Search Results for: district of columbia

Accessing SNAP and TANF Benefits after a Drug Conviction: A Survey of State Laws

We are pleased to present a new report, “Accessing SNAP and TANF Benefits after a Drug Conviction: A Survey of State Laws.” This report offers a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the differing ways states have responded to the 1996 federal ban on access to SNAP and TANF benefits for those with a felony drug conviction, either by opting out […]

Read more

DC enacts progressive new record-clearing law

Until last month, the District of Columbia had one of the most complex and restrictive record relief laws in the country. D.C.’s sealing law even applied the same burdensome petition-based procedures, extended waiting periods, and onerous burdens of proof to non-conviction records that applied to convictions. In testimony before the D.C. Council in 2021, CCRC’s Margaret Love noted: “Compared to states across the country, DC’s record relief laws are very prohibitive and unusually complex.” CCRC’s Reintegration Report Card published in March 2022 commented that “the restoration laws in the District of Columbia are noteworthy for a remarkable study in contrasts: D.C. has extraordinarily progressive laws in civil areas like voting, employment, housing, and occupational licensing, and among the most regressive laws in the Nation in every category of criminal record relief, likely reflecting the heavy hand of the federal authorities that are responsible for most prosecutions under the D.C. Code.”

Last month, everything changed. The Second Chance Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Law 24-284, codified at D.C. Code § 16-801 et seq.), which became final after the required period of congressional review on March 16, 2023, gave the District one of the broadest record-clearing laws in the country, including both petition-based relief for all but the most serious violent felony convictions, and automatic relief for misdemeanors and non-conviction records.  D.C. now becomes the 11th U.S. jurisdiction to enact a “clean slate” law that applies to both conviction and non-conviction records.

The new D.C. record-clearing law is the product of more than two years of hard work by the D.C. Council and a broad coalition of advocacy groups in the District. When coupled with the District’s progressive civil restoration laws referenced above, this new law propels DC from middle-of-the-pack to the top tier of jurisdictions in the Nation where fair treatment of justice-affected individuals is concerned. It will certainly advance DC’s candidacy for Reintegration Champion of 2023.

Though D.C. Law 24-284 is enacted, it is unfunded, which means it cannot be used. Currently, the FY24 Budget Support Act of 2023 set the effective date for the Second Chance Act as 1/1/26 for most of the law and 10/1/29 for the automatic sealing provisions.

The new law’s specific provisions are described in greater detail below, and in the DC profile from CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project.

The new D.C. law provides for petition-based sealing for all non-conviction records at disposition, for all misdemeanors after a five-year waiting period, and for all but a specified group of the most serious felony convictions after an eight-year waiting period.  The waiting period begins following completion of all aspects of the sentence, except that it does not require payment of fines and other court debt. The law also facilitates procedures: e.g., not all eligible records need be sealed at the same time, as under the old law, and there are no “disqualifying offenses” that could extend the waiting period even for non-conviction records.

It also eases standards, particularly for sealing non-conviction records: it deleted a provision allowing the court to consider “the weight of the evidence against the person” and any priors sealings of arrest records.  It specifically directs the court in all cases to consider “The community’s interest in furthering the movant’s rehabilitation and enhancing the movant’s reintegration into society through education, employment, and housing.” As noted, D.C.’s existing sealing law extended to same burdensome procedures and standards to non-conviction records that applied to sealing of convictions.

The new law makes sealing automatic beginning in 2027 for non-conviction records, and for most misdemeanor convictions after a 10-year waiting period. It also provides for automatic expungement of marijuana convictions effective January 1, 2025, and for expungement by petition on grounds of actual innocence. Provisions in existing law authorizing expungement for victims of human trafficking and sealing for juvenile defendants were not changed.

D.C. now joins the 19 states that have enacted automatic record-clearing relief for arrest records and other non-convictions.  More than half of these state laws have been enacted in the three years since publication of CCRC’s Model Law on Non-Conviction Records, which advocated for automatic expungement of all non-conviction records, including records with no final disposition, except for pending matters. Like CCRC’s model law, which was cited as authority by several parties during the hearings before the D.C. Council, the new D.C. law recommends restrictions on accessing, inquiring about, and commercially disseminating non-conviction records.

Sealed records are placed in a non-public file but remain available to law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, licensing agencies, public employers, and schools and child care facilities, to be used “for any lawful purpose.” Sealed records may also be used in civil litigation relating to the arrest or conviction, and may be made available to others “upon order of the Court for good cause shown.”  An individual whose record has been sealed may deny the arrest or conviction “for any purpose”, without penalty of perjury or other provision of the law for giving a false statement. This appears to be a change from the 2006 law, which required testimony about prior arrests and convictions “in response to an inquiry from one of the entities expressly authorized to access the records.” In other words, while certain entities may gain access to sealed records, the subject of the record may lawfully deny its existence without penalty.

The 2022 law imposes certain requirements on “criminal history providers” that provide criminal history background screening reports, requirements that mirror those provided by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.  It requires providers to provide the subject of a background report with a copy of the report and identify the source of the report, and to use at least two identifiers (e.g., birthdate and name); prohibits reporting records that have been sealed, expunged or set aside; and pohibits reporting information that has not been updated within 30 days of the report.  Complaints of a violation of these provisions may be filed with the DC Office of Human Rights (but not in court), and fines are specified for violations.

There are still ways that D.C.’s sealing law could be improved.  For example, there appears to be no good reason why sealed non-conviction records should remain available to employers and licensing agencies, and in most states they are not. Automatic relief should be extended to all convictions now subject to sealing by petition, and the waiting periods for both petition-based and automatic relief seem excessive by standards in recently enacted record-clearing laws.  See CCRC’s 2022 report on waiting periods, Waiting for Relief: A National Survey of Waiting Periods for Record Clearing (February 2022).  But those caveats aside, the new law represents the most substantial progress in record clearing of any U.S. jurisdiction since 2018, when North Dakota and New Mexico enacted a broad sealing scheme for the first time.  Congratulations to the D.C. Council!

 

 

 

 

The Frontiers of Dignity: Clean Slate and Other Criminal Record Reforms in 2022

At the beginning of each year since 2017, CCRC has issued a report on legislative enactments in the year just ended, new laws 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 annual reports document the steady progress of what our report two years ago characterized as “a full-fledged law reform movement” aimed at restoring rights and dignity to individuals who have successfully navigated the criminal law system.

In the three years between 2019 and 2021, more than 400 new criminal record reforms were enacted.  Many states enacted new laws every year, and all but two states enacted at least one significant new law during this period.

The modern record reform movement reflected in our annual reports is bipartisan, grounded in and inspired by the circumstance that almost a third of adults in the United States now have a criminal record, entangling them in a web of legal restrictions and discrimination that permanently excludes then from full participation in the community. It reflects a public recognition that the “internal exile” of such a significant portion of society is not only unsafe and unfair, but it is also profoundly inefficient.

We are pleased to present our report on new laws enacted in 2022, titled The Frontiers of Dignity: Clean Slate and Other Criminal Record Reforms in 2022. While this report shows that the legislative momentum gathering since 2018 slowed somewhat in the past year, there has still been progress, with more new laws enacted this year than in 2018 when the current reform movement took off in earnest.

The title of this report is borrowed from the Basic Law adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany after World War II, which declared that “Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of state authority.” Most European countries incorporate this foundational premise, as well as a concern for individual privacy, into their treatment of criminal records, by making them largely unavailable to the public and by limiting how they are used to deny rights and opportunities.

In part because American legal systems are not similarly grounded in respect for dignity and privacy, our progress toward a fair and efficient criminal records policy has been slow and uneven. Yet it has been steady, animated in recent years both by a concern for racial justice and by economic self-interest. This report, like our past annual reports, attempts to capture this steady progress toward recognizing the worth and dignity of the millions of Americans whose past includes a record of arrest or conviction. Read more

50-State Comparison: Loss & Restoration of Civil/Firearms Rights

Section 1 categorizes states by loss and restoration of voting rights due to conviction. Section 2 provides a 50-start chart concerning voting, jury service, and public office, as well as firearms rights under state law. Section 3 provides a 50-state chart concerning firearms rights under federal law. Section 4 provides state-by-state summaries, with links to more detailed analysis and legal […]

Read more

The Many Roads from Reentry to Reintegration

A National Survey of Laws Restoring Rights and Opportunities after Arrest or Conviction     By Margaret Colgate Love March 2022 This report is also available in PDF format. The Reintegration Report Card, which grades and ranks the states based on this report, is available here.   The 2020 version of this report is available here. Preparation of this report […]

Read more

“The Many Roads From Reentry to Reintegration”

We are pleased to publish the March 2022 revision of our national survey of laws restoring rights and opportunities after arrest or conviction, “The Many Roads from Reentry to Reintegration.“ Like the earlier report, this report contains a series of essays on various relief mechanisms operating in the states, including legislative restoration of voting and firearms rights, various types of criminal record relief (expungement and sealing, pardon, judicial certificates), and laws limiting consideration of criminal record in fair employment and occupational licensing.

Drawing on material from CCRC’s flagship resource the Restoration of Rights Project, the report grades each state for the scope and efficacy of its laws in nine different relief categories. Based on these grades, it compiles an overall ranking of the states. As described below, most of the states identified as reform leaders in our 2020 report still rank highly, but several new states have joined them. Half a dozen other states made substantial improvements in their ranking by virtue of progressive legislation enacted in 2020 and 2021, in two cases (D.C. and Virginia) rising from the bottom ten to the top 20.

The legal landscape has been changing rapidly in the 18 months since the first edition of this report was published in September 2020. Substantial progress has been made in a number of states, and in the Nation as a whole, toward devising and implementing an effective and functional system for relieving collateral consequences. The bipartisan public commitment to a reintegration agenda seems 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 small businesses that are the lifeblood of healthy communities.

The greatest headway has been made in restoring the vote and broadening workplace opportunities controlled by the state, both areas where there are national models and best practices. The area where there is least consensus, and that remains most challenging to reform advocates, is managing dissemination of criminal record information. Time will tell how the goal of a workable and effective criminal record relief system is achieved in our laboratories of democracy.

One area of record relief on which there does appear to be an emerging bipartisan consensus is that non-conviction records should be automatically sealed or expunged on case disposition. We are particularly pleased to see how many states have enacted laws limiting access to the record of cases disposed in favor of the defendant just since publication of our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records in 2019.

Read more

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

The Many Roads to Reintegration (2020)

A 50-State Report on Laws Restoring Rights and Opportunities after Arrest or Conviction   By Margaret Love & David Schlussel September 2020 The 2022 update to this report is available here. This report is also available in PDF format. The Reintegration Report Card, which grades and ranks the states based on this report, is available here. Preparation of this report was […]

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

1 2 3 4 … 9