IBJNews

City-County Council approves 'ban the box' proposal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis City-County Council passed an ordinance Monday night that bans the city and its contractors from asking job applicants about past criminal convictions.

The council voted 26-2 in favor of the ordinance, which likely will be signed by Mayor Greg Ballard, who has expressed support for the "ban-the-box" concept in the past. Republican councilors Aaron Freeman and Jason Holliday voted against the measure.

The ordinance says city and county agencies and their contractors cannot ask about prior convictions on job applications or in first-round interviews, unless the applicant offers the information voluntarily.

The new ordinance governs the hiring practices of the city and its contractors. Sponsor Vop Osili, a Democrat, had hoped it also would apply to any company receiving economic development incentives, but that language was removed from the final version.

The local rule would not affect background checks required by state or federal law or the hiring processes established by trade unions.

The city already has a history of hiring people with convictions. Helping people overcome their criminal past is a priority for Ballard, who established the Office of Re-entry.

Many companies and cities across the company have been rethinking their policies regarding hiring ex-offenders. The population of former inmates has swelled, in part because U.S. incarceration rates more than tripled from the mid-1980s to 2010. About one in 35 adults was imprisoned at the state, federal, or local level or was on probation or parole in 2012, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • ban it
    that box kills people like me. I collected a couple of felonies when I was 18, I'm now 36. these have haunted me ever since I acquired them. yea ok I made some really bad decisions when I was younger, but I havent been in any trouble since. how long should someone have to pay the price of not being able to get a decent job? in all actuality more strict and harsher punishments should be given to those felons that commit a crime at work where their felony past was looked over in the hiring process.
  • Background Checks Will Still Occur
    Jack, it's not a slippery slope. Any employer can, and should, still run a full background check, and the smart candidate will probably voluntarily bring up any significant prior conviction either in the first or second interivew. The ordinance simply prevents an employer from dismissing a candidate off-hand because of a prior conviction disclosed on an application.
  • Slippery Slope???
    Slippery slope??? hmmm? The slope favors who in this comment? Why would someone hire an individual that they have not given a background check to work on a job with them? It is public record! Ban the box will help reduce the rate of recidivism. I think it is only fair that a man or woman be given the right to speak about their history to an employer. Making mistakes can be the best teacher in the world!
  • Really?
    Really? Hired someone from Craig's List without a background check? Sorry he was ripped off, but who couldn't see that coming. Craig's List should be renamed Craig's Trash List.
  • Previous conviction
    slippery slope. One of our subcontractors hired an individual from Craigslist without a background check. The first night he broke into the project and stole the copper wiring. An arrest record as long as your arm.
    • Seems fair
      This seems fair. If an applicant is strong enough to make it past the first round, but a previous conviction is too concerning to make a job offer, it sounds like employers will be able to ask prior to 2nd round interviews or prior to making a job offer.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

    2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

    3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

    4. Exciting times in Carmel.

    5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

    ADVERTISEMENT