There are many reform campaigns that have much more worth than they do publicity.
The collateral sanctions of misdemeanor and felony drug convictions are similar to those of violent crimes in that they often exceed the direct harm done by the judge’s sentence. These sanctions may include denial, revocation or suspension of professional licenses, driver’s license suspension, loss of educational aid and public assistance, and bars on adoption and voting. Some of these consequences include lifelong restrictions, depending on the state in which they occur.
But missing from the list are barriers to employment, which may be the most impacting factor in the vicious cycle of recidivism. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, one of the nation’s leading organizations in promoting harm reduction and alternatives to incarceration, people with felony convictions are twice as likely to be denied employment as those without a record.
When public employers ask about the felony conviction status of an applicant — even on the rare occasions when space is provided to explain one’s circumstances — the applicant is either highly discouraged or immediately disqualified from continuing through the interview process.
These barriers have little to do with the qualifications or character of the applicant. Rather, it is an act of hiring discrimination. If everyone had a fair opportunity to seek employment in the public sector, those with similar qualifications would be interviewed regardless of their criminal history.
In May 2010, a “ban the box” initiative was passed in New Mexico, removing the question of whether a person has ever been convicted of a felony from the New Mexico State Personnel Office job application. Employers are now required to wait until the final stages of an application process before conducting background checks relevant to the position.
Employers are still allowed to ask about the conviction status of an applicant and are in no way obligated to hire an applicant with a felony record. In fact, the New Mexico Criminal Offender Employment Act makes it very clear that employers can deny anyone based on “moral turpitude” such as drug dealing. Special considerations are also given to law enforcement agencies and public health facilities.
At the time of its passage, Minnesota was the only other state to remove this barrier to employment. But this law is rooted in nothing more than common sense and compassion. If we believe in merit-based success, if we believe in equality, we can easily understand how this law is mutually beneficial.
Crime rates and unemployment are highly correlated, as ex-prisoners without a job are three times more likely to return to prison. An overwhelming majority of offenders return to our communities, and they need an unbiased second chance to join the work force.
Ultimately, employment has proven to be one of the most successful social programs available.