Author Archives: CCRC Staff

Judicial Diversion and Deferred Adjudication: A National Survey

Last week we announced the forthcoming publication of a national report surveying various legal mechanisms for restoring rights and opportunities following arrest or conviction, a revision and updating of our 2020 report “The Many Roads to Reintegration.” The first post in the series (“Expungement, Sealing & Set-Aside of Convictions“), published on February 25, gives some additional background about the report. The second post in this “preview” series (“Fair Chance Employment & Occupational Licensure“) was published on February 26.  The third part (“Executive Pardon“) was published on February 28.

Today’s post concerns the role that court-managed diversionary dispositions play in reducing convictions and avoiding collateral consequences.  Since our first national report was published in 2018, many states have expanded the availability of these non-conviction dispositions, including for any defendant potentially eligible for a probationary sentence, and made record clearing more generally available.

We expect to publish the whole national report, plus our Reintegration Report Card for 2022, later this week.

Judicial Diversion and Deferred Adjudication: A National Survey

An increasingly desirable strategy for facilitating reintegration through avoiding collateral consequences is to divert individuals away from a conviction at the front end of a criminal case. Diversion in its various forms offers a less adversarial means of resolving an investigation or prosecution through compliance with agreed-upon community-based conditions leading to dismissal of charges and termination of the matter without conviction. Diversionary dispositions are described in the Model Penal Code: Sentencing as a way to “hold the individual accountable for criminal conduct when justice and public safety do not require that the individual be subjected to the stigma and collateral consequences associated with conviction.”[1] In this understanding, diversion functions as a mechanism for ensuring accountability and facilitating rehabilitation, rather than as retribution for its own sake.[2] The effectiveness of diversionary dispositions in furthering these goals has not been studied in depth, and they are not without their controversial aspects, but existing research suggests their promise.[3] Diversion may allow for a mutually-acceptable outcome for the prosecutor and defendant in cases where the extent of culpability is not clear, where a treatment intervention seems appropriate, or where the defendant otherwise fits within some category considered deserving of leniency (e.g., human trafficking victims, veterans, “youthful offenders”).

Read more

Executive Pardon: A National Survey

Last week we announced the forthcoming publication of a national report surveying various legal mechanisms for restoring rights and opportunities following arrest or conviction, a revision and updating of our 2020 report “The Many Roads to Reintegration.” The first post in the series (“Expungement, Sealing & Set-Aside of Convictions“), published on February 25, gives some additional background about the report. The second post in this “preview” series (“Fair Chance Employment & Occupational Licensure“) was published on February 26.

Today’s post concerns the role that executive pardon plays in supplementing and in some cases providing the only record relief following conviction. We expect to publish the whole national report, plus our Reintegration Report Card for 2022, later this week.

*******

Executive Pardon: A National Survey

Pardon has been described as the patriarch of restoration mechanisms, whose roots in America are directly traceable to the power of the English crown. Just as a power to pardon was assigned to the president in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the constitution of every state save two provides for an executive pardoning power.[1]  Both in theory and practice, pardon is the ultimate expression of forgiveness and reconciliation from the sovereign that secured the conviction.

For almost two centuries, executive pardon played a routine operational role in criminal justice systems throughout the United States, dispensing with or mitigating court-imposed punishments and, after a sentence had been served, restoring rights and status after conviction.

Nowadays, in many U.S. jurisdictions pardon is a shadow of its once-robust self, particularly in those where it is exercised without institutional restraint or encouragement. Since the 1980s, governors and presidents alike have been wary of exposing themselves to public criticism from an ill-advised grant.  In many jurisdictions pardoning has stopped being thought of as part of the chief executive’s job — though being labeled “soft on crime” seems thankfully no longer a political kiss of death. Still, it is not surprising that reformers tend to regard pardon with suspicion, dubious about its legitimate operational role in the modern justice system.

Yet pardon fills significant gaps in record relief schemes across the country, supplementing judicial record relief mechanisms like sealing and expungement. For example, in 20 states pardon offers the only way to regain firearms rights lost because of conviction, including California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. In 11 states ineligibility for jury service is permanent without a pardon, including Arkansas, Delaware, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. (By comparison, expungement restores firearms rights in only five states, and jury rights in only two.[2]) A pardon may be necessary to enable a person to stand for elected office, or to demonstrate the requisite good character to secure a professional or business license.

Read more

Fair Chance Employment and Occupational Licensure: A National Survey

Yesterday we announced the forthcoming publication of a national report surveying various legal mechanisms for restoring rights and opportunities following arrest or conviction, a revision and updating of our 2020 report “The Many Roads to Reintegration.” The first post in the series (“Expungement, Sealing & Set-Aside of Convictions“) gives some additional background about the report. This second post in this “preview” series deals with how the law regulates consideration of criminal history in employment and occupational licensing. We expect to publish the whole report, plus our Reintegration Report Card for 2022, early next week.

Fair Chance Employment & Occupational Licensing
Introduction

There is perhaps no more critical aspect of a reintegration agenda than removing the many unjustified and unjustifiable barriers faced by people with a criminal record in the workplace.[1] In an era of near-universal background checking and search engines, the “Mark of Cain” these individuals bear will sooner or later be known to potential employers and licensing boards even if criminal record information is not requested on an initial application.

Some barriers take the form of laws formally disqualifying people with certain types of convictions from certain types of jobs or licenses. More frequently, barriers result from informal discrimination grounded in an aversion to risk and, too frequently, racial stereotypes. Whether it is securing an entry level job, moving up to management responsibilities, or being certified in a skilled occupation, people with a criminal record are at a competitive disadvantage, if they are even allowed to compete. As between two individuals with hypothetically equal qualifications, it is easy for a risk-averse prospective employer or licensing agency to justify breaking the tie in favor of the person who has never been arrested.

Individualized record relief mechanisms like expungement or pardon are intended to improve employment opportunities, and they can be helpful on a case-by-case basis to those who are eligible and able to access them.[2] But equally important are fair employment and licensing laws that impose general standards limiting consideration of criminal record and provide for their enforcement, offering class-wide relief to all similarly situated individuals. States have enacted an impressive number of this sort of systemic “clean slate” law[3] just since 2015, some building on laws enacted in an earlier period of reform half a century ago in the 1960s and 1970s,[4] and others breaking new ground in regulating how employers and licensing agencies consider an applicant’s criminal record.

In employment, one of the most striking legislative trends in the past decade is the embrace of limits on inquiry into criminal history in the early stages of the hiring process, particularly for public employment. The so-called “ban-the-box” campaign that began modestly more than 20 years ago in Hawaii and took off nationwide after it was adopted in California, has now produced new laws or executive orders in more than two-thirds of the states and in over one hundred cities and counties. More efficient and broadly effective than after-the-fact lawsuits, ban-the-box laws now represent the primary tool for eliminating unwarranted record-based employment discrimination on a system-wide basis. They are premised on an expectation that getting to know applicants before learning about adverse information in their background is likely to lead to a fairer and more defensible hiring decision. This should be particularly true when a records check is permitted only after a conditional offer of employment has been made, so there is little doubt about the reason in the event of a later withdrawal.[5] A few states (though still too few) have coupled ban-the-box strategies with standards for considering a person’s record after inquiry is permitted.

Occupational licensing has also seen an acceleration of legislative efforts to limit the arbitrary rejection of qualified workers. Significant procedural and substantive reforms have been enacted in more than two thirds of the states in the last five years, in some cases building on reforms originally adopted in the 1970s, and in others following models recently proposed by policy advocacy organizations from across the political spectrum whose model laws aim to make licensing authorities newly accountable for their actions and individuals newly able to obtain and practice a skill with enhanced career prospects. Following these models, states have

  • substituted objective standards related to the specific occupation for vague “good moral character” criteria;
  • afforded individuals a preliminary decision about whether their record will be disqualifying before they invest in education or training;
  • prohibited consideration of certain records considered unrelated to job performance, including based on their minor or dated nature;
  • required licensing agencies to justify negative decisions, frequently in terms of public safety, and to afford disappointed applicants an opportunity to appeal;
  • imposed legislative oversight requirements to hold licensing agencies accountable for their performance.

As shown in the following discussion and in the “Report Card” maps that follow the section, almost every state now has at least some law aimed at limiting record-based discrimination in employment or licensure, and most have both. Enforcement of these new laws may in many cases depend on education and persuasion rather than on lawsuits and executive orders, but this may make systemic change come sooner and have a more lasting effect. The very exercise of repeatedly having to decide the relevance of an individual’s past conduct through a transparent and accountable process is likely to result in more reliable decision-making, and a better understanding of those relatively few instances when denial of opportunity is justifiable. We discuss the state of the law in greater detail in the following sections.

Read more

Expungement, Sealing & Set-Aside of Convictions: A National Survey

We are pleased to announce the forthcoming publication of a national survey of the various legal mechanisms that exist in each state to restore rights and opportunities after arrest or conviction. Titled “The Many Roads from Reentry to Reintegration,” the report revises and updates the survey CCRC originally published in the summer of 2020.  Like that earlier report, it includes grades for each state in nine different categories of relief, and an overall ranking of the states according to the efficacy of their combined restoration measures. Those who are familiar with the rankings in our 2020 report will find that since then many states have improved their position substantially (mostly at the higher end of the ranking scale, with several impressive exceptions) and many have not (mostly at its lower end).

We hope that this report will allow us to take stock of the extraordinary things that legislatures across the country have been able to accomplish in just the past 18 months, enacting a total of more than 250 separate laws to restore the franchise, clear criminal records, and ensure fair consideration in employment and licensing.  We expect to publish the entire new “Many Roads” report next week, along with a new version of our Reintegration Report Card that showcases the states that have made the most progress and suggests how each state may improve its ranking for the next report.

Today we are publishing an excerpt from the new “Many Roads” report on two of its nine categories: record clearing for felony and misdemeanor convictions. Each state is graded separately in the two categories, although the map that is included midway through this post combines them, as they are combined in the 50-state chart from the Restoration of Rights Project. Record clearing for non-conviction records is covered in a separate section, and will be published here in the next few days.

***********

Expungement, Sealing & Set-Aside of Convictions: A National Survey

Tens of millions of Americans have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.[1] This number has grown substantially in the last four decades as a result of the policies of “mass incarceration” and so-called “war on crime,” with disproportionate impacts on Black and Brown people.[2] The vast network of collateral consequences that can flow from a conviction in the modern era has been described as a new form of “civil death.”[3] In addition to formal consequences imposed by law and rule, widespread dissemination of criminal records online and in background checks operates as a form of continuing “digital punishment.”[4]  In recent years collateral consequences of a less formal variety have extended even to mere arrest records not followed by conviction.[5] The American way of dealing with a person’s criminal history is unburdened with the considerations of privacy, utility, and basic fairness that have shaped European systems.[6]

Read more

Waiting for Relief: A National Survey of Waiting Periods for Record Clearing

Our new report is the first-ever comprehensive national survey of the period of time a person, who is otherwise eligible to expunge or seal a misdemeanor or felony conviction record, must wait before obtaining this relief. Waiting periods are usually established by statute and can range from 0 to 20 years. Typically, during a waiting period the person must be free from certain forms of involvement with the justice system: from a felony conviction, from any conviction, or from any arrest, again depending on state law. These and other conditions and circumstances may extend (or occasionally shorten) the length of a waiting period in specific cases.

Waiting for Relief: A National Survey of Waiting Periods for Record Clearing 

The waiting periods for misdemeanor convictions range from a high of 10 or 15 years in Maryland (depending on the nature of the offense) to 0 years in Mississippi (although only first-time offenses are eligible), with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 44 states that authorize clearing of misdemeanor convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 3 years or less (19 states) and the vast majority have waiting periods of 5 years or less (35 states).

The waiting periods for felony convictions range from as high as 10 or 20 years in North Carolina to as low as 0-2 years in California, with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 35 states that authorize clearing of felony convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 7 years or less (17 states).

Many waiting periods, notably longer ones, reflect a concept of record clearing via expungement or sealing as “recognition of successful rehabilitation and reason to terminate legal disqualifications and disabilities.”[1] In recent years, however, many states have shortened waiting periods in recognition of the constructive role that record clearance plays in facilitating reentry and rehabilitation, reasoning that individuals “need the most assistance immediately after release from prison or termination of sentence.”[2] The seven (7) states that have enacted a general conviction sealing authority for the first time since 2018 have generally (though not invariably) provided shorter waiting periods than states with more venerable systems.[3]

Read more

“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.

 

—

CCRC seeks intern to assist with Restoration of Rights Project

The CCRC is seeking an Intern to assist its legal staff in maintaining the Restoration of Rights Project. The RRP is a collection of laws and policies in each U.S. jurisdiction relating to restoration of rights and status following arrest or conviction.

The RRP Intern’s primary duties would include tracking relevant legislative bills and collecting and summarizing new enactments, for analysis and entry into the RRP by CCRC legal staff. The RRP Intern may also have an opportunity to work on other issues, including keeping the practice resources on the CCRC website up to date and drafting short pieces for website publication. Duties and responsibilities will vary depending upon the interests and abilities of the incumbent.

The responsibilities of the position are more fully described here.

The RRP Intern position will be part-time, with hours and compensation negotiable. The Intern will work directly with the CCRC Executive Director, and it would be a suitable position either for a college student interested in the law or for a law student.

Qualifications:
• Interest in criminal law issues generally, with specific interest in policies related to the consequences of arrest or conviction.
• Research and writing ability, with a premium on attention to detail, thoroughness, and curiosity. Familiarity with criminal law and with the legislative process desirable.
• Microsoft Office skills, including Outlook, and experience in internet research. Experience with WordPress programs desirable.

TO APPLY: Submit the following materials to CCRC Executive Director Margaret Love at margaretlove@pardonlaw.com.
• Letter of interest
• Resume
• Writing sample

 

CFPB documents the financial burdens imposed on justice-involved individuals

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has just issued an extraordinary new report on the financial challenges faced by justice-involved individuals in navigating each stage of the criminal justice system. The report, which describes itself as “the first of its kind done by the CFPB,” paints a devastating picture of how the criminal law enforcement system conspires at every step to exacerbate the financially precarious situation in which many entering the justice system already find themselves.

“Justice-Involved Individuals and the Consumer Financial Marketplace” documents in clear and compelling prose how the financial products and services marketed to individuals and families entangled in the criminal justice system “too often contain exploitative terms and features, offer little or no consumer choice, and can have long-term negative consequences for the individuals and families affected.” What the CFPB researchers found “raises serious questions about the transparency, fairness, and availability of consumer choice in markets associated with the justice system, as well as demonstrating the pervasive reach of predatory practices targeted at justice-involved individuals.”

Read more

When banks ask loan applicants about their arrest record

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition reports that its evaluation of small business loan applications from a sample of seven banks in Washington, DC revealed that “some lenders discriminate against applicants who have been charged at any time in their lives with a criminal offense.”  A comment on the NCRC website proposes that these banks consider applicants to be “a lending risk for having been ‘ever charged’ with any crime, other than a minor vehicle violation, no matter when it occurred.”  It goes on to argue that “[t]his practice is not only factually suspect, it is discriminatory.”  The comment, written by Anneliese Lederer, the NCRC’s Director of Fair Lending, was subsequently republished in The American Banker. 

The NCRC findings demonstrate that even interactions with the criminal justice system that do not result in a conviction record can have “lasting implications:”

It is known that having a criminal record is a barrier to both housing and employment. There are few protections for people with a criminal record.

But what about for people who have been charged and found not guilty, or their charges were dropped? What barriers do they face? Unfortunately, they face similar barriers as people who have a criminal record, especially in the small business lending arena.

Citing CCRC’s analyses of lending policies of the Small Business Administration, the NCRC comment highlights how these policies have given banks cover for their discriminatory practices:

Small business loans administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA) have broad criminal history restrictions. Analysis conducted by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) found that no statute requires criminal history to be used as a factor in determining creditworthiness. Instead, the Small Business Act uses the words “may verify the applicant’s criminal background.” Furthermore, many restrictions that the US Small Business Administration (SBA) implements on interactions with the justice system are not codified. These restrictions are “either unannounced or only disclosed through FAQs published on the agency’s website…..[or] through policy statements and application forms.”

Read more

Reintegration Champion Awards for 2021

Based on our annual report on 2021 criminal record reforms, the bipartisan commitment to a reintegration agenda keeps getting stronger. A majority of the 151 new laws enacted last year authorize courts to clear criminal records, in some states for the very first time, and several states enacted “clean slate” automatic record clearing.  Other new laws restore voting and other civil rights lost as a result of conviction, and still others limit how criminal record is considered by employers, occupational licensing agencies, and landlords.  (The report includes specific citations to each of the new laws, and they are analyzed in the larger context of each state’s reintegration scheme in our Restoration of Rights Project.)

Again this year we have published a Report Card recognizing the most (and least) productive legislatures in the past year. While more than a dozen states enacted noteworthy laws in 2021, two states stand out for the quantity and quality of their lawmaking:  Arizona and Connecticut share our 2021 Reintegration Champion award for their passage of three or more major pieces of record reform legislation.

  • Arizona – The state enacted eight new laws, including a broad new record clearing law, two laws improving its occupational licensing scheme, and a judicial “second chance” certificate. Arizona also repealed a law authorizing suspension of driver’s licenses for failure to pay and authorized its courts to redesignate some felonies as misdemeanors.
  • Connecticut – Enacted a major automatic record clearing scheme, restored the right to vote and hold office upon release from prison, provided for record clearing in connection with marijuana legalization, and broadened expungement for victims of human trafficking.

Another eight states and the District of Columbia earned Honorable Mention for their enactment of at least one major new law: Read more

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 36