Author Archives: CCRC Staff

“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

“Public opinion and the politics of collateral consequence policies”

The title of this post is the title of an intriguing new academic article by Travis Johnston and Kevin H. Wozniak of the University of Massachusetts, Boston.  The two find “little evidence that any group of Americans would be mobilized to vote against a legislator who works to reform collateral consequence policies.” Here is the abstract:

We analyze data from a national sample of the U.S. population to assess public support for policies that deny former offenders’ access to job training programs, food stamps, and public housing. We find that Americans generally oppose benefit restrictions, though support for these policies is higher among Republicans and people with higher levels of racial resentment. We also find that a legislator’s criminal justice reform positions generally do not significantly affect voters’ evaluation of him or her, and even voters with more punitive attitudes toward collateral consequence policies support legislators who advance particular kinds of reform proposals. These findings provide little evidence that any group of Americans would be mobilized to vote against a legislator who works to reform collateral consequence policies. We discuss the implications of these findings for American and comparative studies of the politics of punishment.

A link to the article is here.

VIDEO: Governmental Barriers to Small Business Financing for People with a Criminal History

On November 18, the Georgetown Center for Business & Public Policy hosted an informative and provocative forum on “Understanding Governmental Barriers to Small Business Financing for People With a Criminal History.”

A video recording of the program is now available on YouTube.

This event marks the first public discussion of our organization’s new initiative aimed at illuminating and reducing barriers to small business financing based on criminal history. The panelists were Sekwan Merritt, owner of an electrical contracting business in Baltimore, David Schlussel of CCRC, Awesta Sarkash of the Small Business Majority, and Chris Pilkerton, a former SBA general counsel and acting SBA administrator.

Sekwan Merritt, who has built a thriving business and employs several people who also have a record, illuminated the challenges he faces as a justice-affected entrepreneur in gaining access to business capital. Merritt, a graduate of the Georgetown Pivot Program, was one of the plaintiffs in the litigation that led to the SBA’s rollback of its PPP restrictions after he was denied this emergency COVID-19 federal relief. He explained that because he is still on parole he is ineligible for the SBA’s general loan programs and that the kinds of questions asked on SBA application forms frequently deter people from even applying. Merritt also described the need for a holistic assessment as part of an overall credit evaluation, recognizing achievements such as educational attainment, rather than a frequently-disqualifying early inquiry into criminal record.

Read more

Forum on governmental barriers to small business financing for people with a criminal history

We are delighted to announce a program where a panel of experts will discuss the barriers faced by small business owners and managers with a criminal history in obtaining government-sponsored loans.

This virtual program will take place on November 18 from 12:00-1:15pm (EST), and is sponsored by the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy as part of its Georgetown on the Hill series. Register for the event here.

The program–which we helped organize along with Georgetown’s PIVOT Program–will focus on the broad criminal history restrictions in rules and policies of the U.S. Small Business Administration. These policies came to the public’s attention in the early days of the pandemic, when thousands of small businesses were denied PPP and other relief authorized by the CARES Act. While many of these restrictions were eventually rolled back in response to widespread criticism, similar restrictions in the SBA’s general lending programs remain, restrictions that influence state and private lending as well. The program on November 18 will explore the origins, scope, and justification for these restrictions.

Panelists include a former high-ranking SBA official, a small business owner who successfully challenged the PPP restrictions in court, a scholar who has argued that the SBA restrictions contravene civil rights law, and the CCRC’s Deputy Director David Schlussel, who contributed to the bipartisan campaign in the spring of 2020 that led the SBA to abandon many of its exclusionary policies.

We hope that everyone interested in collateral consequences, notably those related to access to business capital, will register for the program. The Georgetown announcement describing the program is reproduced below.

Read more

CCRC files congressional testimony on fair chance lending

The Collateral Consequences Resources Center submitted a statement for the record ahead of tomorrow’s hearing before the Subcommittee on Diversity & Inclusion of the House Committee on Financial Services: “Access Denied: Eliminating Barriers and Increasing Economic Opportunity for Justice-Involved Individuals.” The CCRC statement recommends that Congress conduct oversight on criminal history restrictions in federally sponsored small business lending policies, and facilitate access to these resources for small businesses owned by justice-impacted individuals.

CCRC’s statement describes some of its research about the the U.S. Small Business Association’s (SBA) criminal history policies and identifies the following concerns:

  • The SBA’s extensive criminal history restrictions are not provided by statute.
  • Many of the SBA’s criminal history restrictions are also not included in its published regulations.
  • The SBA’s criminal history restrictions are overbroad and lack specific justification.
  • The SBA’s criminal history restrictions have racially disparate impacts.

You can read the statement here.

“The Future of the President’s Pardon Power”

A blue textured circle overlaps a red circle with white and red text overlay that reads The Future of the President's Pardon Power, 2021 Clemency Panel Series

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center is pleased to announce a series of online panels on successive Tuesdays in September, starting on September 14, that will explore in depth the use of the pardon power by President Donald Trump, and how it both reflects recent trends in pardoning and is likely to influence pardoning in the future.

The first panel, on September 14, will discuss Trump’s abandonment of the bureaucratic tradition in pardoning and what this reveals both about his concept of office and about the nature of the constitutional power.  The second panel, on September 21, will consider whether Trump’s pardons may prompt much-needed reforms in sentencing law and practice.  The third panel, on September 28, will consider possible changes in how the pardon power is administered resulting from its idiosyncratic use by President Trump, and whether the Justice Department should remain responsible for advising the president in pardon matters.

Read more

Arizona enacts its very first sealing law – and it’s impressive!

In July 2021, in an unheralded action in the final days of its legislative session, Arizona enacted a law that authorized its courts for the first time to seal conviction records. See SB1294, enacting Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-911. The same law authorized sealing of uncharged arrests and dismissed and acquitted charges, also for the first time. Prior to this enactment, Arizona was one of a handful of states whose legislature had made no provision for limiting public access to conviction records, and was literally the only state in the country whose courts and records repository had no authority to seal non-conviction records. Now the state will have one of the broadest sealing laws in the country when it becomes effective on January 1, 2023.

(In the November 2020 election, Arizona voters approved a proposition to legalize marijuana, which included a provision for expungement of certain marijuana-related records.  But until now no general sealing authority had been enacted by the Arizona legislature.)

As described below, the law makes all but the most serious offenses eligible for sealing after completion of sentence (including payment of court debt) and a graduated waiting period.  It also appears that 1) multiple eligible convictions may be sealed, in a single proceeding or sequentially; 2) the prior conviction of a felony (even if ineligible) does not disqualify an eligible offense from relief but simply extends the applicable waiting period; 3) a conviction during the waiting period restarts the waiting period; and 4) there is no limit on the number of occasions on which sealing may be sought.

Read more

North Carolina court restores the vote to 56,000

Update: This decision was stayed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 3, 2021. As a result, the decision will not go into effect either until the appeal is resolved or further order of the court.

A three-judge state court in North Carolina has ruled that state’s felony disenfranchisement law unconstitutional as applied to individuals under supervision in the community, immediately restoring the vote to some 56,000 individuals. The decision means that in 24 states and the District of Columbia individuals convicted of felonies and serving a sentence in the community may vote.  North Carolina is the first southern state to restore the vote to convicted individuals upon release from prison.

As the New York Times noted in describing the court’s action, the ruling was “not entirely unexpected,” since “the same court had temporarily blocked enforcement of part of the law before the November general election, stating that most people who had completed their prison sentences could not be barred from voting if [the] only reason for their continued supervision was that they owed fines or court fees.”  See Community Success Initiative v. Moore, No. 19-cv-15941 (N.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 4, 2020).

While last year’s preliminary decision rested on the ground that requiring payment of court debt represented an poll tax, the challenge to North Carolina’s reenfranchisement scheme relied more broadly on its origins in intentional post-Civil War discrimination against Black people.  As the Times article noted, the decision “followed a trial that bared the history of the state’s disenfranchisement of Black people in sometimes shocking detail.”

The law struck down on Monday, which was enacted in 1877, extended disenfranchisement to people convicted of felonies in response to the 15th Amendment, which enshrined Black voting rights in the Constitution. But in the decade before that, local judges had reacted to the Civil War’s freeing of Black people by convicting them en masse and delivering public whippings, bringing them under a law denying the vote to anyone convicted of a crime for which whipping was a penalty.

A handful of Black legislators in the General Assembly tried to rescind the 1877 law in the early 1970s, but secured only procedural changes, such as a limit on the discretion of judges to prolong probation or court supervision.

The court has not yet released its opinion, and state officials may decide to appeal.

Reintegration reform returns to pre-pandemic levels in first half of 2021

This year is proving to be a landmark one for legislation restoring rights and opportunities to people with a criminal record, extending the remarkable era of “reintegration reform” that began around 2013. Just in the past six months, 30 states and the District of Columbia have enacted an extraordinary 101 new laws to mitigate collateral consequences. Six more bills await a governor’s signature.  It appears that legislative momentum in support of facilitating reintegration has returned to the pre-pandemic pace of 2019.

Overall, the past 30 months have produced an astonishing total of 361 laws aimed at neutralizing the adverse effect of a criminal record, plus more than a dozen additional executive actions and ballot initiatives.

Read more

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 36