Washtenaw County employment applications ask about felony convictions.

Mary King, coordinator of the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative of Washtenaw County, told commissioners how the MPRI is attempting to reduce the county’s high prisoner recidivism rate – a problem dating back several years. She also urged them to consider eliminating a question on the county’s employment forms that asks about an applicant’s felony history. Such questions can be barriers to employment, she said, and the biggest cause of parole failure is lack of a job.

Leaders of two county departments – Mary Jo Callan of the Office of Community Development, and Patricia Denig of Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS) – gave an update on how some of the county’s $22.69 million in federal stimulus funds are being spent. Those two departments alone have received $13.22 million for a wide range of programs, from job training to low-income housing.

Federal Stimulus Spending in Washtenaw

Mary Jo Callan, director of the joint county/city of Ann Arbor Office of Community Development, started with an overview of federal stimulus funds, noting that $321 million had been awarded to entities in Washtenaw County through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. About half of that has been awarded to the University of Michigan, she said. Washtenaw County government has received $22.69 million.

Thursday’s presentation focused on the $13.22 million received by the OCD and ETCS departments, in the categories of family support, community building and workforce development.

Stimulus: Funding for Family Support Services

Several programs have been funded by $1.067 million to support families, said Patricia Denig, interim executive director for ETCS. Of that, the largest amount –  $925,193 – was awarded through the Community Service Block Grant program. Funds have been used to hire additional ETCS staff, increase existing services – like the county’s emergency financial assistance programs and foster grandparent program – and expand efforts like the Washtenaw Literacy Coalition, the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing program, and microloans offered by the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development (CEED).

Senior nutrition services received $61,554 and has expanded the number of meals served by 20,000 to a total of 245,000 meals over 15 months, delivered to 2,200 people in the county. Delivery has been expanded to areas not served before, Denig said, and Saturday delivery was added.

The county’s emergency food assistance program received $17,000 in stimulus funding, Denig said. For this program, the county partners with the nonprofit Food Gatherers, which supplies local food pantries. The federal funding is helping provide emergency food for an additional 1,400 households annually.

Finally, the county received $46,285 for human services via the Community Development Block Grant program, which is administered by the Washtenaw Urban County. These funds were allocated in two ways, Denig said: 1) to Northfield Human Services to provide transportation for low-income residents, and 2) to the Fair Housing Center, which helps alleviate barriers for low-income residents and to advocate for those facing housing discrimination.

Stimulus: Funding for Programs to Strengthen Communities

Three programs in this category got a total of $7.578 million in federal stimulus funds, Callan told commissioners: weatherization, neighborhood stabilization and infrastructure projects.

Of that, the county’s weatherization program received $4.29 million, and 100 projects are in progress and another 70 applications have been approved. Though only about $1.8 million has been committed to projects at this point, the county has until the spring of 2012 to spend the funds, Callan said. The program has hired five new employees, trained six inspectors and has 12 contractors approved to do weatherization work.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) received $3.024 million to acquire foreclosed or abandoned houses. The county has worked primarily with Habitat for Humanity of Huron Valley and Community Housing Alternatives to buy 17 homes so far, Callan said. The NSP funds are also paying to demolish blighted properties in Ypsilanti – primarily in the Water Street area – and in Ypsilanti Township. And a portion of the money will be used to redevelop 144 units of rental housing at Parkview Apartments in Ypsilanti. [These funds are overseen by the Washtenaw Urban County – see Chronicle coverage: "Urban County Allocates Housing Funds"]

The remainder of the funding in this category – $262,282 – is being used for infrastructure improvements in low-income areas, including road work in Ypsilanti Township and sidewalk repair in Pittsfield Township.

Stimulus: Funding for Workforce Development

Washtenaw County received $4.578 million for workforce development programs to help dislocated workers and unemployed adults, as well as for a summer youth jobs program.

Denig said that whenever possible, the ETCS staff tries to enroll people in both the dislocated worker and adult worker programs, which received a combined $1.463 million in stimulus funding. Those funds helped pay for the training of 97 additional participants in the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) adult program, and an additional 189 people in the WIA program for dislocated workers – people who are transitioning to new careers after their jobs have been eliminated. These services are offered at the county’s Career Transition Center in downtown Ypsilanti, which opened last fall.

The summer youth jobs program received $1.957 million. Over 600 young people between the ages of 14-24 worked at 120 sites across the county, Denig said. The program’s goals include giving employment opportunities to youth that they might not otherwise have had, and to help develop good work habits, financial literacy and social skills. One of the program’s participants, Leslie Minor, was selected by the Michigan Works! agency as its Alumni of the Year, Denig said.

Stimulus: Challenges Faced

Callan concluded the presentation by saying they were very proud of their accomplishments and that they’d been good stewards of the money. But she also acknowledged how “extremely challenging” it has been to manage this stimulus funding. It’s an unprecedented national program that’s heavily scrutinized, and the funding comes with a lot of strings attached. Reporting requirements are very detailed – “some might say onerous,” she said – which entails considerable staff time.

Ramping up the programs is another challenge, Callan said, whether it’s hiring and training new staff for the weatherization program or finding employer partners for the summer youth jobs program. Another challenge is knowing that these are short-term dollars, she said, though demand for these services continues to grow.

One of the things that will have a lasting impact, Callan noted, is the paradigm change that’s happening between the Office of Community Development and ETCS. They’re working together to try to find the best way to provide the services they offer – it shouldn’t be the case that residents just get the services that are available from the office that they happen to enter, she said.

Callan cited weatherization as an example – those services are offered through both departments. Together, they’ve entered into a joint contract with the Clean Energy Coalition, a nonprofit that will provide training for contractors and subcontractors in energy efficiency and weatherization. Both departments will share the costs for CEC to develop the training curriculum, Callan said.

They’re committed to looking beyond departmental silos, Callan said. In general, the goal should be to collaborate and have a “permeable boundary,” within county government and throughout the community.

Stimulus: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Several commissioners had questions for Callan and Denig. Barbara Bergman asked whether there was any movement toward consolidation among nonprofits that the county worked with in the community, quipping “or is that a bad question that we’ll discuss in private?”

It’s a question that many people are asking, Callan said. Her office works with about 70 nonprofits, and those groups are trying to do things differently and collaborate more. But just like jurisdictional cooperation between local governments, it’s challenging. The Office of Community Development isn’t interested in supporting new nonprofits, she added, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t interested in new ideas and new approaches.

Responding to a question from Wes Prater, Callan clarified that the federal funding didn’t always align with the county’s own fiscal year, which runs from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31. They are rolling funds, with grants given over a minimum 15-month period. Verna McDaniel, the deputy administrator who’s been hired to replace retiring county administrator Bob Guenzel next month, said it was the county finance department’s job to account for the funds within the county’s budget.

Prater asked whether the new contractors being hired for these expanded programs are complying with the Davis Bacon Act, which requires that public works projects pay prevailing wages. It was important to have rigid enforcement of that, he said. Denig said they’ve recently hired a contractor who’s an expert in Davis Bacon, who’ll help with compliance issues. Aaron Kraft, who supervises the weatherization program, said that new contractors weren’t all familiar with Davis Bacon, so there’s been a learning curve.

Prater also asked how many of the contractors being hired are from Washtenaw County – it was important to him that those jobs stay local. Kraft said they’d get that information to him.

Mark Ouimet wanted to know whether the senior nutrition program included delivering meals to senior centers as well as the homebound. It did, Denig replied. Ouimet said that the program was important not just for the food, but for socialization as well.

Bergman asked about the senior nutrition program, too. She noted that federal and state funding for the Area Agency on Aging has been cut, and she worried about that vulnerable population. She wondered if it would be possible to use neighborhood providers for preparing meals, or whether that would run counter to public health code. Denig said the program achieves economies of scale by using one provider for food preparation, but that they can look at how to expand delivery services. The federal stimulus funds have allowed them to serve more people who’ve been on a wait list on the eastern side of the county, and to increase delivery in rural areas on the western side.

Jeff Irwin asked about a comment that Callan had made during her presentation about the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, and how it was sometimes difficult to acquire foreclosed houses because of competition from the private sector. He asked her to elaborate. The competition comes from buyers who are able to respond more quickly than the county can, she said, and who can pay more for the property. Using federal funds, the county can’t pay more than 1% below the appraised value – so the county must get an appraisal and funding together before moving forward. In contrast, some buyers can act quickly and are willing to pay cash.

Responding to a follow-up from Irwin, Callan said there are different types of buyers. Some are speculative, having faith that the market will turn. Others are acquiring the houses as rental properties. And to a lesser degree, some are actual homeowners making purchases. Irwin pointed out that on the positive side, it meant that there are people out there willing to invest.

He also asked Callan to clarify the difference between the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) and the Community Development Block Grants-Recovery (CDBG-R) program. NSP funds focus on foreclosure reclamation, Callan said, whether through demolition of blighted property or acquisition and rehab. The funds can be spent in a limited geographic region, designated by low-income population. CDBG-R is used for housing development, public instructure improvements, and to a limited degree, human services programs.

Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative

Mary King, coordinator of MPRI of Washtenaw County, began her presentation by noting that Michigan spends nearly $2 billion annually for its corrections systems. It costs $30,000 to incarcerate a prisoner for a year, and $45,000 if the prisoner is mentally or physically ill. [Similar information was discussed at a recent forum on MPRI at the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy. See Chronicle coverage: "Panel: MPRI Transforming State Corrections"]

Washtenaw County has the highest recidivism rate in Michigan, King told commissioners  – as high as 75%, depending on whether it’s calculated over two or three years. One of the biggest factors contributing to repeat offenses is a lack of employment, she said. It’s extremely difficult for parolees to find a job, especially in this economy – and given the fact that an increasing number of employers require background checks, no matter what the job.

Nationwide, 82% of employers now do background checks, King reported, and only 12.8% will hire someone with a felony conviction. It’s ironic, she said: The very thing that would make a community safer – finding employment for parolees – is the thing that’s most frequently denied. “You could make the case that we’re actually creating the very thing that we fear.”

Because it addresses this and other problems of transitioning from prison to the community, MPRI “is a crime reduction program,” King said.

The program begins when a prisoner is incarcerated, she said, but intensifies 60 days prior to their release and continues for six months following their return to their community. Services vary, depending on need, but include help in finding housing, transportation, clothing and other basic needs. Employment training and family counseling are also available. The nonprofit Catholic Social Services is the lead agency for MPRI locally, but its steering committee includes representatives from county law enforcement and corrections, faith-based groups and other nonprofits, and former prisoners.

About 350 people each year return to Washtenaw County from prison. Of those, 32% are from Ypsilanti Township, 25% from Ann Arbor, 19.5% from Ypsilanti, 8.5% from Superior Township, 2% from Pittsfield Township and the rest from other parts of the county. Those statistics are important, King said, because the program has made a commitment to help settle former prisoners back into the communities where they previously lived.

The local program is just in its third year, so there isn’t yet data on recidivism to show MPRI’s impact. King said that other sites in the state, which have been using MPRI for a longer period, are showing roughly 30% reductions in recidivism. The goal had been a 10% reduction, she said, so it’s “beyond people’s wildest expectations.”

With employment being a major challenge, King said the program offers “juicy” incentives for employers to hire former prisoners. Employers can “try out” a worker for eight weeks at no cost – MPRI acts as the employer-of-record and pays all wages. Up to $2,400 in tax credits are available for each new hire, she said, and employees are bonded for up to $25,000.

But the biggest barrier is the felony box on an application, King said – many employers automatically discard applicants who check “yes,” regardless of skills, work ethic, or experience. ”It puts everyone into the same box, which is if you have a felony, you’re not welcome here.” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits the rejection of all applicants with criminal records, but it happens all the time, she said.

King laid out several reasons for “banning the box.” People of color are arrested, convicted and sent to prison in disproportionate numbers, compared to the overall population, she said, and are at a disadvantage when they return to the community. The county could serve as a model for employers in other governments and the private sector – King pointed out that one of the board’s stated priorities is to “support programs which result in successful reintegration of persons who have come through the criminal justice system.” [Jason Smith, an intern with MPRI, elaborated on reasons to ban the box in an essay published by The Chronicle on Jan. 27, 2010.]

Background checks are also an issue, King said. While they should be used for certain sensitive jobs, it shouldn’t be an across-the-board practice. Often there are inaccuracies in the report, and applicants aren’t given a chance to see it or respond. If background checks are conducted and result in the applicant being denied a job, the applicant should at least be allowed to see the report and verify its accuracy, she said.

King said that MPRI is providing a template for a resolution that local governments can modify to address these issues. She encouraged commissioners to take action, saying it would level the playing field for former prisoners. In Michigan, Battle Creek was the first community to ban the box, and Kalamazoo has now done the same.

“We’re hoping that Washtenaw County might like to be third,” King said.

MPRI: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Leah Gunn recalled that the mayor of Battle Creek had come to the board and discussed that town’s experiences with eliminating the felony box. She said if it works there and in Kalamazoo, “I don’t know why it wouldn’t work here.” Former prisoners have served their time, she said, and the board should consider banning the box, especially if it helps reduce recidivism.

Barbara Bergman has previously raised the suggestion of banning the box. She commended King for getting “water from a rock,” noting that the state hadn’t kept all of its promises regarding MPRI. She said that although there should be exceptions – for example, for employees working with children – in general, eliminating the question about felony convictions is the “only humane and smart and money-saving thing to do.” The county should also require its contractors to do the same, she said.

Jeff Irwin said he wanted to get feedback from the county’s human resources staff, as well as department heads and other employees. It’s the board’s responsibility to float the idea within the organization, before acting on it. He commended King for making the suggestion, and said that reducing recidivism is key to dealing with the state’s criminal justice problem.

After King’s presentation, Diane Heidt – the county’s human resources director – told The Chronicle that currently, applicants aren’t eliminated from consideration if they’ve been convicted of a felony. And background checks aren’t conducted until after an offer has been extended, she said.

Typical felony box on an employment application.

The fact is, not many employers will. And that has an impact on the likelihood that former prisoners will find their way back into the corrections system.

In 2008, approximately 12,500 citizens returned from prison to the communities of Michigan. Within two years, nearly half of them will return to prison.

And research by the Justice Policy Center at The Urban Institute has shown that a principal factor in such high recidivism is a lack of employment opportunities. It is not a lack of adequate qualifications, but rather the social stigma surrounding a felony conviction that prevents many ex-prisoners from landing a job – and the lack of a job that leads them to offend again.

Social service programs can assist ex-offenders in finding housing, accessing mental/physical health treatment, and job-readiness training.

However, it is employers who must ultimately step up and give all qualified individuals a fair opportunity for jobs, if ex-prisoners are to have a fair chance to become stable providers for themselves and their families.

One way to ensure a fair shot is to prohibit discrimination based on criminal history – by banning that box on application forms that requires applicants to check it if they’ve been convicted of a crime.

In most cases, prison sentences are a way to repay a “debt to society.” But the stigma of a criminal conviction often follows a person long after that debt is supposed to have been settled and they have returned to the community.

Public Benefits

While steady employment can serve as a stabilizing force in the life of an ex-offender, prohibiting employment discrimination based on criminal history can also produce financial benefit for both the understanding, open-minded employer, and also for the public at large. Many businesses can receive tax credits for hiring individuals with a felony background, as they are considered a “target population” for unemployment reduction by the federal government.

Society benefits from a gainfully employed ex-offender, because the money spent to house an incarcerated citizen can be used for other programs, or to reduce the state’s budget deficit. The Michigan Department of Corrections annual budget is around $2 billion – that reflects an average annual cost per prisoner of more than $32,000.

What Other Communities Are Doing

To discourage employers from unfairly denying job opportunities to qualified people solely because of a past criminal conviction, many cities and counties throughout the U.S. have adopted ordinances or policies that require employers to eliminate the box on the application asking applicants to disclose past criminals records. A compilation by the National Employment Law Project shows that these cities/counties include Chicago, Ill.; San Francisco, Calif.; Boston, Mass.; and the County of Travis (Austin area, Texas).

In the case of Boston, the ordinance was later expanded from government jobs (with exceptions such as law enforcement), to more than 3,000 private vendors that do business with the city.

Here in Michigan, the city of Battle Creek adopted an ordinance in June 2008 that banned the box for its own hiring procedures. Battle Creek’s ordinance also requires a similar hiring practice of vendors who have contracts with the city.

And just this month, in January 2010, the city of Kalamazoo announced that it would no longer ask about prior criminal history on its applications for employment.

Locally, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has taken up the cause against apparent automatic exclusion of applicants for jobs at the Wal-Mart in Saline [December 2009 ACLU letter to Wal-Mart].

A Reasonable Hiring Process

Elimination of the criminal conviction box on job applications would not mean that employers would be forced to hire criminals. Rather, it gives people with criminal records the opportunity to explain their situation in an interview setting, while employers would still have the power to decide against hiring someone based on his/her qualifications.

The only difference between most prevailing practice and a more reasonable approach is that criminal background checks would be conducted after the applicant is determined to be otherwise qualified for the position, and after a pending offer of employment has been made.

If a background check is conducted and an applicant is found to have a criminal offense that is likely to interfere with that applicant’s abilities to carry out the responsibilities of the position, the employer would be entitled to rescind the employment offer.

The employer would then be required to inform the applicant of the denial of employment, provide him/her with a copy of the background report, and indicate to the applicant the specific parts of the report that concern the employer. This will give the job seeker the opportunity to present information rebutting the accuracy and/or relevance of the report, such as the changes he/she has made since the criminal conviction.

There are certain jobs that individuals with specific criminal convictions will not be able to hold. For example, some sexual offense convictions may prevent a person from working with vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, or the disabled. Thus, a list of jobs that – for safety reasons – require background checks prior to hiring should be excluded from the policy.

Outside of jobs on this list, however, it would be unacceptable for any business to deny employment “just because” an applicant has a felony record. If there is no reason to believe that the person is likely to re-offend in a manner that would hurt the business, or endanger the public, the prior felony should not factor into an employment decision.

What the City of Ann Arbor Can Do

The city of Ann Arbor’s employment application includes a box in the form of the question [emphasis added]:

Have you ever been convicted of a Felony or a Misdemeanor within the last 7 years? If yes, please state where, when and the nature of the offense(s), and the sentence(s) imposed by the court: NOTE: Conviction of a Felony or a Misdemeanor is not an automatic bar to employment (all circumstances will be considered).

A way to make sure that prior convictions are not a bar to employment – automatic or otherwise – would be for the city of Ann Arbor to follow the lead of our neighbors in Battle Creek and Kalamazoo by eliminating the prior conviction disclosure as a part of its pre-offer job application and to require its vendors to have similar policies in place.

Jason Smith, a master’s in social work student at the University of Michigan, works as an intern with the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative.

Larry Voigt, president of Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County, demonstrates the classic arms-folded posture of saying no. The job creation summit held last Friday was partly about getting people to say yes. (Photo by the writer)

Say yes to what?

They were there to say yes to the idea of economic development through creation of self-sustaining businesses that would employ former prisoners making the transition to society. The jobs creation summit was sponsored by MPRI – the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative.

The first part of the program, which ran through the morning, lunch and the early afternoon, was dedicated to hearing from four panelists representing three organizations in other parts of the country that have successfully launched a variety of businesses that employ former prisoners and substance abusers.

Then, after hearing pitches for close to a dozen different business ideas, participants winnowed them down to three basic concepts for small group focus: a building weatherization business, a green cleaning enterprise, and an urban farming venture.

The working summit was meant simply to kick things off in a directed way, said Mary King, who’s the community coordinator for Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative of Washtenaw County. The summit allowed some of the specific challenges to crystallize that are faced by business startups, especially those that say yes to the idea of employing former prisoners.

Models from Other Parts of the Country

Attendees of the jobs creation summit heard about three organizations with a successful track record of operating businesses that compete with other companies in the same market – moving companies, catering services, warehousing operations, and picture framing, among others.

TROSA

Ty Dexter, of Triangle Residential Options for Substance Abusers (TROSA) in Durham, N.C., led off the panel presentations, introducing himself as a 20-year abuser of crack cocaine while working in the finance industry. He’d come to TROSA in 2003, become a TROSA Scholar in 2005, and now works as the organizational development manager for the group.

Part of TROSA’s origin story includes the decision in 1994 by Durham County commissioners to lease the Old North Durham Elementary school to TROSA for $1 per year. As residents moved into the facility and began renovating it, they operated their first business, which had a contract to peel potatoes.

TROSA was founded by Kevin McDonald, whose background includes 12 years of experience at The Delancey Street Foundation, which was also represented on the panel.

Delancey Street Foundation

Introducing the history of The Delancey Street Foundation in San Francisco were Robert Davalos and James Dorne, two current residents of the organization’s residential facility. Each ticked off their resumé of incarceration with Davalos concluding: “I’m one of the guys you’re trying to help.”

Robert Davalos and James Dorne, residents of the Delancy Street Foundation in San Francisco. (Photo by the writer)

The origin of Delancey Street’s first business as related by Dorne stood in contrast to the approach taken by Friday’s summit.

Dorne said that once the residents hit on the idea of starting a moving company, they made up flyers: “Moving? We’ll do it for less.” And they proceeded to put flyers everywhere they could think of. But, said Dorne, “apparently, you can’t put flyers any place you want!”

When the first call came in with an inquiry, they took down all the information for the job, and told the customer they’d call him back. They used that information to get an estimate from an existing moving company, then returned the call with a bid – lower than the estimate they’d received.

After getting that job, and starting to accumulate other work as a moving company, Delancey Street got a knock on the door from the authorities. They discovered, said Dorne, that the moving industry is regulated. So there were some fines to be paid. But in the course of that encounter with regulation, they learned how to become a legitimate moving company. Delancey Street now operates the largest independent moving company in northern California.

Asked about the contrast between this “easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission” approach in Delancey Street’s origin story and the very much “by the book” path woven throughout Friday’s summit, Mary King, community coordinator for MPRI in Washtenaw County, acknowledged the difference. But, she said, “we could never get away with that. People would say, ‘Catholic Social Services, you know better than that!’”

[Every "site" within the statewide MPRI has an administrative agency, and for Washtenaw County, that agency is Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County.]

Pioneer Human Services

LoriAnn Larson, now a senior management associate with Pioneer Human Services in Seattle, introduced herself by recounting a professional trajectory that concluded with, “I was also a drug addict and an alcoholic. I was never incarcerated, but I should have been.”

LoriAnn Larson, of Pioneer Human Services in Seattle. (Photo by the writer)

Larson described how she now manages some of the same housing for Pioneer where she began her treatment for substance abuse working as a custodian. Among the businesses operated by Pioneer, she emphasized that the warehouse and distribution centers really required almost no skills – only a willingness to work. As one specific example of a distribution center project, she laid out how a component for Wii – the Zapper – had been discovered as defective, and needed to be individually unpacked for thousands of units to be tested. The several-step process of unpacking and testing was accomplished at a Pioneer warehouse and distribution center.

The Pitches

The proposals for actual businesses that might be started in Washtenaw County ranged from fairly vague concepts to going concerns that might be tweaked to integrate employment for ex-prisoners.

Amy Heath of Living Stones Community – a relatively new nonprofit that’s enjoyed its 501(c)3 designation for about a year – pitched the idea of a business based in urban agriculture. She cited the experience of Will Allen with Growing Power in Milwaukee who was awarded a 2008 MacArthur “genius grant.” Allen contends that per acre, an urban farm can generate $200,000 in revenue as contrasted with $20,000 for a conventional farm.

Following up by phone with Heath, she said that the gardening of LSC to date had consisted of individuals growing vegetables in plots at their homes and selling the produce at the Ypsilanti Farmer’s Market. The idea was to raise awareness of the nonprofit. The very long-range vision of a working farm in a rural setting where former prisoners could live and work had been replaced by the more feasible vision of working a smaller piece of land closer to an urban center and its transportation infrastructure. They’re looking at acquiring some land between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Participants indicated the business ideas they supported by placing green dots on poster paper. (Photo by the writer)

From its inception, the nonprofit has had a goal of creating a mechanism for former prisoners to re-enter society – an impetus provided by Heath’s own personal family experience with the Michigan Department of Corrections. The Living Stones Community is affiliated with the Free Methodist Church, in which Heath is an ordained elder.

In contrast to Living Stones Community, Neighborhood Senior Services was not conceived as a way to help former prisoners make the transition to society. Rather, its mission is focused on supporting seniors in ways that allow them to remain living in their own homes – for example, by building a wheelchair ramp to make a house accessible. But Barbara Penrod, president of NSS, was on hand Friday to pitch the idea of using the nonprofit as a platform from which to base prisoner re-entry support.

Rev. Kujenge Ashé described a nonprofit that was working on filing for its 501(c)3 status called Community Organizing for Abundant Life. He sketched out a COAL project that involves taking portraits of African American ministers in their churches and contributing the collection to the African American Museum in Detroit. Also in the mix was a computer repair/recycling business idea.

Faye Askew-King, program director with SOS Community Services, described a “healthy fast food” project, but allowed that SOS needed a business partner: “I’m a social worker, I don’t know anything about starting a business.”

Faye Askew-King, program director with SOS Community Services. (Photo by the writer)

Not all pitches included existing nonprofits or groups trying to form one. Mary Heinan, who drew on her 26 years of incarceration as inspiration for her business idea, described an environmentally-friendly cleaning business. It was conceived, she said, by reflecting on the blood-spill cleaning crews staffed by inmates. Inmates could volunteer for the crews, which required a couple days of training, and paid more than the average prison job. Another perk: inmates had the chance to go into other areas of the prison – wherever the biological material needed to be cleaned up.

Ora Wright, drawing on her experience being homeless, described a realty service focused on providing housing. Kathleen Russell pitched an idea based on Segways.

In all there were nearly a dozen different ideas that were floated. They were all written on giant poster-sized pieces of paper, and the segue into lunchtime was provided by “dot voting” on the ideas: participants placed their allocated green sticky dots next to the idea they were interested in working on.

Small Group Focus: Weatherization, Not Moving

The outcome of the dot voting narrowed the focus of the large group to four ideas: a building weatherization business, a green cleaning enterprise, an urban farming venture, and a moving business. Based on a show of hands, the moving business idea was dropped from further consideration in a smaller group.

That meant that University of Michigan business student Greg Boothroyd, who’d been interested in working on the moving company idea, needed to pick a different group. He wound up in the same place as The Chronicle for the smaller groups focused on one idea – the group focused on a weatherization business.

But why had Boothroyd been interested in the moving company idea? Following up by phone with him after the summit, he noted that all three of the panelists’ organizations had moving companies as a part of their business enterprise. And there was reason for that, he said. Part of it had to do with how simple and straightforward the business was, as well as the minimal amount of customer face-time required of workers.

Greg Boothroyd, (yellow tie) during the small group focused on a weatherization business, asked: "Who are the customers who will pay for this service?" (Photo by the writer)

In his assessment of the business ideas, Boothroyd wasn’t just drawing on his background as a business student. He completed an internship through UM’s Institute for Social Research at the W. J. Maxey Boys Training School, and worked for two years at Washtenaw County’s juvenile detention facility.

The group that was focused on weatherization as a business concept included Joe Summers, who’s vicar at the Episcopal Church of the Incarnation and Trenda Rusher, director of the county’s Employment Training and Community Services (ETCS) department. Both Summers and Rusher are part of the steering team for Washtenaw County’s MPRI site.

Rusher’s presence at that particular group was related in part to the fact that through ETCS she’s administering $4 million in federal stimulus money specifically designated to weatherize houses.

If nothing else, during the smaller group work on a weatherization business, some of the baked-in obstacles to such a business as a prisoner re-entry vehicle were identified. For one thing, the idea of ex-prisoners working in people’s homes was something that would need to be addressed from a homeowner’s perspective. Rev. Ashé suggested that the faith community might play a role of reassuring homeowners that they and their possessions would be safe. Another participant said that the name “Neighborhood Senior Services” was trusted among her peers, and that would help build confidence for customers. Barbara Penrod of NSS participated in the weatherization focus group, because her idea had been combined with one on weatherization.

Two of the panelists, James Dorne and LoriAnn Larson, also participated in the weatherization group, and offered differing perspectives on the need for disclosure about the workers’ backgrounds. Larson said that it was crucial to make clear to customers who they were – they always identified themselves as Pioneer Human Services and their mission statement was on the back of their business cards. Dorne, though, emphasized that while Delancey Street was well known for what it was and that they used the Delancey Street name, they did not try to make an extra point of emphasis that customers would be doing business with ex-prisoners.

The idea that the business enterprises needed to adhere to the social enterprise model was something that Boothroyd nudged the group towards on a couple of occasions during the discussion. As presented by Larson during the panel presentations, the components of that model are: the discipline of business, an entrepreneurial strategy, the compassion of social service, strategic planning, and a hand up, not a handout. It was the first of these components that Boothroyd called the group’s attention to: the business needed to be self-sustaining. It needed to be able to compete with existing businesses in the same market.

The group had perhaps too easily glossed over the part of the discussion meant to focus on a market analysis and potential competition.

The Challenge of Transitional Housing

In a follow-up phone conversation with Mary King on Monday, she said that of the three ideas discussed in small groups, the urban agriculture idea had the most momentum. That said, she also had a conference call scheduled for later Monday afternoon about the weatherization idea.

It was striking that the social enterprise businesses presented by the panelists were supported by organizations in each case that provided their wraparound support in a residential setting. Otherwise put, the housing requirement for the workers in the enterprise was already met.

King allowed that this was a significant difference in the “scattered” housing approach that MPRI uses. The local MPRI housing program, in place for about a year, includes renting some two-bedroom units from the nonprofit Avalon Housing as well as from some private landlords. But they can only provide a subsidized rent for six months, King said.

The scattered housing approach, King explained, was driven partly by resistance in the community to larger concentrations of ex-prisoner residents. This was something that all three panelists had acknowledged as an obstacle that had to be overcome. Larson, of Pioneer Human Services, said that in one case, Pioneer had to withdraw a plan for a housing project due to community opposition. In that case, the community had said no.

The Chronicle will try to track whether the marketplace eventually says yes to any of the businesses discussed at Friday’s summit.

Ed Pagani of Lumigen Inc. holds aloft a chemiluminescent compound that Russ Collins may or may not have been tempted to drink.

Ed Pagani could have gotten an award for best prop, if such an award were given at Morning Edition. Pagani, a former Pfizer executive who’s now general manager of Lumigen Inc. and chair of the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce board, was one of five speakers at Wednesday’s breakfast meeting, which drew about 200 people. The Chronicle didn’t hear a single one of them make a “Glow Blue” joke – even though his elixir did evoke the University of Michigan’s decommissioned nuclear reactor.

As is the drill at these monthly meetings, each speaker got five minutes to talk about their project or business. Wednesday’s topics ranged from the auto industry and Zipcars to downtown development and a local reentry program for former prisoners. Russ Collins, executive director of the Michigan Theater, was emcee. Here’s a brief recap:

David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.

David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research: Saying that people in Ann Arbor tend to be ignorant of the auto industry, Cole defended the domestic automakers. All auto manufacturers globally are struggling, he said, and the worldwide financial crisis has exacerbated their challenges, causing sales to fall to Depression-era levels.

Cole doubts we’ll see any of the domestics declare bankruptcy, since the cost of such a failure would be higher than the bridge loans provided by the federal government. A bankruptcy could push auto suppliers over a cliff, cascading job losses to a conservative estimate of 2.5 to 3 million, and perhaps as high as 5 million, he said.

The good news is that “times are not going to be bad forever,” Cole said. Labor costs are coming closer to parity between domestic and international automakers, and the problem of overcapacity – creating higher supply than demand – is being addressed. Eventually, pent-up demand will lead to profitability, he said. “The real issue is living to the future.”

Mary King, community coordinator for the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative of Washtenaw County: King described how this program aims to reduce the 76% recidivism rate for people released from prison who return to Washtenaw County. The ultimate aim, she said, is to reduce crime, but it’s also an economic issue – the state spends about $2 billion annually through the Department of Corrections. Locally, about 300 people are released each year, and the program begins by meeting with them 60 days before they’re released. MPRI does a needs assessment, finding out if they need housing (about 30% do), a job, training, transportation or other support. From that assessment, the program develops a plan for services that are provided for the critical 90 days after their release. (Additional, less intensive support is provided for 90 days after that.)

One of the events held for each person is a welcome home lunch with local law enforcement officials. That statement drew laughs from the audience, which prompted King to say, “You should see their faces when we tell them in prison that’s going to happen.”

King said one of the best ways to help is to offer jobs to MPRI’s clients, or to act as a job coach, and she urged businesses to consider doing that.

Ed Pagani, general manager of Lumigen Inc.: Though Lumigen is based in Southfield and owned by the much larger firm Beckman Coulter, Pagani has strong ties to Ann Arbor. In addition to his work with the chamber, he’s on the executive committee of Ann Arbor Spark and is former chairman of the trade group MichBio, based in Ann Arbor.

But his five minutes on Wednesday focused on giving an overview of Lumigen’s work. The company makes chemiluminescent compounds – “things that light up,” Pagani said, by way of explanation to an audience of mostly (one assumes) non-scientists. These compounds are used in life science research and testing for a wide range of medical issues, including fertility, diabetes, anemia, cardiovascular diseases and more. Lumigen has 40 employees and about $50 million in revenues, he said.

Nancy Shore, getDowntown program director: Following yesterday’s unveiling of four new Zipcars in downtown Ann Arbor, Shore gave an overview of the program and urged people to join. She said the car-share program eliminates some of the excuses she hears from downtown workers, who say they’d like to take a bike or bus to work, but that they sometimes need a car during the day. She highlighted some of the local businesses involved in the project, including the Betty Brigade, which has a contract to do regular cleaning of the fleet. “It is a sweet deal,” Shore said of the Zipcar program, “and it’s very affordable.”

Sandi Smith, Trillium Real Estate president and Ann Arbor City Council member: Smith mentioned that her real estate firm recently relocated to a building in Kerrytown’s Braun Court, but she spent most of her time talking about issues related to her work on city council and as a Downtown Development Association board member. That experience has caused her to see the city through a different lens, she said. Smith said that she stayed in Ann Arbor after graduating from UM, but young people aren’t as likely to do that these days. They’re looking for downtowns that are vibrant, diverse, with a certain critical mass of humanity, mass transit that works, music and the arts, with nearby recreation and natural resources. “We have the opportunity today to create such a place,” she said.

She urged people in the audience to voice their opinions about proposed zoning changes under the A2D2 initiative. Public comment sessions will be held on Monday, March 23 at 7 p.m. in the city council chambers (2nd floor of city hall, 100 N. Fifth Ave.), with others set for April 20 and May 4. She said she’s discovered during her five months on council that the same 20 or so people show up at all the meetings, and “most of them don’t want Ann Arbor to grow.” Call or email your council representative, Smith said. “We really need to hear what’s important for your businesses not just to survive, but thrive.”