[RBBronson123]

Your experience notwithstanding, the data tell a very different story: in fact, those with records almost never get into trouble on the job. How do I know this? 1. There exists a federal bonding program that indemnifies companies that hire convicted felons when they're released. Over the course of more than 3 decades, fewer than 2 cases are filed annually. 2. SHRM (the Society for Human Resource Management, of which I am the Fair Chance Hiring Partner) conducts an annual survey with the Koch Foundation. Year after year they report that ~80% of all hiring managers believe the quality of hiring when hiring someone with a record is "as good as if not better" than hiring someone with no record. And, their retention is better. In HR, that's considered a homerun.

All mythology and ancient racism aside, businesses have come to realize more and more that hiring folks with records is not only the right thing to do, but it's very good business. QED

[onphonenow]

I find this almost impossible to believe. I know and org where someone did not check records, ended up hiring a sex offender. Of all the people THIS person DID do something wrong. They had tons of employees. They got screwed for not actively discriminating against folks with a record. Will the federal govt bond program you mention pay the multi-million dollar settlement they had to pay out. I doubt it. Livescan checks are absolutely required here in CA, and if you hire someone who has disqualifying events it's a major deal. I haven't looked into recidivism data, but got to believe there is some data to support these types of policies.