Boston hearing examines how criminal records affect employment and city hiring practices

The Boston City Council Committee on Labor, Workforce and Economic Development held a hearing Sept. 22 to examine how criminal records affect residents’ access to employment and what changes the City of Boston should make to background‑check practices for municipal hiring.

Councilor Benjamin Weber, chair of the committee, said the hearing combined two hearing orders — docket 0323, on the broader impact of criminal records on access to opportunity, and docket 1618, an emergency order about immediate reforms to background checks and offender screening for city hiring. Weber opened by warning members that the council cannot probe confidential personnel decisions and cited Section 17g of the city charter and MGL chapter 4, section 7 as limits on individual personnel inquiries.

The hearing put forward three consistent threads: (1) city administrators said existing background checks are applied according to job descriptions and legal requirements and are being reviewed; (2) returning‑citizen advocates urged more coordinated reentry supports, transitional employment and housing to reduce recidivism; and (3) labor and legal constraints, including collective‑bargaining obligations, limit how broadly the city can change screening practices without negotiation.

"We have an incredibly large and varied workforce," said Alex Lawrence, the city's chief people officer. "We have 18,000 employees of the City of Boston institution. That's 23,000 if you include our quasi agencies, and we hire hundreds of employees every year." Lawrence described the administration’s effort to standardize guidance across departments, to review job descriptions and to target background checks to positions that involve unsupervised contact with vulnerable populations or direct unsupervised interaction with the public.

Jose Maso, chief of human services, described the city’s Office of Returning Citizens (ORC) and the practical barriers people face after incarceration. "Every year, about 3,000 individuals return to Boston from incarceration," he said, and ORC provides case management, housing and employment assistance, and a database of CORI‑friendly employers. Maso told councilors the office has grown from two staff to 11 in four years and that it conducts job fairs and direct employer outreach to build pipelines into city and private‑sector work.

Several councilors pressed the administration about a widely reported municipal hire that the sponsors said involved a person classified as a level 3 sex‑offender registry registrant. Councilor Ed Flynn, a sponsor of docket 0323, pressed city staff on whether a CORI was run for the hire and said level 3 classifications pose a heightened risk. "Criminal records often harm access to resources and opportunities for those with prior convictions," Flynn said. He urged the city to consider a policy that would bar level 3 registry registrants from positions in certain departments (he named Recreation, Parks and Boston Centers for Youth & Families and Boston Public Schools as examples), though city staff said blanket prohibitions raise legal and bargaining issues and that the city is instead reviewing job descriptions to ensure the correct screening is required for roles that have unsupervised contact with vulnerable populations.

Lou, a senior advisor for labor representing city HR/legal interests, told the council that collective‑bargaining obligations affect how background checks can be used after hiring. He noted that about 91% of City of Boston employees are union‑represented and explained the difference between pre‑employment screenings and actions the city may take for existing employees. He recommended a targeted, case‑by‑case approach rather than a blanket policy to avoid disparate treatment and to respect due process and bargaining obligations.

Panelists explained how the two main background checks differ: CORI checks (state criminal history) are commonly applied for job functions that involve unsupervised contact with children, the elderly or disabled residents; SORI (sex‑offender registry) checks are applied where state law or job duties require it. City staff said they typically run CORI checks when they intend to hire or when a job’s classification explicitly requires it, rather than automatically for every posted position.

A second panel of advocates, service providers and community groups pressed for more investment in reentry supports. Aaron Manning, executive director of Project Place — which operates pre‑release programming and transitional employment — described a workforce pathway that starts behind the walls of correctional facilities and includes training, transitional employment and case management. He said transitional employment that allows returning residents to gain on‑the‑job experience in a supportive setting can make the difference between long‑term employment and a return to incarceration. "If they secure employment and they work for 30 days and they lose the job and they have a negative experience, their chances of recidivating are much higher than if they're successful when they return to that permanent employment," Manning said.

Advocates also emphasized practical barriers outside the hiring process: delays getting state identification or birth certificates, the need for stable housing and short windows of time after release when supports are most effective. Panelists suggested city‑level steps such as helping returning residents obtain identification, expanding access to transitional housing and coordinating targeted hiring pipelines with private employers and city departments.

Councilors raised possible next steps: asking the administration to complete a systematic review of city job descriptions and the types of checks they require; to consider standardized operating procedures for background checks; and to report back on data such as how many employees in City of Boston positions are hired through returning‑citizen pipelines. Sponsors also suggested potential policy changes, including a requirement that city employees notify human resources if arrested; city staff said there is no uniform, citywide automatic re‑screening process in place and that policies differ based on union contracts and job classifications.

No formal actions or votes were taken at the hearing. The committee heard that the administration is already reviewing job descriptions, strengthening centralized HR guidance and training managers on consistent processes; councilors and advocates asked for follow‑up reports and for the administration to continue outreach to community partners.

The hearing record and public testimony will be available through the committee. The chair closed the hearing by reiterating the council’s limits on probing confidential personnel matters and by asking staff to continue coordination with ORC and relevant departments. The committee adjourned at the close of the hearing.