Update: Expansion of the LA County's background check

I previously discussed the proposal to expand the LA County's background checks to include a search of the FBI national database. Today, at the request of Supervisor Ridley-Thomas, the item was continued until August 4th. A little more information about the motive behind the proposal came out today during our side-bar discussion with the Supervisor Ridley-Thomas' office. And (surprise!) it was in response to the fiasco that was the negligent medical care provided at the MLK Hospital, as reported extensively by the LA Times.

In short, the proposed expansion of checking into the criminal history of current county employees and 3rd-party contractors working for the County is a response to the issue of preventing negligent medical care at a county hospital. How?

It only makes sense if we assume that the negligent medical care was delivered by people with criminal records. But you know it's just not true if you followed the story since 2004. What happened, however, is that the LA Times did another expose last year accusing the County of endangering public safety by hiring people with criminal history. Ever since, the blame for the negligence of the hospital has been retroactively shifted to County employees with criminal history. It's an old story, isn't it? If there's a problem that's too complicated for us to fix, find a scapegoat.

By the way, in 2007, the City of Los Angeles did a preliminary study to find out how much it'd cost to do an FBI background check for all new hires. $353,268.24. (I can't find this online any more, but the cite is: Report from the Personnel Department, Council File 06-1187, dated 3/28/2007, page 2.) This cost includes both the cost of the checks themselves and the cost of hiring additional staffing necessary to interpret the reports and to ensure their accuracy.

What if the County doesn't spend this money to check the accuracy of the records they receive? Then, given the US Attorney-General's own admission that 50% of records in the FBI dabatase are either incomplete or out-of-date, we are looking at a substantial number of people being denied employment due to an error. Even if we spend the money and hire people to vet these reports, we're looking at the possibility of adding weeks, if not months, of additional processing time to the hiring of minority candidates, as recently discussed in a NYTimes editorial.

So what's the likely bottomline impact of this proposal that will end up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars? Well, the County will fail to address the underlying problem of negligent medical care at its hospitals. And it will further disproportionately disadvantages minority candidates applying for jobs and promotions either directly or through 3rd-party contractors.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the little addition they snuck in there over the weekend about denying employment to people convicted of crimes of "moral turpitude." WTH?

Fear over reason, every time...?

Let's say that an employer kept in check her bias against people with criminal history and purposefully considered the 3-N's to make a reasonable decision whether to hire an applicant with an extensive criminal history. After careful consideration, the employer finds that, although a particular need justifies background check (say, because the position would require interaction with young children), the applicant's criminal history lacks the nexus to warrant denial of his employment.

For 15 years, the employee with a criminal history does a good job, obeys all laws, and is fully "rehabilitated" by any definition of that word. Not even a traffic ticket, as they say. One could even say that the employer's careful consideration 15 years ago has been proven right by the passage of time.

But what if someone else finds that the employee has a criminal history? The fifteen years of no recidivism is thrown out the window, and there is a public outcry of "We were so lucky that the criminal didn't hurt our children!"

It happened earlier this year in Los Angeles, when the LA Times' fear-mongering articles resulted in the massive firing of people with criminal records from the county hospital for no other reason than that they had decades-old convictions.

Today, St. Petersburg Times reports that a 60-year old man may lose his position on the board of a girls softball team because of the revelation that he had been convicted of crimes more than 15 years ago.

Les Miserables anyone?