Wisconsin joins crowd of states regulating occupational licensure

On April 16, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed into law Act 278, making his state the sixth in the past two months to establish new rules on consideration of criminal record in the context of occupational and professional licensure.  Effective August 1, 2018, licensing boards in Wisconsin will be prohibited in most cases from denying or revoking a license based on arrests or pending charges, and required to justify in writing any adverse action based on conviction.  Boards will also be required to give applicants a preliminary determination as to whether a particular conviction will be disqualifying.

Indiana, Arizona, Massachusetts, Nebraska and Tennessee have all recently enacted laws regulating how licensing boards treat arrests and convictions, in some cases with strikingly similar features, as described in recent posts here and here.  The conviction-related provisions of the model occupational licensing law proposed by the Institute for Justice are reflected in almost all of these new laws, though many of them go even farther to discourage unwarranted discrimination affecting as much as 25% of the U.S. workforce.   

   Read more

Two more states regulate consideration of conviction in occupational licensing

Tennessee and Nebraska are the two most recent states to enact laws regulating how a criminal record will be considered in occupational licensing.  Nebraska’s Occupational Board Reform Act (LB 299) was approved by Governor Pete Ricketts on Appril 23, and Tennessee’s Fresh Start Act (SB 2465) was signed into law by Governor Bill Haslam on the same day.

The Nebraska law (which does not take effect until July 2019) is a general deregulation of licensing that includes a provision whereby individuals with a criminal record may obtain a preliminary determination of their eligibility from the relevant licensing board, even before they have obtained the necessary training and qualification.  The board must issue a written determination within 90 days giving its “findings of fact and conclusions of law,” and the fee for this determination may not exceed $100.  The individual may include with the preliminary application “additional information about the individual’s current circumstances, including the time since the offense, completion of the criminal sentence, other evidence of rehabilitation, testimonials, employment history, and employment aspirations.”  The board’s decision may be appealed under the state’s administrative procedure act.

Tennessee’s new law (which is effective July 1, 2018) provides for a preliminary determination of eligibility by a licensing board and written reasons for denial. However, unlike the Nebraska law, it also contains a more detailed set of standards and procedures that apply to a board’s consideration whether a conviction is “directly related” to the license, and it also contains a presumption in favor of issuing a license (with certain exceptions). Among other things, the licensing authority “must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that [the applicant’s conviction] is related to the applicable occupation, profession, business, or trade.”

Additional bills laws regulating consideration of conviction in licensing are well along in the legislative process in Kansas and Louisiana, and an enrolled bill is awaiting the governor’s signature in Maryland. We have revised the Tennessee and Nebraska profiles and 50-state charts from the Restoration of Rights Project to reflect the new licensing laws.

 

Bail or (collateral) consequences

April Camara of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) writes as a guest blogger about how the availability of bail may determine whether an individual is adversely affected by collateral consequences:

The Prison Policy Initiative recently reported that the explosive growth in jail populations since the 1980s is predominantly the result of jailing people who are accused of crimes and awaiting trial.[1] This is especially true for the past 15 years, in which time 99% of jail growth has been comprised of people who are detained pretrial and legally presumed innocent.[2] To curb this growth, the MacArthur Foundation has invested more than $100 million dollars into reducing jail incarceration and racial disparities in America through the Safety and Justice Challenge (“SJC”).  NLADA serves as a strategic ally in the SJC, and we are making the case to show investing in public defense yields system-wide benefits to pre-trial reform.  We understand that a person’s likelihood to be released on bail while pending trial is significantly increased when they are represented by counsel, and defense advocacy minimizes the harm that incarceration does to a person’s life.  Research shows that people who are in jail before trial have worse outcomes in their criminal cases and in their lives.[3] As a result of pretrial detention, they are:

  • More likely to fail to appear for court.
  • More likely to lose connections to employment, housing, and family.
  • More likely to be convicted.
  • More likely to have a longer prison sentence.
  • More likely to be rearrested for new crimes. [4]

These long-term collateral consequences destabilize not just the accused and their families, but their wider communities. Criminal justice stakeholders involved in the Challenge understand these implications, and defenders are collaborating with local stakeholders to reduce the overall number of people who are presumed innocent and are in jail while awaiting trial.

 

________________

[1] Joshua Aiken, Era of Mass Expansion: Why State Officials Should Fight Jail Growth, Prison Policy Initiative,(2017).

[2] Peter Wagner, Jails matter. But who is listening?, Prison Policy Initiative (Aug. 14, 2015). .

[3]See Incarceration’s Front Door: The Misuse of Jails in America, Vera Institute (2015).

[4] Aiken, supra note 1; Laura & John Arnold Found., Pretrial Criminal Justice Research (2013); Megan Stevenson, Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes (2017).

 

More states facilitating licensing for people with a criminal record

Last week we posted a description of a detailed new Indiana law regulating consideration of conviction in occupational and professional licensure throughout the state.  It now appears that this may represent a trend, as eight additional states have either recently enacted or are poised to enact similarly progressive occupational licensing schemes.  New general laws regulating licensure are in place in Arizona, Illinois, and Massachusetts.  Similar bills have been enrolled and are on the governor’s desk for signature in Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, and Tennessee.  Arizona’s new 2018 licensing law follows on another law passed in that state in 2017 that authorized provisional licenses for individuals with a criminal record.  Massachusett’s new licensing law is part of a more general criminal justice reform bill.   Delaware and Connecticut have also recently loosened restrictions on licensing for cosmetology and related professions.

The licensing reforms in these states – and in several other states where licensing bills are less far along toward enactment — seem to have been influenced by a model law proposed by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm.  Key features of the Model Occupational Licensing Review Act as they affect individuals with criminal records are 1) to provide individuals with an opportunity to seek a preliminary determination from the licensing agency as to whether their criminal record will be disqualifying; 2) to require licensing agencies to disqualify only if an applicant has been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor, and if the agency determines that “the state has an important interest in protecting public safety that is superior to the individual’s right to pursue a lawful occupation”; and 3) to require each agency to publish a report annually on the number of applicants with a criminal record seeking a license, the number of approvals and denials, and the type of offenses for each type of action.  Disqualification is justified under this model law only if the conviction is “substantially related to the state’s interest in protecting public safety,” and the individual will be “more likely to reoffend by having the license than by not having the license.”

The federal government is also encouraging licensing reform: the U.S. Department of Labor is supporting a three-year project to assist states improve their general policies and practices related to occupational licensing, including those that affect persons with a criminal record. The project brings together 11 states to participate in the Occupational Licensing Learning Consortium. The 11 states are Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, Utah and Wisconsin.

We are monitoring this legislative trend and will revise the state profiles and other materials in the Restoration of Rights Project as new laws are enacted.

 

Indiana enacts progressive new licensing law

The race is on in 2018 to see which State can enact the most progressive new laws on restoration of rights.  As in the past, Indiana is at the forefront of reform.  On March 21, Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law HB 1245, which appears to be the most progressive and comprehensive scheme for regulation of occupational and professional licensure in the country.  It applies not only to state licensing agencies, but also to units of county and municipal government that issue licenses, and requires that state agencies work with them to eliminate redundant and overlapping rules.  Agencies must report to the legislature respecting their implementation of the new law by November 1, 2018.

Read more

First crop of restoration laws enacted in 2018

In 2017, state legislatures produced a bumper crop of laws restoring rights and opportunities, with 24 separate states enacting new legal mechanisms to facilitate reentry and reintegration.  Based on pending bills and laws already enacted this year, 2018 promises to be similarly productive.  In March, the governors of Florida, Utah and Washington all signed into law new measures expanding their existing restoration schemes.  Washington enacted a ban-the-box law applicable to both public and private employment, and both Florida and Utah expanded their laws authorizing expungement of non-conviction records.  These new authorities are described in the post that follows, and can be seen in the context of related laws in the state profiles in the Restoration of Rights Project.

While none of these first enactments of 2018 is particularly remarkable standing alone, they deserve mention as harbingers of things to come.  More than thirty additional states have restoration bills pending, and half a dozen of these are well along in the enactment process.  We will be tracking restoration bills through the year, and will report periodically in this space – particularly when a significant new law is enacted.  We also hope to produce in 2018 another annual report on Second Chance Laws enacted during the year, as resources permit.

Read more

“The Scale of Misdemeanor Justice”

There is a growing awareness that the consequences of a misdemeanor arrest or conviction have become exponentially more serious in recent years.  We also know that the misdemeanor system is enormous, and that its very size makes it particularly susceptible of abuse.  Yet we have very little reliable information about how many people in the United States have a misdemeanor record.  A new research report by Professors Megan Stevenson and Sandra Mayson begins to fill this gap, in the process challenging the conventional wisdom that the misdemeanor system is expanding.
Based on “the most comprehensive national-level analysis of misdemeanor criminal justice that is currently feasible,” the report reaches the surprising conclusion that both the number of misdemeanor arrests and cases filed each year have “declined markedly” in recent years.  At the same time, unsurprisingly, it concludes that there is “profound racial disparity” in misdemeanor arrest rates for most offense types, and that this disparity has “remained remarkably constant” over almost four decades.   While the report confirms current perceptions about the scale of misdemeanor justice and its disparate racial impact, its fascinating findings of “declining arrest and case-filing rates present a challenge for misdemeanor scholarship.”

Read more

Erasing the line between felony and misdemeanor

Two provocative new scholarly articles examine the extent to which the crisp line historically drawn in law between felonies and misdemeanors is becoming increasingly ephemeral.  In Informed Misdemeanor Sentencing, Jenny Roberts points out that conviction of a misdemeanor has become exponentially more serious in recent years as the associated collateral consequences have increased in number and severity.  She urges judges to “explicitly acknowledge the many serious collateral consequences an individual suffers after any penal sanction, and incorporate those into the sentencing process to ensure that punishment is proportionate.”  She recommends that sentencing courts should make “more use of deferred adjudication as well as expungement and related mechanisms for mitigating the unintended effects of a misdemeanor conviction.”

Jack Chin and John Ormonde make essentially the same point about the blurring of the old distinction between felony and misdemeanor in a forthcoming article in the Minnesota Law Review.  In Infamous Misdemeanors and the Grand Jury Clause, they point out that “[i]n the late 19th and early 20th century, the Supreme Court held in a series of cases, never overruled, that to charge an infamous misdemeanor required a grand jury indictment.”  They conclude that, because of the stigma that attaches to any criminal record, the Fifth Amendment requires that “many more federal offenses should be prosecuted by grand jury indictment than is now the practice.”

It is impossible to determine exactly how many of the 48,000 consequences collected in the National Inventory of the Collateral Consequences of Conviction are triggered by a misdemeanor conviction, but so many legal and regulatory consequences attach to specific categories of offenses that include misdemeanors (e.g., drug crimes, sexual offenses, crimes involving dishonesty), it is likely a substantial portion.  Moreover, given the ubiquity of criminal background checking pervading every area of modern life, even a criminal record involving dismissed misdemeanor charges may result in discrimination and exclusion.

Below are the abstracts for these two articles:

Read more

“The Juvenile Record Myth”

A new article in the Georgetown Law Journal exposes the fallacy that delinquency adjudications don’t follow juveniles into adulthood, and documents the alarming extent to which records of juvenile delinquency adjudications have become almost as accessible to the public as records of adult convictions.  In The Juvenile Record Myth, University of Tennessee Law Professor Joy Radice argues that state confidentiality and sealing provisions often provide far less protection than is commonly believed, and that juveniles frequently face continuing legal restrictions and stigma.   Almost all states permit some degree of public access, and some even publish juvenile records online.  Using recent literature on juvenile brain development and the recidivism research of criminologists, Radice presents new arguments for why delinquency records should not follow a juvenile into adulthood—and why the state’s obligation to help rehabilitate juveniles (an obligation typically recognized in a state’s juvenile code) should extend to restricting access to juvenile records.  The abstract of Professor Radice’s article is reprinted at the end of this post.

The state-by-state profiles from the Restoration of Rights Project analyze each state’s laws on access to records of juvenile adjudications.  These laws are summarized in the RRP’s 50-state-chart on expungement and sealing.

Read more

Michigan set-asides found to increase wages and reduce recidivism

Preliminary results of an empirical study by two University of Michigan law professors show that setting aside an individual’s record of conviction is associated with “a significant increase in employment and average wages,” and with a low recidivism rate.  We know of only one other similar study, conducted by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, and it came to essentially the same conclusion.  One relevant difference between the two studies is that in Michigan set-aside results in sealing of the record, while in California it does not.  Such studies are rare because of the difficulty of obtaining data, particularly where relief seals the record, but they are a very important way of advancing a reform agenda.  Thus, Professors Sonja Starr and J.J. Prescott propose that their research “provides important empirical guidance to the broader social policy debates associated with set-aside laws and accessibility of criminal records.”  In the hope that their work will encourage others to undertake similar research, we reprint the entire report below.

Read more

1 … 24 25 26 27 28 … 58