Author Archives: Margaret Love

Margaret Love

Margaret Love is CCRC's Executive Director. A former U.S. Pardon Attorney, she represents applicants for executive clemency in her private practice in Washington, D.C.. She is lead co-author of Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction: Law, Policy, and Practice (4th ed. 2021), and served as an advisor to the ALI Model Penal Code: Sentencing.

Visit Author's Website
View All Posts

SBA finalizes rule limiting consideration of criminal history in loan programs

Today, the Small Business Administration’s rule removing most criminal history restrictions in its federally guaranteed loan programs will be published in final form. This marks an important step in opening additional sources of business capital to justice-impacted entrepreneurs, and a boon to developing communities that thrive on the success of their small businesses.

The final rule makes few changes from the version published last fall for comment, which proposed removing most criminal history restrictions from the SBA’s business and disaster loan programs. The proposed rule is described in this post. The only substantive difference in the final rule is that business owners under indictment, along with those actually incarcerated, will remain ineligible for federally guaranteed loans.

The SBA noted that of the 19 comments received on the proposed rule, almost all were favorable. It also pointed out, as it did last fall, that there is no data indicating an enhanced risk of default from this population of entrepreneurs. At the same time, the SBA comments that even though it will no longer be conducting extensive criminal records checks on loan applicants, lenders may continue to do so.

In describing the background of the now-final rule, the SBA cites some eye-catching statistics iindicating that in recent years it has been giving lenders the green light on hundreds of loan applications from business owners with a felony record, while disapproving only a handful. These statistics, which are consistent with the SBA’s responses to FOIA requests with which CCRC is familiar, would seem to indicate that the SBA has available to it data that could shed light on actual risk through default rates.  We look forward to learning more about this data, which could give banks additional incentives to make loans to hustice-impacted entrepreneurs.

We have recently attended several programs sponsored by the Treasury Department and its agencies in which the issues raised by “fair chance lending” have been explored, and we expect to be continuing that conversation in weeks to come.

 

SBA proposes to remove criminal record restrictions in loan programs

On September 15, the SBA published for comment a series of rule changes eliminating criminal record restrictions in all of its various federally guaranteed business and disaster loan programs, including rules making business owners ineligible for loans if they are on parole or probation or under indictment.  Application forms and procedures will no longer inquire about a business owner’s criminal history, with one exception: Owners and principal employees who are “actually incarcerated” will remain ineligible. Comments on the proposed rule must be filed by November 14, 2023.

The proposed new rule follows the agency’s removal last spring of “character” as a loan criterion in the 7(a) and 504 programs, and its amendment of the applicable Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to eliminate the “character determination” through which business owners with a felony record had been denied access to federally guaranteed loans.  These earlier changes were described in our post of September 7.

The comments accompanying the proposed rule revision explain that it is “narrowly tailored to reduce barriers to access for qualified justice-impacted small business owners.” While the SBA will no longer verify an applicant’s criminal history (other than the fact of current incarceration) the rules changes do affect a lending institution’s ability to do so, “in accordance with their own policies, provided they do so in a manner that complies with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and other relevant laws.”

Significantly, in proposing these new and important regulatory changes, the SBA relies upon empirical research to emphasize that criminal history has not been shown to have any negative impact on creditworthiness:

Importantly, SBA reviewed the relevant research and found no evidence of a negative impact on repayment for qualified individuals with criminal history records in any American business loan program. This lack of data demonstrates that continuing to rely on this restriction for that purpose would contradict the available evidence and although the restrictions may have been originally put in place with the goal of protecting program performance, the lack of data suggests continuing to rely on this restriction would reflect an outdated, inaccurate structural bias against individuals with criminal history records.

 

The SBA again relies upon research in stressing the policy benefits of its regulatory changes:

Specifically, research demonstrates that employment increases success during reentry and decreases the risk of recidivism, with entrepreneurship providing an important and distinct avenue for economic stability given persistent stigma from employers who may decline to hire people with criminal history records.

It is refreshing to see this federal policy grounded in factual research instead of unfounded assumptions about the risk of extending opportunities to justice-affected individuals, as so many other federal policies are.

At the same time, we remain concerned that, without the SBA acting in a screening capacity, lending institutions will themselves conduct background investigations of loan applicants, and apply record-related restrictions that mirror those previously applied by the SBA, or perhaps ones even more restrictive.  We noted in a post last spring, in connection with the SBA’s deletion of “character” as a loan criterion:

[T]he good news is that it appears the SBA will no longer bar banks from making loans to otherwise qualified applicants based on their criminal history. The less good news is that the agency seems to expect banks and other lending institutions to step into the void and apply their own restrictions on loans based on an applicant’s criminal history.

 

We expect to post further analysis of these important proposed SBA actions.

CCRC has a new Deputy Director!

CCRC’s Board of Directors is delighted to announce that Rob Poggenklass has accepted its offer to serve as CCRC Deputy Director.  Rob has served as a public defender and legal aid lawyer in Virginia and Iowa for more than a decade, and has the technical legal skills, the field experience, and the passion for the policy issues that make him an ideal fit for the position.

“I’m excited to join an organization dedicated to many issues I care so deeply about,” Rob told the CCRC board. “Everyone deserves a chance to live with dignity, and the effects of a criminal record often stand in the way. I have spent much of my career fighting against these barriers. I look forward to elevating these issues across the country at CCRC.”

We first met met Rob three years ago, when he was seeking amicus support for a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving an Iowa woman who the state courts had ruled ineligible for record clearing because she could not pay the costs of the court-appointed lawyer who had represented her in her diversion case a decade before. CCRC was happy to file an amicus brief in support of Rob’s excellent petition, and while in the end the petition was not granted, Rob impressed us all then as a supremely talented and committed advocate.

We at CCRC are thrilled at our good fortune to have been able to lure Rob away from the client work that has engaged him for more than a decade.  We will welcome him on board in September.

Here are some of Rob’s career highlights:

  • Argued at two state supreme courts (Virginia, Iowa). Won a unanimous decision from the Iowa Supreme Court holding that a person could not be denied expungement of a non-conviction criminal record because of fines and fees owed in other cases.
  • Produced 30 expungement and employment barriers clinics across the state while at Iowa Legal Aid.
  • Organized and lobbied for passage of Virginia’s 2021 record sealing law, which will allow sealing of convictions in Virginia for the very first time when it takes effect in 2025. Wrote the Legal Aid Justice Center’s “know your rights” materials on the new law, as well as a comment for the CCRC website.
  • Authored a report on the unparalleled power of Virginia’s commonwealth’s attorneys during a legal fellowship at the ACLU of Virginia.
  • Represented hundreds of indigent clients in misdemeanor and felony cases as a public defender in Newport News, Va.

“After Trump: The Future of the President’s Pardon Power”

M_fsr.2021.33.5.coverThis is the title of the new issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter, which is now available online. As explained by the FSR editors in the issue’s introduction, FSR is continuing its tradition of exploring each president’s pardoning practices at the end of their term:

This Issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter shines a light on the state of clemency today, with an emphasis on the federal system and events of the Trump administration.  This Issue thus continues an FSR tradition of exploring federal clemency practices under each president, starting in 2001 after President Bill Clinton created controversies with final-day pardons.  Over the last twenty years, an array of commentators have analyzed the actions (and inactions) of four presidents, each of whom embraced quite different goals, perspectives, and strategies.  In addition to bringing thoughtful new perspectives to recent events, the articles assembled today by guest editor Margaret Love, the indefatigable advocate, scholar, and former Pardon Attorney, offer a roadmap to, in her words, “restore legitimacy to the pardon power and its usefulness to the presidency.”  The editors of FSR are — once again — deeply grateful for Ms. Love’s efforts and expertise.

Read more

Study reveals potential for racial bias in presidential pardon process

Last week the RAND Corporation published its long-awaited Statistical Analysis of Presidential Pardons, commissioned in 2012 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics to determine whether the Justice Department process for deciding who to recommend for a presidential pardon is tainted with “systematic” racial bias. The RAND study appears to have been a direct response to an investigative report published jointly in December 2011 by ProPublica and the Washington Post, which concluded based on an examination of pardon cases granted and denied during the administration of George W. Bush, that race was “one of the strongest predictors of a pardon.”

Specifically, the ProPublica study concluded that “White criminals seeking presidential pardons over the past decade have been nearly four times as likely to succeed as minorities” while “Blacks have had the poorest chance” of receiving a pardon.

In a 224-page statistical analysis of how pardon petitions were evaluated by the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA) between 2001 and 2012, the RAND researchers “[did] not find statistically significant evidence that there are racial differences in the rates at which black and white petitioners receive [favorable] pardon recommendations.” (Note that sentence commutations were not a part of the RAND study.)  At the same time, there was also “no question that non-Hispanic white petitioners as a group were more likely to receive a pardon than did black petitioners.”

The apparent contradiction between these two statements can be explained by the fact that white applicants were statistically more likely to satisfy the formal standards that apply to OPA decisions about which cases to recommend for pardon, suggesting that either the formal standards need revision or the pool of applicants needs to be expanded, or both.

Read more

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

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

“A Plan to Restructure (and Revive) Pardoning After Trump”

The title of this post is the title of my second piece for Lawfare on the future of presidential pardoning after the unjust and irregular practices that characterized pardoning under President Trump.  In response to critics who urge that responsibility for pardon advice should be removed from the Justice Department, I argue for restoring the pardon program to its historic place as an independent and respected part of that agency, so it can be an effective counterweight to the punitive views of prosecutors that have in the past frustrated pardoning.  Reestablishing a functional institutional connection between the president’s power and the rest of the justice system will better serve both the presidency and the public interest in a more compassionate approach to criminal law enforcement. I suggest that Merrick Garland, whose Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing to become attorney general begins on Monday, will understand how to reset the balance between pardon and justice to the benefit of both.

This is a follow-up to my Washington Post op ed, in which I argued that the presidential pardon power has been burdened with too many routine functions, and that the new administration should seek to restore a degree of practical efficiency to pardoning by working with Congress to reassign many of these functions to the courts — including shortening prison sentences and restoring lost rights.

The second piece is reprinted below:

A Plan to Restructure (and Revive) Pardoning After Trump

The overarching theme that emerges from four years of Donald Trump’s pardoning is an approach to government authority as transactional and personality based, rather than principled, structured, and process based. From the nation’s earliest days, unruly pardon has been harnessed to the rule-of-law virtues of the justice system, secured since the 19th century by its relationship to the Justice Department and by presidents respecting that relationship. Trump ostentatiously rejected that relationship from the start.

Trump not only detached the pardon power from the structure and operation of the justice system but he also used his power to challenge and frustrate that system. His pardons have been described by Bernadette Meyler as a throwback to the theatrical pardoning of the 17th century English kings and playwrights, enlarged and darkened by self-interest.

In the wake of Trump’s abusive and frequently haphazard pardoning, there have been calls to reform the process by which the president receives advice in pardon matters by stripping the Justice Department of its long-standing gatekeeper role. While reform of the pardon process is certainly in order, it would be a profound mistake to institutionalize Trump’s detachment of pardon from the justice system as these reformers urge.
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

Legislative Report Card: “The Reintegration Agenda During Pandemic”

CCRC’s new report documents legislative efforts in 2020 to reduce the barriers faced by people with a criminal record in the workplace, at the ballot box, and in many other areas of daily life. In total, 32 states, D.C., and the federal government enacted 106 bills, approved 5 ballot initiatives, and issued 4 executive orders to restore rights and opportunities to people with a record.

Our Legislative Report Card recognizes the most (and least) productive state legislatures last year. Hands down, Michigan was the Reintegration Champion of 2020 with 26 new record reform laws, while Utah was runner-up, and seven other states were commended for their work.

Read more

1 2 3 … 11