Category: Types of Consequences

DC’s non-conviction sealing law is uniquely complex and restrictive

Last year, 20 states enacted reforms expanding access to expungement, record-sealing, and other forms of record relief. Many legislatures, including the District of Columbia Council, are considering reform proposals this session. Given the progressive steps taken by the District in the past year to expand opportunities for people with a criminal record to vote and obtain occupational licensing, we are optimistic that the Council will enact significant improvements to its lagging record-sealing law.

Compared to states across the country, DC’s record relief law is very prohibitive and unusually complex. First, its non-conviction sealing scheme is “one of the most restrictive” in the country (as we described it in our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records). Second, to seal a misdemeanor conviction, an 8-year waiting period must be satisfied (far longer than most states), and then a series of rules exclude individuals based on a long list of ineligible offenses and a variety of disqualifying prior and subsequent records. Finally, DC allows only a single specific felony conviction to be sealed,1 while 34 states allow a range of felonies to be sealed or expunged.

This post explains how DC’s law on sealing of non-conviction records in particular does not fare well in the national landscape.

Summary

Current DC law is out of step with national trends toward automatic and expedited sealing of non-conviction records at or shortly after disposition (approaches enacted last year in Kentucky and North Carolina, for example). It is also more complex and restrictive than analogous laws in almost every state in three primary areas:

  • The waiting period before a person may apply for sealing a non-conviction record is longer than in most states, and the effect that a prior or subsequent conviction has on extending the waiting period is unusually severe.
  • The provision ruling out sealing for a successfully completed deferred sentencing agreement based on the person’s other record is counterproductive and harsher than the norm.
  • The procedures and standards that apply in proceedings to seal a non-conviction record are more burdensome and restrictive than in any state, differing little from the procedures and standards that apply to sealing a conviction record.

Read more

“Certifying Second Chances”

This is the title of a provocative new article by Cara Suvall, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School, and Director of the Youth Opportunity Clinic.  The article, forthcoming in the Cardozo Law Review, catalogues and analyzes the costs and burdens that deter people from accessing certificates intended to enhance employment opportunities.  Professor Suvall focuses particular attention on certificate programs in Tennessee, Georgia, and New York, which vary widely in eligibility criteria, administration, and legal effect.  She highlights the learning, compliance, and psychological barriers that limit effectiveness of existing certificate programs, and describes proposals to lower those barriers.

Here is the abstract:

Policymakers around the country are grappling with how to provide a second chance to people with criminal records. These records create collateral consequences—invisible punishments that inhibit opportunity in all facets of a person’s life. Over the past seven years, states have repeatedly tried to legislate new paths for people trying to move on with their lives. State legislators passed more than 150 laws targeting collateral consequences in 2019 alone.

But what happens when these paths to second chances are littered with learning, compliance, and psychological costs? The people who most need these new opportunities may find that they are out of reach. A major problem, I argue, is the administrative burdens involved in accessing these remedies. Because of these hurdles, people with fewer resources—the population that would most benefit from the help—are the ones most likely to find these second chances out of reach. The Article closely examines one increasingly popular type of second-chance program: certificate laws that remove employment barriers.

Building on recent research identifying the low usage rates of petition-based second-chance programs, this Article catalogues and analyzes the costs and burdens placed on people attempting to access employment certificates. Of particular concern is not only these low usage rates themselves, but also the identity of those least likely to access these interventions. Second-chance programs like employment certificates that provide a way forward for people with greater resources while leaving behind those without may be more harmful than helpful when placed in the larger context of mass criminalization and social change, even if they help the small number of individuals who do access them. In contrast, a well-designed second-chance initiative that appropriately considers administrative burdens and the way that interventions like employment certificates fit in to the broader picture of social change could provide short-term benefits to people with criminal records while also bolstering larger-scale reforms to the criminal legal system.

Study measures gap between availability and delivery of “second chance” relief

Professor Colleen V. Chien of Santa Clara University has published a major empirical study in the Michigan Law Review that examines the gap between eligibility for and actual delivery of relief from contact with the criminal justice system, a construct she calls the “second chance gap.” (The term is defined with examples here.) Last week, Chien led a team of law students, researchers and data analysts from Santa Clara University in launching the Paper Prisons Initiative, a project that draws on her study’s methodology to estimate this gap for each state’s record relief laws.

During the current wave of criminal record reforms that began around 2013, every state legislature has taken steps to chip away at the negative effects of a record through authorizing or expanding expungement, sealing, and other forms of record relief. At the same time, it has become evident that bureaucratic and structural obstacles prevent many of these laws from achieving their full promise—particularly when they require a potential beneficiary to navigate a complex and burdensome judicial or administrative process.

Last June, Professors Sonja B. Starr and J.J. Prescott published the first broad-based empirical study of a state law limiting public access to criminal records, revealing that just 6.5% of those eligible for relief in Michigan successfully completed the application process within five years. This conclusion has given additional impetus to the movement to make record-sealing automatic: six states now authorize “clean slate” relief for a range of conviction records, 16 states do so for non-conviction records, and clean slate campaigns are underway in several additional states.

In “America’s Paper Prisons: The Second Chance Gap,”  Professor Chien provides a more general perspective on the gap between eligibility and delivery of second chance relief documented for Michigan by Starr and Prescott. In her article, Chien looks at three forms of relief from contact with the criminal justice system—record-clearing, restoration of voting rights, and shortening prison sentences. Based on her analysis, the paper concludes that in many cases only a small fraction of those eligible for relief (usually less than 10%) have received it. Most notably, she uses novel data collection and analysis to estimate that at least 20 to 30 million American adults have non-conviction records that appear to be clearable under existing law but that have not been cleared. In follow-up state-specific papers available on the Paper Prisons Initiative website, she and her team have estimated the second chance expungement gap in convictions relief for a number of states.

I.

The first part of “America’s Paper Prisons” explores the reasons for the “second chance gap”:

In the same way that the accused remain innocent until proven guilty in the U.S. criminal justice system, many second chance programs require defendants to “prove” that they deserve second chances before awarding them. As such, getting one’s second chance through petition-based processes may include enduring a bureaucratic process, amassing information through a variety of sources, and being evaluated by an adjudicative or administrative body. The high cost of doing so in many cases may be insurmountable.

Chien divides the barriers that contribute to the second chance gap into three categories: administrative barriers, like informational and transactional costs; structural barriers, like a requirement to pay court debt and participate in a formal court hearing; and substantive barriers, like perceptions that the costs of the process outweigh its benefits.[1]

II.

The second part of Chien’s paper estimates the second chance gap for an assortment of relief mechanisms, drawing on both original data collection and secondary sources. Chien uses two metrics: the “uptake gap,” which measures the share of individuals over time who are eligible and have not applied or not received relief; and the “current gap,” which looks at the share of individuals at the certain moment in time who are eligible but have not received relief. Her analysis shows, on a nearly uniform basis, that only a small percentage of eligible individuals obtain relief in petition-based programs.

The relief mechanisms she studies confer different benefits, are animated by differing policy objectives, and vary in eligibility criteria and administrative process. Still, a general pattern is clear across the following second chance gaps that Chien presents:

Read more

President Biden orders DOJ to facilitate voting for people in federal custody or under supervision

On election day in 2016, Crystal Mason, a Texas mother of three, cast a provisional ballot. She was unaware that Texas considered her ineligible to vote because she was on federal supervised release at the time. Six months later she was arrested. A year and a half later, she was convicted of voter fraud and sentenced to five years in prison. Mason, who is Black, believes that her prosecution was “politically and racially charged.” An appeals court upheld the conviction, ruling that whether Mason knew she was ineligible to vote was irrelevant to the case against her. She is pursuing further appeals.

At trial, one of Mason’s supervision officers, Ken Mays, testified that he had not informed her that she could not vote in Texas while on federal supervised release because it was not part of standard procedure: “That’s just not something we do.”

Now, a few years later, a new executive order issued by President Joe Biden will change standard procedure to require the notice Ms. Mason never received. The order also directs the Justice Department to facilitate voting for people in federal custody or on supervision who are eligible to vote in their state of residence.

In recent years, there has been growing attention to the racist origins of felony disenfranchisement, to its racially disparate effect, and to how restoration of voting rights strengthens our democracy. This past Sunday, March 7, 2021, was the 56th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” an infamous day when Alabama troopers violently beat civil rights marchers—including the late John Lewis, civil rights leader and longtime member of Congress—on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. While delivering an address to mark the occasion, President Biden announced that he had issued an Executive Order directing every federal agency to promote access to voting.

The Order includes an ambitious directive to the Attorney General to provide voter education materials to hundreds of thousands of individuals in federal custody, under federal supervision, or formerly incarcerated, and to facilitate voting for those who are eligible under state law. See Sec. 9 (“Ensuring Access to Voter Registration for Eligible Individuals in Federal Custody”). This represents “the first time the federal government has ever taken action to ensure justice-involved voters can participate equally in our democracy.”

As Crystal Mason’s case demonstrates, many people with a record lack clear information about their eligibility to vote, due to misinformation and the complexity of state laws and policies governing voting rights for people with a record. (CCRC documents and explains these laws and policies in our 50-state resources.) Further, eligible voters in jail and prison face practical challenges that often make registration and voting difficult or impossible.

Newly-confirmed Attorney General Merrick Garland will surely direct sufficient resources and expertise to implementing this directive. The result could be a radical expansion of voting education and access for millions of individuals with federal criminal records, with ripple effects benefiting tens of millions with state criminal records. Moreover, given the widespread racial disparities in the criminal justice system, this effort could significantly improve access to voting for Black communities and other communities of color, issues that Garland prioritized at his Senate confirmation hearing.

This article briefly outlines the state of the law governing loss and restoration of voting rights due to conviction. It then reviews the specifics of Biden’s directive, discussing its potential impact on four groups: (1) individuals in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; (2) individuals detained in jails under contracts with U.S. Marshal Service; (3) individuals under the supervision of the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services in the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts; and (4) formerly incarcerated individuals.

Read more

How states reduce jury diversity by excluding people with a record

https://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/reportthumbs/juries_reportcover_250w.pngLast month, the Prison Policy Initiative released a report called Rigging the Jury, showing how all 50 states reduce jury diversity by excluding some people because of their criminal record, in some cases permanently.

The report, which includes a map, table, and detailed appendix explaining each state’s policies, shows that:

  • 44 states bar people with felony convictions from jury service when they are no longer incarcerated. (By comparison, 30 states bar voting by those who are not incarcerated.)
  • 6 states go even further, barring people with some misdemeanor convictions from juries.
  • 7 states bar legally innocent people from juries if they are called to serve while charges are pending against them.

The report also explains how excluding people with records makes juries less diverse (e.g., one  in three Black men have felony convictions), why jury diversity is essential to the fairness of a trial, and what must be done to fix this unfair system.

https://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/reportthumbs/juries_reportcover_250w.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The full report is here.

Note: Our Restoration of Rights Project also provides state-by-state and 50-state information on loss and restoration of rights to serve on a jury due to a record. We updated and, in a few cases, corrected our data based on the PPI study – and thank its authors!  

 

 

 

 

Applying for SBA COVID-19 relief with a criminal record in 2021

Last Updated: September 9, 2021

In December 2020, Congress authorized additional COVID-19 financial relief for small businesses and nonprofits, available through the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA’s two primary programs for COVID-19 financial relief are the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which provides forgivable loans to small businesses and nonprofits to help keep their staff employed during the crisis; and the COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, which provides advances and loans to small businesses and nonprofits that experience a temporary loss of revenue due to COVID-19.

After the first COVID-19 relief bill, the CARES Act, funded these programs in March 2020, the SBA imposed broad criminal history restrictions on applicants. In the face of pressure, the administration relaxed those restrictions several times over the course of the following months.  In March 2021, the Biden Administration removed an additional restriction.  In this post, we review those developments and describe the SBA’s current criminal history policies, also available on the SBA’s website (PPP and EIDL).

To summarize, as a result of developments to date, the SBA now excludes from PPP relief only a narrow category of people with a criminal record: those 1) actually incarcerated or with pending felony charges; or 2) convicted, pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to, or commenced any form of parole or probation within the last 5 years for certain financial felonies. The category of those excluded from EIDL relief is broader: 1) anyone convicted of any felony within the past five years, and 2) anyone with any sort of pending criminal charges.

We conclude with a series of recommended changes to the laws governing SBA loans that affect people with a criminal record, and to related SBA regulations and policies.  These recommendations include consideration of how a loan applicant’s criminal record is treated in the rules and policies governing the SBA’s general lending programs under Section 7(a) and 7(b) of the Small Business Act, whose only mention of criminal record is to authorize the SBA to “verify the applicant’s criminal background, or lack thereof,” including through an FBI background check.

Read more

Study: Texas diversion provides dramatic benefits for people facing their first felony

Increased use of diversion is a key feature of America’s new age of criminal justice reform. Whether administered informally by prosecutors or under the auspices of courts, diversionary dispositions aim to resolve cases without a conviction—and in so doing, conserve scarce legal resources, provide supportive services, reduce recidivism, and provide defendants with a chance to avoid the lingering stigma of a conviction record.

Despite the growing popularity of diversion in this country and around the world, there has been little empirical study of its impacts on future behavior. Until now.

By conjecture, the opportunity to steer clear of a criminal conviction might affect future behavior in opposing ways. An optimist might expect that diversion would motivate a person to avoid returning to court in the future, while preserving the ability to hold lawful employment, especially in places where criminal background checks are used to screen applicants. A skeptic might argue that diversion represents a lesser punishment that could increase offending by reducing either a specific or general deterrence effect.

Without research showing the likelihood of one or the other outcome, policymakers, prosecutors, and judges have had to operate on untested assumptions, hoping for the best. This vacuum has now been filled by a new study of Texas’ court-managed diversion program by two economists, which should be welcome news for the optimists.

Read more

After a haul of record relief reforms in 2020, more states launch clean slate campaigns

Yesterday, the Clean Slate Initiative, a bipartisan national effort to automate the clearing of criminal records, announced four new state campaigns in Texas, New York, Oregon, and Delaware, joining ongoing campaigns in Louisiana, Connecticut, and North Carolina to advocate for automatic record relief legislation.

This announcement follows a productive year for record relief reforms in 2020, when Michigan became the sixth state to enact automatic relief for a range of conviction records, the most expansive such authority enacted to date. In total, 20 states enacted 35 bills and two ballot measures creating or expanding record relief (i.e. expungement, sealing, set-aside) last year. Michigan, along with three other states, also enacted major legislation expanding eligibility for petition-based conviction relief. Kentucky and North Carolina authorized the automatic sealing of many non-conviction records (with simplified petitions for others), consistent with a 2019 model law on non-conviction records developed by a group of practitioners under CCRC’s leadership. Other reforms addressed marijuana offenses, victims of human trafficking, juvenile records, and more.

Below we summarize 2020’s record relief reforms, broken down into six categories: general conviction relief (9 states, 14 laws), automatic conviction relief (4 states, 5 laws), non-conviction records (4 states, 4 laws), marijuana offenses (6 states, 5 laws, 2 ballot measures), offenses by victims of human trafficking (3 states, 3 bills), and juvenile records (5 states, 6 laws). Seven bills that were vetoed are described at the end. (Our full report on 2020 legislation is available here. Further detail about a particular jurisdiction’s record relief laws can be found in the CCRC Restoration of Rights Project, which includes both individual state profiles and 50-state comparison charts for conviction and non-conviction records.)

Read more

Illinois set to become fifth state to cover criminal record discrimination in its fair employment law

NOTE: Governor Pritzker signed S1480 into law on March 23.

In our recent report on criminal record reforms enacted in 2020, we noted that there were only four states that had fully incorporated criminal record into their fair employment law as a prohibited basis of discrimination. These states (New York, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and California) provide that employers can only disqualify a person based on their record if it meets a specific standard, such as being related to the work in question or posing an unreasonable risk to public safety. Illinois will become the fifth state to take this important step as soon as Governor Pritzker signs S1480.

Illinois has been working up to this, having amended its Human Rights Act in 2019 to prohibit employment discrimination based on “an arrest not leading to a conviction, a juvenile record, or criminal history record information ordered expunged, sealed, or impounded.” With S1480, Illinois has now taken the final step of incorporating criminal record fully into the law’s structure, which includes authorization to file a lawsuit in the event administrative enforcement is unsatisfactory. A preliminary analysis of the new Illinois law indicates that it now offers more protection for more people with a criminal record in the employment context than any state in the Nation other than California.

The provisions of the Illinois bill, enrolled and sent to the governor for signature on February 12, are described below.  We then compare them with the laws in the four other states that incorporate criminal record into their fair employment law. This post notes the handful of additional states that have fortified their record-related employment protections in recent years, then summarizes relevant reforms that were enacted in 2020.

Read more

CCRC proposes a reintegration agenda for the 117th Congress

The new Congress has an opportunity to make significant bipartisan progress on criminal justice reform, including reducing barriers to successful reintegration for people with a criminal record.1 This agenda recommends specific measures by which Congress can accomplish this.

During the wave of criminal record reform that began around 2013, every state legislature has taken some steps to chip away at the negative effects of a record, thereby supporting opportunities to earn a living, access public benefits, education, and housing, regain voting rights, and otherwise reintegrate into society.2 Many states have entirely remade their record relief systems—authorizing or expanding expungement, sealing, set-aside, certificates of relief, and/or deferred adjudication—and limited the consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment and licensing.3

Congress has belatedly become interested in the reintegration agenda, limiting background checks in federal employment and contracting in 2019, and removing some barriers to public benefits in 2020. However, many federal barriers remain, and individuals with federal records have no access to the kind of relief mechanisms now available in most states. Recent controversies over presidential pardoning offer an incentive to wean the federal justice system from its dependence upon presidential action for the sort of routine relief these mechanisms promise.

During the pandemic, the need to access opportunities and resources is perhaps unprecedented. We therefore urge Congress and the Biden Administration to take an ambitious and bipartisan approach to criminal record reforms in the four areas described below:

  • Record relief: authorize federal courts to expunge certain records, grant certificates of relief, and increase use of deferred adjudication; give effect to state relief in federal law; prohibit dissemination of certain records by background screeners and the FBI; provide relief from firearms dispossession.
  • Federal public benefits: end record-related restrictions in small business relief, SNAP and TANF benefits, and student financial aid.
  • Employment & licensing: establish enforceable standards for consideration of criminal record in federal employment and contracting, and limit record-based restrictions in federally-regulated occupations.
  • Voting rights: allow voting in federal elections unless a person is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution.

CCRC’s full federal agenda can be accessed here, and is reprinted below.

Read more

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 30