San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim wants to make this question virtually obsolete on job applications in San Francisco: Have you been convicted of a crime?
Kim is proposing to expand the city's existing ban by having it include most private employers, publicly funded housing providers and city contractors.
Ten states and more than 50 cities have adopted some version of "ban the box," and a growing number of private employers are also jumping on board - earlier this year, Target announced it would strip the question from its applications. The federal government recommends that step as a best practice for all employers.
In a nation where an estimated 65 million people have a criminal history - 7 million in California alone - supporters see the proposal, dubbed the Fair Chance ordinance, as a win for not only former offenders but also society at large.
San Francisco has banned most city agencies from asking that hiring question since 2006. This year, the state of California did the same.
Movement began here
"This started in San Francisco," said Jesse Stout, policy director for the nonprofit Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, whose All of Us or None campaign has helped push "ban the box" laws across the country.
"Now that we've banned the box for public employment in so many places, we are back to fight to expand this to include private employment and public housing. ... If we want our communities to be safe, that requires everyone having a fair shot at the necessities of life like housing and employment."
The question still gets asked on applications for jobs, such as law enforcement, where a criminal history is relevant, and those potential employers are not barred from inquiring; they may simply reserve that question for later in the hiring process.
The latest San Francisco proposal will be introduced Tuesday by Kim, along with Supervisor Malia Cohen, whose districts are home to the highest number of former offenders in the city. Their offices have worked alongside business leaders for 11 months to craft the proposal.
Getting past mistakes
"There's a growing awareness that it makes no sense to keep people out of job opportunities just because of a mistake in their past," said Michelle Natividad Rodriguez, a staff attorney with the National Employment Law Project, which works for employment rights of lower-wage workers.
"Why do we want people with a record employed? It leads to a stronger economy, it helps public safety. ... People get disillusioned if they are turned down again and again for something they did 10 years ago," she said. "All the expectations around (rehabilitation) are that you need to get a job, make sure you support your family - of course people want to do that, but if they are not even given a chance to interview, how do you get there?"
A forgotten arrest
Donel Fuller, a Tenderloin resident, is wondering the same thing. Fuller was fired from a janitorial job this year after his employer discovered that he had failed to note a 1974 arrest for misdemeanor trespassing on his job application - even though he had noted his actual convictions, including felony welfare fraud.
"I was surprised when I got the call," said Fuller, a soft-spoken man. "I didn't even remember that (arrest). ... I put all the most recent things I remembered."
He has been looking for work ever since and believes his criminal past is the reason he can't find work. The criminal history question, said Mathew Martenyi, a former lawyer who spent three years in federal prison on a marijuana conviction, creates a conundrum for ex-offenders.
"If you are qualified for a job, and can do a job, you don't want to lie, but if you don't, there's no assurance you can get the job. What the ordinance is trying to do is say, 'Let's all be up front,' " said Martenyi, an organizer with All of Us or None. "We're not asking for anything other than to be judged by our skill set, experience and qualifications."
Employers who have hired former offenders say they are often the hardest-working, most honest employees.
"My first company was a parking business, and they were the best people I ever employed," said William Ortiz-Cartagena, who sits on the city's Small Business Commission. "It's funny, (valet) parking has a stigma, that something is always going to get stolen, and our reputation was immaculate. That made me feel good."
Ortiz-Cartagena knows both sides: He spent more than two years in federal prison on drug charges as a teenager but, after his release, got a chance from Joie de Vivre Hotels founderChip Conley. He started as a valet and worked his way up into management, then went on to found numerous businesses.
He was one of a number of business leaders who worked with Kim to ensure that her proposal wouldn't be too big of a burden on businesses.
Ordinance evolves
Kim said the ordinance has changed significantly from its original version because of that input. It now will only apply to those with 20 or more employees, it will allow businesses to conduct background checks after a live interview instead of after a conditional offer of employment, and it does not allow applicants to sue.
Ultimately, the legislation will allow applicants to at least explain their past and what they've done to overcome it, said Meredith Desautels, a staff attorney at the Lawyers'Committee for Civil Rights, which runs a monthly clinic in the Fillmore to assist people who have a criminal history find housing and jobs.
The rise of online applications has made that nearly impossible, she said.
"As soon as they check that box and hit 'next,' it says, 'Thanks, you won't be considered.' Back in the day, you could say, 'Let's discuss this,' but if it's online, there's no chance," she said. "Once there's a box on an application, it closes doors in ways that don't make sense."
Marisa Lagos is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: mlagos@sfchronicle.comTwitter: @mlagos
