It's Time To Embrace The Overlooked Talent Pool Of People With Records
Last month, I stepped outside of my typical orbit of the office, conference circuit, and board meetings. Instead, I traveled two hours outside of Denver to visit a few dozen women serving sentences in La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado. These women were taking part in 'The Challenge,' a program offered through the Breakthrough Alliance of Colorado, which offers career readiness coaching, professional development, and re-entry planning so they can prepare for and find jobs after incarceration.
Their stories inspired me. Ashley, a recent participant, shared how her three children were able to visit her for the program's graduation ceremony and see her in a cap and gown for the first time. A few of the women in the early stages of the program helped me understand how much resilience it takes just to begin this journey; another woman, whose release is approaching in a few months, shared her hopes and honest fears about how she'll find a job and reestablish herself in her community.
Bryan Stevenson, the founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and author of Just Mercy, has often said that the first step in making change is to 'get proximate'—to build genuine connections with people facing obstacles or barriers, and 'affirm their dignity and humanity.' My visit with the women of the Breakthrough Alliance reminded me how valuable and important this kind of proximity is. This April, which is Fair Chance Month, I hope other leaders will be inspired to take this first step toward engaging with the people experiencing incarceration in their communities. I came away from my visit reminded that when we put up barriers that prevent people with records from finding employment, we leave out a talent pool that is at least 70 million Americans strong.
At my organization, Jobs for the Future, we know this first-hand: since 2023, we've committed to hiring employees who have records or are currently incarcerated and have benefited greatly from their skills, experience, and dedication.
Many of the arguments for fair chance hiring focus on reduced recidivism. But in my opinion, there's a reason that's even more compelling. The women participating in The Challenge have committed to developing the specific and durable skills that companies need to remain competitive. Committing to fair chance hiring isn't just about doing something good—it's about doing something that's good for business.
If you're a leader interested in taking the first step toward fair chance hiring, here are a few ways to get started.
Many of us in the corporate world, especially those of us in the C-Suite, get exposure to prison settings through television and movies, which can perpetuate stereotypes and sidestep the actual experiences of people who are incarcerated. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, who recently made a push for fair chance hiring in his State of the State address, shared how his understanding of people with records was shaped by years working in his family's seed business alongside Leonard 'Shorty' Steele, who had been incarcerated in Kentucky years earlier. Former Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield discovered this first-hand when, inspired by Stevenson's book, he visited a training program located in California's San Quentin State Prison and returned with more Slack employees. Since then, Slack has become a corporate leader in fair chance hiring through its Next Chapter partnership, which creates technology training and employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated workers.
The good news: employers who want to take this step don't have to do it alone. Organizations like the Second Chance Business Coalition, whose members are major U.S. employers, offers resources to support companies looking to reduce hiring barriers. They have a comprehensive list of partners around the country who can help employers connect with people in their regions. If distance puts an in-person connection out of reach for your company, my organization's Fair Chance Corporate Cohort offers specialized in-person and virtual trainings for companies interested in fair chance hiring.
As skills-based hiring strategies gain momentum, there are millions of people with records developing in-demand skills through training programs around the country. The skills-first movement often focuses on reducing or eliminating degree requirements for open jobs; Fair Chance Month is an ideal opportunity to also update the policies and practices that screen people with records out of the hiring process. With this approach, employers can significantly open up their talent pool and focus more on what applicants can bring to the job, instead of what credentials they've earned or what experiences have prevented their advancement.
A wide range of education and training opportunities exist within the nation's prisons: Organizations like Unlocked Labs, The Last Mile, and Persevere teach incarcerated learners digital skills, including coding and web development. Hope for Prisoners operates a 120,000-square-foot vocational complex inside the Nevada Department of Corrections that provides certifications in welding, truck driving, HVAC, plumbing, masonry, electrical, and warehouse logistics.
Opportunities like The Challenge in Colorado also emphasize the uniquely human skills that are increasingly needed in the age of automation. Sonya, a program graduate who is now released from prison, described learning how to work as a team, build and pitch a business plan, and prepare to talk about her training and work experience. 'I really enjoyed learning more about the different cognitive thought processes and how to better communicate with people,' she said. 'No other program during my tenure at LVCF offered the skills training and support that Breakthrough offers.'
Establishing fair chance hiring practices doesn't happen overnight—it involves relationship-building, outreach, and a lot of self-reflection about company values. At Jobs for the Future, I still remember all the questions and considerations that went into making our first incarcerated hire: were our systems set up to support them? Were there restrictions from the prison that would affect their ability to do the job?
But if the women I met in The Challenge program can take that big first step on their journey to rebuild their lives, we leaders can take the first step toward building our businesses by being a part of that journey. This Fair Chance Month, I encourage leaders to reach out, 'get proximate,' and explore the benefits of fair chance hiring for your company.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
11 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Have US citizens been caught up in Trump immigration crackdown? What poll found
Many Americans have concerns about President Donald Trump's nationwide crackdown on illegal immigration, according to new polling. In the latest YouGov survey, a majority of respondents said that U.S. citizens have been unjustly detained in immigration detention sites. Most respondents also described Trump's approach to immigration as too harsh and said they opposed the opening of 'Alligator Alcatraz.' The poll, conducted July 16-18, sampled 2,156 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of about 3 percentage points. About two-thirds of respondents said they believe many U.S. citizens (40%) or a few citizens (24%) have been wrongfully detained in immigration detention centers. Meanwhile, 18% said they believe no American citizens have been unfairly detained, and 18% said they were not sure. The results diverged widely based on partisan affiliation. The vast majority of Democrats, 92%, said at least some citizens had been caught in Trump's immigration dragnet. Sixty-five percent of independents and 35% of Republicans said the same. In recent months, news reports have highlighted several cases of American citizens being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. For example, Andrea Velez, a U.S. citizen, was detained by ICE in Los Angeles during immigration operations in June, according to NBC News. She said that while detained, she was not provided water for 24 hours. She was accused of interfering with an arrest, but her case was later dismissed. Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, previously acknowledged that ICE agents have detained some 'collaterals,' according to CBS News. A majority of respondents, 53%, also described Trump's approach to immigration policy as too harsh. Meanwhile, 36% said it was about right and 6% said it was too soft. Here, again, there were major differences across the political spectrum. Most Democrats and independents — 92% and 56%, respectively — said the president's tactics were too harsh, while 76% of Republicans said they were about right. Since taking office in January, Trump has made combating illegal immigration one of his administration's top priorities. He oversaw a dramatic reduction in southern border crossings, ramped up deportations and is planning to construct new migrant detention facilities. One such facility opened in Florida has been dubbed Alligator Alcatraz. Trump visited the newly built site — which can house up to 3,000 migrants — in July. In the poll, a majority of respondents, 53%, said they opposed the opening of Alligator Alcatraz. Meanwhile, 35% said they approved of it, and 12% said they were not sure. The overwhelming majority of Democrats, 86%, said they're against the site, while 68% of Republicans said they're in favor. Some detainees have described the Florida detention center as 'unlivable' due to unsanitary conditions, lack of food, constant lights and mosquitoes, according to NBC News. Trump officials have vehemently denied these claims. 'Nearly every single day, my office responds to media questions on FALSE allegations about Alligator Alcatraz,' Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. 'Here are the facts: Alligator Alcatraz does meet federal detention standards. All detainee facilities are clean. Any allegations of inhumane conditions are FALSE.'
CNBC
12 minutes ago
- CNBC
Student loan forgiveness remains unavailable under popular repayment plan
The Trump administration paused student loan forgiveness on a popular plan earlier this summer. It has not yet resumed the debt cancellation, and this week, lawmakers urged it to do so. The U.S. Department of Education said earlier this summer that it was pausing the loan discharge component on the Income Based Repayment, or IBR, plan. That freeze remains in place. It's a setback to families who have been expecting — and are legally entitled to — the aid, lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., wrote to Education Secretary Linda McMahon on Monday. "At a time when Americans across the country are struggling to meet the costs of health care, food, housing, child care and other basic needs, it is unacceptable for the Trump administration to take any action that delays or denies legally mandated debt relief," the lawmakers wrote. More from Personal Finance:Trump floats tariff 'rebate' for consumersStudent loan forgiveness may soon be taxed againStudent loan borrowers — how will the end of the SAVE plan impact you? Tell us There are currently 1.97 million federal student loan borrowers enrolled in IBR, according to higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz. Here's what borrowers should know about the plan's paused loan cancellation. IBR is one of the Education Department's income-driven repayment plans, also called IDRs. Congress created the first IDR plans in the 1990s with the goal of making student loan borrowers' bills more affordable. Historically, the plans cap people's monthly payments at a share of their discretionary income and cancel any remaining debt after a certain period, typically 20 years or 25 years. IBR will be one of only a few manageable repayment options left to millions of borrowers, after recent court actions and the passage by Congress of President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill." That legislation phases out several income-driven repayment plans. Under the terms of IBR, borrowers pay 10% of their discretionary income each month — and that share rises to 15% for certain borrowers with older loans. Debt forgiveness is supposed to come after 20 years or 25 years, depending on when you took out your loans. (Older loans are subject to the longer timeline.) The U.S. Department of Education told CNBC it paused loan forgiveness under IBR while it responds to recent court actions involving the Biden administration-era SAVE, or Saving on a Valuable Education, plan. The department said that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in February, which blocked the SAVE plan, had other impacts on student loan repayment. For example, under the rule involving SAVE, certain periods during which borrowers postponed their payments would count toward their forgiveness timeline. With SAVE blocked, borrowers no longer get credit during those forbearances. Ellen Keast, deputy press secretary at the Education Department, said in a late July statement that IBR discharges would resume "as soon as the Department is able to establish the correct payment count." The Department did not immediately respond to questions about why the pause continues. "The federal government does not move very quickly, but I would have expected some progress by now," said Kantrowitz. The hold on IBR discharges shouldn't impact student loan borrowers who are still years away from debt forgiveness, experts said. In fact, since IBR became available only in 2009, the soonest many borrowers could qualify for forgiveness would be 2034, Kantrowitz said. The current delay in debt erasure would most likely impact borrowers who'd previously been enrolled in another IDR plan — Income-Contingent Repayment, or ICR — and later switched to IBR. If you're pursuing debt forgiveness under IBR, your payments made under the plan (or another income-driven repayment plan) will still be bringing you closer to debt cancellation, as long as you are enrolled in IBR when you become entitled to that relief. If you expected your debt to be forgiven shortly, you should continue making payments, Kantrowitz said. You don't want to be flagged as late, and any overpayments should be refunded to you, he added.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the Trump administration could attack state laws it says stifle US economy
The Trump administration is hunting for state laws that drag down the US economy. But axing statutes it sees as problematic will depend on how it wields the Constitution's powerful Commerce Clause. Last Friday, the Justice Department and the National Economic Council announced a joint initiative to "address" state statutes that "significantly and adversely affect the national economy.' State regulations, policies, causes of action, and practices were also included as targets. The plan is meant to support the White House's deregulation agenda, which President Trump described in a series of separate executive orders issued in January, February, and April. Those orders emphasize the administration's goal of alleviating policies that it views as "unnecessary burdens" on Americans, small businesses, private enterprise, and entrepreneurship. In an unusual twist, the agencies also solicited help from US citizens, asking members of the public to point out economy-slowing state laws and to propose legal theories that could reverse the laws' adverse effects. "They're crowdsourcing their legal theories," said Emily Berman, a constitutional scholar with the University of Houston Law Center. However, the plan stopped short of explaining what theories the administration would rely on to undo suspected harmful state laws. Jeremy Rovinsky, a federal prosecutor who teaches constitutional law at Crestpoint University, said the language used in the DOJ's plan to attack state laws shows that the Trump administration has the Commerce Clause in mind. "It's clear that Trump's lawyers are thinking through it this way," Rovinsky said. "The Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to regulate state power in an almost unlimited way." But the Commerce Clause doesn't guarantee the administration power to alter state law. The provision vests power to regulate commerce in Congress, not in the executive branch. A more straightforward type of challenge, the lawyer said, is one where state law directly conflicts with federal statutes. In those cases, the Justice Department could raise preemption challenges under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Preemption challenges argue that a state rule essentially steps on the federal government's toes, Berman said. The Commerce Clause Absent such a clear-cut conflict, the administration would need more legal leverage to countermand state law. That leverage could come from the Commerce Clause, the constitutional scholar said, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. "Anything that regulates commerce falls within the scope of Congress's authority, which has been interpreted relatively broadly," Berman said. To tap into the federal government's authority over commerce, the administration would need to persuade lawmakers to pass new federal legislation invalidating state law. Ravinsky said he sees the DOJ's announcement as an opening salvo to persuade members of Congress. "I think the people that are in [Trump's] inner legal circle wrote that document the way they did, because they want to give Congress a heads up to have them codify what he's doing with executive actions into actual congressional legislation," Ravinsky said. Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve School of Law, said it's possible, but not certain, that pressure on Congress from either President Trump or others in the executive branch would lead to new, preemptive federal laws. "If the president says this is a big priority, then maybe a fair number of people in both the House and the Senate would go along with it," Entin said. "Now, whether there will be enough votes, that's a separate question," he added. "Congress does not legislate very much." "If Congress wants to move legislation against state laws that they say hurt the economy, they need 60 votes in the Senate," Entin said. "And the chances of getting 60 votes in the Senate for much of anything these days are pretty slim." The Supreme Court has largely upheld Congress' power over interstate commerce in a series of cases evaluating the Commerce Clause stretching back more than 80 years. In 1942, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Wickard v. Filburn that expanded the federal government's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. The case involved an Ohio farmer who grew more wheat than permitted under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The court rejected the farmer's argument that the federal government could not regulate his excess wheat supply under the act because it was grown for personal, rather than commercial, use. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the court reasoned that while a single farmer's excess crop may not substantially impact interstate commerce, the same actions, if taken in the aggregate by multiple farmers, could indeed influence the national market. Despite the Supreme Court's longstanding support for expansive application of the Commerce Clause, Entin suspects that even new federal legislation could fail to preempt certain state laws. States still retain their police powers, he said, and can exercise those powers as long as doing so doesn't interfere with interstate commerce. "It's not clear to me that Congress can use its commerce power to preempt the state's exercise of their police powers, even if state laws may, in fact, be unwise or even foolish," Entin said. The 'dormant' Commerce Clause Still another, and equally uncertain, path to challenge state laws could involve a judge-created theory known as the "Dormant Commerce Clause," the lawyers said. The concept further expands Congress' power over interstate and foreign commerce by limiting states' authority to regulate commerce even when Congress has not directly legislated on an issue. The theory is intended to prevent states from adopting discriminatory, protectionist laws that benefit local economies to the detriment of the national market. The theory was put to the test and shown to have limits in a recent case decided by the Supreme Court. In 2023, the court loosely upheld a California state law known as Proposition 12, which criminalized California sales of pork meat that came from pigs housed in pens measuring less than 24 square feet — 10 square feet larger than the industry standard. The Iowa Pork Producers Association and 23 states argued that the law discriminated against out-of-state pork producers, imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce. However, Berman said, Dormant Commerce Clause challenges to state rules have historically been brought by private litigants, not the federal government. "It's going to be a private business sector actor saying, 'Our business is being harmed ... we shouldn't have barriers to markets along state lines." Entin agreed that it would be unusual for the federal government to sue states over their regulations. Alternatively, he said, Congress could try to persuade states to change laws through conditional federal spending. The administration may not find support from the high court for pushing Congress' authority over commerce even further, Entin added. Conservatives on the court in recent years have expressed "real skepticism" about whether courts should be in the business of enforcing the Commerce Clause, he said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
