With the increasing consolidation of criminal history data throughout the United States, in the future it will become more and more difficult for people who have made mistakes in the past, mistakes for which they have been punished through the criminal or civil law system, to move past those mistakes. If I owned a business, and someday I may do so, I would give people a second chance with a decent job.
I swear I thought I heard an NPR story on how the consolidation of past records limits second chances, but I have been unable to find it. In any case, the increasingly evident truth is that the government - or rather, governments, since many libertarians tend to forget we live in a federalist system with many layers of government - will have the ability to consolidate all those records that people acquire over the years of, you know, living.
In general, this is a good thing. People can't skip around committing felonies and then committing some more because no one was tracking where they were and what they did in a previous locale. Seems like nowadays that's the horror story - some child molester was never formally charged in one county, so he moves to another - or another state - and gets hired by another school.
But let me get back to my point. I happen to know that the State Department is considering a "blacklist" of families who should never be considered host parents for exchange students. This will undoubtedly be supported by findings from criminal background checks. Yet, the question is: what kinds of crimes land a family on that blacklist? How many, and how long ago? All excellent questions for wondering where any teenager should live, but what if you put your own name in those crosshairs? Is a DUI when you were 23, when you are now 33, an offense that should disqualify you from ever hosting an exchange student?
To be clear, there are no guidelines published, but should some sort of "blacklist" be created, some will (or should) be published. The point I'm trying to make is that there will very soon be no such thing as a "second chance." No one with any sort of criminal past will be considered for a job, unless the employer is willing to overlook the criminal past of the applicant. And isn't under the pressure of some government authority to factor in that criminal history.
So anyone who runs a business, who respects the possibility that people can come back from a mistake, should be willing to employ someone who already made a mistake. I mean ex-convicts.
If you haven't heard or Dave's Killer Bread, I advise you to go out and buy some. Not only because it's amazingly good (and it is), but because Dave himself has an amazing story about personal redemption. Moreover, his company employs ex-convicts. Now there's always the risk of recidivism with ex-convicts, but I'm sure Dave, with his ex-convict backstory, has figured out a way to manage the risk of recidivism affecting his company (i.e., theft, robbery, or embezzlement by current or former employees).
The biggest risk of recidivism is hopelessness. Not having a future, not having a stable life, not having a decent job. Provide these things, and studies show the rate of recidivism declines. If Dave's Killer Bread can do it, I'm sure many other employers could, as well.
Steps
1) Own a business, one capable of hiring others.
2) Establish a plan for hiring ex-convicts. How much will they be paid? Will I assist with housing?
3) Develop a risk assessment: in what positions will I employ ex-convicts? Will they be a risk to the stability of the company? How will they be screened? What are the criteria for disqualification?
4) Hire some ex-convicts.
5) Monitor their performance. Not just for negative performance - if they do a good job, they should also be praised.
Enthusiam: First I need to own a business. Then we'll see how enthusiastic I am - but it's a good idea.
Practicality: See the response for Enthusiasm.
Difficulty: Unknown. I would have to look at other businesses who do the same.
