Category: Criminal Records

“The High Cost of a Fresh Start”

The High Cost of a Fresh Start: New Report Examines Court Debt as a Barrier to Clearing a Conviction Record

Download the report: https://ccresourcecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Report-High-Cost-of-Fresh-Start.pdf

BOSTON – A new report from the National Consumer Law Center and the Collateral Consequences Resource Center explores the extent to which court debt—such as criminal fines, fees, costs, and restitution—is a barrier to record clearing that prevents poor and low-income people from getting a second chance. For the nearly one-third of adults in the U.S. with a record of arrest or conviction, their record is not simply part of their past but a continuing condition that impacts nearly every aspect of their life. Their record makes it hard to get a job and support a family, secure a place to live, contribute to the community, and participate fully in civic affairs.

“Criminal record clearing must not be reserved only for those who can easily pay for it,” said Margaret Love, executive director of CCRC. “States should ensure people are not being priced out of a chance at a fresh start.”

The High Cost of a Fresh Start: A State-by-State Analysis of Court Debt as a Bar to Record Clearing analyzes whether outstanding court debt bars record clearing under the laws of each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system. The report finds that in almost every jurisdiction, outstanding court debt is a barrier to record clearing, either rendering a person entirely ineligible or making it more difficult for them to qualify.

In recent years, most states have passed laws aimed at restoring economic opportunity, personal freedoms, and human dignity to millions of people by providing a path to clear their record. But for too many, this relief remains out of reach because of monetary barriers, including not only the cost of applying for record clearing but also requirements in many jurisdictions that applicants pay off debt incurred as part of the underlying criminal case before they can have their record cleared. This debt can include fees imposed for every month someone spends on probation or on GPS monitoring, and for their representation by a public defender—a fee that is levied only on people whom the court has deemed too poor to pay for their own defense. Interest and payment penalties can add to this court debt over time.

“The total amount of court debt can run to thousands of dollars for even minor infractions, which presents a high bar to clear,” said Ariel Nelson, staff attorney at NCLC. “Perversely, because a record makes it much harder to get a job, having an open record makes it harder to pay off court debt and therefore harder to qualify for record clearing.”

This burden falls especially heavily on Black and Brown communities, which are more likely to have high concentrations of both criminal records and poverty because of long-standing structural racism in criminal law enforcement and in the economy.

Based on their research, the authors offer the following recommendations:

  • Court debt should never be a barrier to record clearing.Qualification for record clearing should not be conditioned on payment of court debt, and outstanding court debt should not be a basis for denying relief, regardless of whether record clearing is petition-based or automatic.
  • Costs to apply for record clearing, including filing fees, should never be a barrier to record clearing. States should adopt automatic record-clearing processes that do not require individuals to incur costs to have their records cleared.
  • Jurisdictions should collect and report data on monetary barriers to record clearing.Jurisdictions where record clearing may be denied on the basis of outstanding court debt should collect and report data reflecting the impact of these barriers on record clearing.

Download the full report for report findings, recommendations, maps, graphics, and state-by-state analysis: https://bit.ly/lp-high-cost-of-a-fresh-start-22

The report’s appendix cointains a state-by-state analysis of the role played by outstanding court debt in qualifying for record clearing.  It may be separately downloaded at this link:  https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/criminal-justice/High-Cost-of-Fresh-Start-Appendix.pdf 

###

The nonprofit National Consumer Law Center® (NCLC®) works for economic justice for low-income and other disadvantaged people in the U.S. through policy analysis and advocacy, publications, litigation, and training.

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) works to restore rights and opportunities to people with a history of arrest or conviction through research and policy advocacy.

 

—

“From Reentry to Reintegration: Criminal Record Reforms in 2021”

At the beginning of each year since 2017, CCRC has issued a report on legislation enacted in the past year that is aimed at reducing the barriers faced by people with a criminal record in the workplace, at the ballot box, and in many other areas of daily life. These reports have documented the steady progress of what last year’s report characterized as “a full-fledged law reform movement” aimed at restoring rights and status to individuals who have successfully navigated the criminal law system. The legislative momentum, which slowed a bit during the first year of the pandemic, picked up again in 2021.

The title of this post introduces our annual report on new laws enacted during the past year, and emphasizes the continuum from reentry (for those who go to jail or prison) to the full restoration of rights and status represented by reintegration. Recent research indicates that most people with a conviction never have a second one, and that the likelihood of another conviction declines rapidly as more time passes. The goal of full reintegration is thus both an economic and moral imperative.

In the past year the bipartisan commitment to a reintegration agenda has seemed more than ever grounded in economic imperatives, as pandemic dislocations have brought home the need to support, train, and recruit workers who are essential to rebuilding the businesses that are the lifeblood of the economy. If there is any one thing that will end unwarranted discrimination against people with a criminal history, it is a recognition that it does not pay.

Our 2021 report highlights key developments in reintegration reforms from the past year. It documents that 40 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government enacted 151 legislative bills and took a number of additional executive actions to restore rights and opportunities to people with an arrest or conviction history. As in past years, a majority of these new laws involved individual record clearing: All told, an astonishing 36 states enacted 92 separate laws that revise, supplement or limit public access to individual criminal records to reduce or eliminate barriers to opportunity. Most of these laws established or expanded laws authorizing expungement, sealing, or set-aside of convictions or arrest records. Several states enacted judicial record clearing laws for the very first time, and a number of states authorized “clean slate” automatic clearing. Executive pardoning was revived in several states where it had been dormant for years.

Read more

A radical new approach to measuring recidivism risk

NOTE: This post has been updated as of 4/2 to incorporate additional research.

Researchers at the RAND Corporation have proposed a radical new approach to measuring recidivism risk that raises questions about decades of received truth about the prevalence of reoffending after people leave prison.  At least since the 1990s, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has measured risk of recidivism at the time of a person’s last interaction with the justice system, when the statistical cohort includes many who are frequent participants in the criminal system as well as those for whom it is a one-time affair.  As a result, employers and others tend to interpret background checks as overstating the risk posed by someone who in fact may have been living in the community for years without criminal incident, and is unlikely to become criminally involved again.

In Providing Another Chance: Resetting Recidivism Risk in Criminal Background Checks, Shawn Bushway and his RAND colleagues argue that risk should instead be measured at the time a background check is conducted, after an individual has had an opportunity to demonstrate their ability to reintegrate lawfully as well as their propensity to reoffend.  They label this the “reset principle,” and argue that this more individualized approach to risk assessment promises to improve the predictive value of criminal background checks.  In fact, they propose that it will “strengthen the case that people with convictions can, and usually do, change their ways.”

Coupled with other studies showing that the risk of recidivism depends on a variety of factors (e.g., age at time of offense), this new RAND study suggests that general “time to redemption” research should not be relied upon to predict future behavior of specific individuals.

Read more

CCRC’s First Newsletter

Dear Subscribers,

We write with an update on our continued work to promote public discussion of restoration of rights and opportunities for people with a record. Highlights from this year’s work are summarized below, including roundups of new legislation, case studies on barriers to expungement, policy recommendations, and a new “fair chance lending” project to reduce criminal history barriers to government-supported loans to small businesses. We thank you for your interest and invite your comments as our work progresses. Read more

Federal policies block loans to small business owners with a record

Starting a small business is increasingly recognized as a pathway to opportunity for individuals with an arrest or conviction history—particularly given the disadvantages they face in the labor market. An estimated 4% of small businesses in the United States have an owner with a conviction (1.5% have a felony conviction). Small businesses provide “a vital opportunity for those with a criminal record to contribute to society, to earn an honest profit, and to give back to others.” They also frequently employ people with a record and help reduce recidivism. A growing number of organizations and government programs are devoted to supporting individuals with a record in building their own businesses.

Yet many structural barriers remain, including a series of little-known federal regulations and policies that impose broad criminal history restrictions on access to government-sponsored business loans, notably by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).  A recent article illustrates the steep challenges faced by business owners with a record by telling the stories of several entrepreneurs who were either denied an SBA loan or were discouraged from even trying for one because of a dated felony conviction.  One of those entrepreneurs comments: “You might do five years, ten years, one year, but you pay for it until you’re in the grave.”

To illuminate and help reduce these barriers, our organization is working to develop a new “Fair Chance Lending” project. We hope to show that—rather than broadly exclude individuals with a criminal history—officials should draw record-based restrictions as narrowly as feasible, facilitate access to resources, and celebrate entrepreneurial efforts, consistent with growing national support for reintegration and fair chances in civil society.

Read more

Oregon’s expungement statute gets a much-needed overhaul

– Following George Floyd’s murder, NIKE and Metropolitan Public Defender, Oregon’s largest trial-level public defense service provider, became unlikely partners to improve Oregon’s expungement statute.

Oregon has allowed expungement of certain criminal records since 1972, but the law and process are so complicated and costly that only 5.5% of eligible residents ultimately obtain relief.  The statute is replete with exceptions, convictions block other convictions and non-convictions, the least serious convictions have a lengthy “look back” period of conviction-free conduct that regularly results in a 10-year waiting period, and non-person class B felonies have the longest waiting period in the nation (20 years). Even non-convictions are subject to the same 10-year look-back period as convictions, plus an additional three-year period of no other arrests, dismissals or acquittals.

The impact of Oregon’s dysfunctional system is felt most severely by its BIPOC community who are more likely to be arrested, charged and convicted.  Black Oregonians are almost four times as likely to have a criminal record as their white counterparts.  See Paperprisons.org.

Metropolitan Public Defender and NIKE’s pro bono group, frustrated by the complex law and process, were inspired by the Black Lives Matter protests following George Floyd’s murder.  They challenged themselves to create tangible change and co-wrote the proposal that became Senate Bill 397, with input from CCRC. Collaboration with prosecutors led to bipartisan support in the Oregon legislature (Senate 24-5, House 57-1) for the bill, which Governor Kate Brown is expected to sign. It will be effective January 1, 2022.

Read more

New Jersey puts “fair chance housing” on the national agenda

People with a record frequently experience challenges in obtaining or maintaining housing. For those who have been incarcerated, on supervision, charged, and/or arrested, the background check for rental applications can be a persistent obstacle. Lack of stable housing is a major roadblock to successful reintegration into the community or the pursuit of social and economic opportunities. It is therefore encouraging that states have begun to enact laws limiting record-based disqualifications in housing decisions.

On June 18, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law the Fair Chance in Housing Act, the most rigorous state legislation to date limiting consideration of criminal records in housing decisions. During a ceremony to commemorate Juneteenth, he described the new law as a step to “level what has been for too long an uneven playing field when it comes to access to housing,” explaining that it will bar landlords from asking about criminal history in most instances. The NAACP New Jersey State Conference, Latino Action Network, Fair Share Housing Center, and New Jersey Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism led organizational advocacy for the measure. Senator Troy Singleton, one of the bill’s primary sponsors, cited the “staggering amount of data on the national level that shows securing housing is one of the key barriers to reducing recidivism,” according to the New York Times. “This measure will allow those who have paid their debt to society to move forward with their lives in a productive manner.” Another sponsor, Assemblyman Benjie Wimberly, noted that “We’re fighting generational poverty, homelessness, and hopelessness through social justice reform measures such as this one.”

With New Jersey’s legislation—following on the heels of laws enacted in 2019 in Colorado, Illinois, and New York, legislation in D.C. in 2017, and a slew of local ordinances since 2016— “fair chance housing” has arrived on the national reintegration agenda. While many states have adopted reforms that limit the use of criminal records in employment and occupational licensing, until these recent developments housing does not appear to have been a priority for lawmakers, at least at the state level.

Read more

“The Mark of Policing: Race and Criminal Records”

This is the title of an important symposium piece by Eisha Jain published by the Stanford Law Review, in which she urges that “racial reckoning in policing” include consideration of the negative credentialing effect of arrest records. Using the sociological framework of “marking,” Jain shows how unjustified arrests “both magnify and conceal race-based discrimination.” She argues that “Reckoning with race in the criminal justice system requires recognizing that the problem is not just the police: It is with a legal regime that entrenches racial subordination through criminal records.”

The good news is that many of the criminal record reforms of the last several years provide for automatic or expedited expungement or sealing of non-conviction records. (See our 50-state chart on “Process for expunging or sealing non-convictions” and our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records recommending automatic expungement.) But the bad news is that even the laws streamlining the sealing of non-conviction records in two dozen states frequently fail to extend to records of uncharged arrests, which can linger in police files and repositories long after court records have been sealed. In the hands of police agencies, they may lead to further policing abuses. Disseminated through background checks and the internet they limit employment, housing, and other opportunities. When considering how to neutralize the effect of non-conviction records, jurisdictions must concern themselves with this neglected source of racial inequity.

Here is the abstract of Professor Jain’s article:

This Essay argues that racial reckoning in policing should include a racial reckoning in the use of criminal records. Arrests alone—regardless of whether they result in convictions—create criminal records. Yet because the literature on criminal records most often focuses on prisoner reentry and on the consequences of criminal conviction, it is easy to overlook the connections between policing decisions and collateral consequences. This Essay employs the sociological framework of marking to show how criminal records entrench racial inequality stemming from policing. The marking framework recognizes that the government creates a negative credential every time it creates a record of arrest as well as conviction. Such records, in turn, trigger cascading consequences for employment, housing, immigration, and a host of other areas. The credentialing process matters because it enables and conceals race-based discrimination, and because a focus on the formal sentence often renders this discrimination invisible. This Essay considers how adopting a credentialing framework offers a way to surface, and ultimately to address, how race-based policing leaves lasting marks on over-policed communities.

See the full essay here.

Second Chance Month: A Federal Reintegration Agenda

In 2017, Prison Fellowship declared April Second Chance Month for the first time. The designation has since gained support from Congress, the White House, state and local bodies, and nongovernmental organizations, as an opportunity to raise awareness about the collateral consequences of arrest or conviction along with the importance of providing second-chance opportunities for people with a record to reintegrate into society.

CCRC’s flagship resource, the Restoration of Rights Project provides 50-state resources detailing current law and practice for four types of second-chance remedies: (1) restoration of civil and firearms rights; (2) pardoning; (3) expungement, sealing, and other record relief; and (4) limits on consideration of criminal records in employment and occupational licensing. Our annual reports on new legislation document the astonishing pace of state reform action on these issue since 2013. We are proud to see these resources utilized by impacted individuals, attorneys, advocates, journalists, scholars, lawmakers, courts, and others to understand second-chance remedies, pursue relief, and bring about reforms.

President Biden’s Proclamation on Second Chance Month declares that the criminal justice system must offer “meaningful opportunities for redemption and rehabilitation”:

Every person leaving incarceration should have housing, the opportunity at a decent job, and health care. A person’s conviction history should not unfairly exclude them from employment, occupational licenses, access to credit, public benefits, or the right to vote. Certain criminal records should be expunged and sealed so people can overcome their past.

The President took an important step toward this goal when he directed federal agencies to facilitate voting for those in federal custody or under federal supervision.

During the wave of criminal record reform that began around 2013, every state legislature has taken 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. Many states have entirely remade their record relief systems—authorizing or expanding expungement, sealing, set-aside, certificates of relief, and/or diversion—and limited the consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment and licensing. State reforms continue to accelerate in 2021.

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.

In honor of Second Chance Month, we recommend that the Biden Administration work with Congress to pursue an ambitious and bipartisan legislative approach to criminal record reforms in the following four areas:

  • Record relief: Authorize federal courts to expunge certain records, grant certificates of relief, and increase use to deferred adjudication; give effect to state relief in federal law; prohibit dissemination of certain records by background screeners and the FBI; and, provide relief from firearms dispossession.
  • Federal public benefits: End record-related restrictions in financial assistance to small businesses, SNAP and TANF benefits, and student 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 regardless of a person’s criminal record unless currently incarcerated for a felony conviction.

Our full federal agenda details specific measures by which Congress can accomplish these goals.

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

1 2 3 4 … 20