, to Harris and Reeves. Now today we have Bowers versus the City of Philadelphia. You say '71, '83 and now here there's 2006. Nothing has changed. It's the same conditions, the same problems. There's overcrowded. That's the issue, overcrowded conditions of prisons, which has been responsible for a lot of the social ills and other injustices that exist behind the walls in the Philadelphia prisons, from the medical conditions on down to the sanitation, to the food that's being served, recreation and the lack of a lot of other social problems that is needed inside the prisons. From my personal experiences and things that I've witnessed throughout the years, you have a system that has inmates locked down hours, and the 24 reason why the administration give is because of the fact that there's a 120 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 shortage of staff. Be it may, the more jails they build, the more they have to add on. Each jail that's built becomes overcrowded. It was once Holmesburg Prison, House of Correction and the Philadelphia Detention Center.

Leotus, I saw you yesterday in here. I saw you leave and come back.

Okay.

Clearly, yesterday we were talking about prison overcrowding. Are you going to tie this into fair criminal reporting, your testimony?

Okay. Well, I'm trying to get to --

To that point?

To a specific point, but I can talk about our organization and what we have been doing for the past 36 years, what changes we 121 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 have perfected, from voting rights on down to dealing to get some medical testing and human experimentation, the bussing programs we develop, how we work with inmates and their families, how we -- I mean, I can go through all that, but the point is, I understood that the hearing today was about the health problems.

No. It's about fair criminal reporting.

What is that?

It's about --

It's about the background check?

Right. Not about the health problems.

All right.

Fair Criminal Recording Screening Standards.

Okay.

Do you want a copy of the bill? 122 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578

No, I don't have a copy of the bill. But now me myself has recently been a victim of the background check. I was released from prison back in July the 4th, 1970. I haven't returned since, only to go in there to deal with programs and to consult and to do forums and voters registration and voter education. But at the same time, when I decided to, I said, Now let me see if I can get a job. I mean, we can develop all kinds of job programs, and we have a program right now that we've been fighting to get funding for dealing with building maintenance, exterminating. We offer jobs to individuals. We were going strong there one time. We was instrumental in assisting three of our former employees to get into their own business, but yet I find myself in the position where I need employment. I applied for a job with the Pennsylvania Turnpike. They turned me 123 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 down. This was about four months ago. They said because of the fact of a background check. Like I said, I haven't been arrested since 1970 for nothing, and I've never been a convicted felon. The only thing that I have on my record is violating the Uniform Firearms Act, and the only reason why that was is because of the fact that there was a contract out on my life and I was doing some serious organizing in the community around drugs, myself, Mohammed Kenyatta and Reggie Shell. Since that time, I haven't been arrested for anything, but I was denied employment, which is a problem, as you may very well know, with individuals that are coming out of prison today.

That's why we're having these hearings.

Exactly. I understand that. Now, that expo facto thing, I mean, when is our debt to society paid? Do we have to continuously be faced with 124 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 being beat down by our wives and our children for not being able to get a job or hold a job and to be labeled as dead-beat dads? There's a Senate Bill 1060 that was introduced and I believe it was passed. I'm not sure. But that bill can serve as a deterrent to crime, because it would deal with individuals who have been arrested, and what jobs they're applying for does not relate to what they were sentenced for, they would be hired. That's a good thing. But at the same time, individuals such as myself and other individuals like me, thousands of them, men and women, they need a chance. And when we talk about those young criminals out there, so-called criminals, in the streets of the African-American community that is out there playing games with supposedly selling drugs and get arrested, their whole thing is, I can't get a job. I understand a lot of people 125 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 ain't getting jobs. Companies shutting down. They being ran out of other countries, and still corporate business want to come in the jails and hire inmates to work with no benefits and minimum pay wage. In some cases I understand it's less. You got prisoners being forced to pay their own rent while they're in prison that's on work release. There's a lot of changes that has to be made. I guess that's one of the reasons why ya'll having these hearings. And one of the things that Community Assistance for Prisoners would like to see is that those things are being done. We make attempts to do things, but we don't really follow through on them. And when our positions change, our office change, the politics change. And politics has a lot to do with the problems that we having today. So, like I said, Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, I was under the 126 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 impression that this hearing today was dealing with the health problems in the prisons, and I'm unprepared for that.

That's okay. You'll have --

For this.

You'll have an opportunity to come back.

You understand? I would appreciate that. And another thing is, we didn't know anything about this. We didn't hear anything about this until the day before yesterday. You understand what I'm saying? Now, like I said, our organization has been out there since 1970, you know. I mean, hey, we should be on everybody's mailing list in the City, but we're not. We were here in City Council, as you very well know, testifying on the resolution before the Law and Government Committee. All the Councilpeople know, knew, but nobody 127 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 contacts us. I would appreciate it in the future that it go on record that we be contacted when any issues and problems come up that's dealing with the community and that's dealing with prisons. I have two ex-offenders here with me today, and they were prepared to testify on the conditions -- they were just recently released -- that existed in the jails and what they were subjected to while they were there.

Well, actually, this is not the hearing for that.

I understand, unfortunately.

Probably yesterday would have been a better opportunity.

Yeah, but, like I said, we didn't hear anything about this until the day before yesterday.

Well, all public hearings are listed in various 128 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 newspapers, because we have to do a five-day public notice.

It was in the newspaper?

I am positively sure. I didn't see it myself because I don't look for them, but they're in the back in the Classified section. And also if you watch Channel 63 or 64, the City channel, that's listed.

But can we --

Excuse me.

Go ahead. Excuse me.

I have like four other people to testify. We can talk about this a little later, but public hearings are posted, publicly posted. It's a requirement. It's a law. If you want to make sure you give me your card, we can add your address to our mailing list and we can 129 11/1/06 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 060578 move forward.