Racial disparity in clean slate record clearing? California responds

Reproduced below is a press release describing new research by three California scholars published in the Law & Society Review, based on California sentencing data, showing how eligibility criteria for automatic record clearing “can inadvertently perpetuate racial inequity within the criminal justice system.”

This conclusion seems to us unsurprising, and likely has broader national application for two interrelated reasons:  Prosecution policies nationwide have tended to result in more Blacks than Whites being convicted of more serious felonies resulting in prison sentences, while eligibility for automatic record clearance has to date been authorized primarily for non-convictions and misdemeanors (see sections 2 and 3 from the 50-state charts at this link from our Restoration of Rights website: https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-state-comparisonjudicial-expungement-sealing-and-set-aside-2/.) The authors recommend that “to reduce the racial gap in criminal records, a change in policy needs to happen to extend record clearance eligibility to a wider range of cases—for example, people with felonies or those sent to prison who are currently excluded.”

The California legislature seems to have anticipated the recommendations in this report,  for on August 18 it enrolled and sent to Governor Newsom’s desk a bill that would extend existing automatic record clearing authority to most felonies after four felony-free years, and for the first time to felony non-conviction records. See SB 731. This makes California’s “clean slate” law by far the most extensive in the country.

Read more

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.

SBA proposes rules affecting businesses owned by veterans with a record

Over the past two years, CCRC has been studying the restrictions imposed by the U.S. Small Business Administration on loans to small businesses owned by justice-affected individuals. Many of those same restrictions, which are grounded in an operating policy that recipients of federal assistance have “good character,” also apply by formal rule in the SBA’s business development program under 8(a) of the Small Business Act.

For more than half a century, the so-called “8(a) program” has earmarked federal contracts for businesses owned by socially or economically disadvantaged individuals, and it has been a key driver of community development in urban areas. But the program’s “good character” test has historically excluded from participation many if not most business owned or managed by individuals with a criminal history. The 8(a) program also has satellite programs, including ones offering preferential treatment to businesses owned by women and veterans, though it is less clear whether these programs have similar criminal history restrictions.

Recently, Congress returned responsibility for certifying program eligibility for veteran-owned business from the VA to the SBA, and the SBA has now published proposed certification rules for public comment. These proposed rules offer a first chance to speak to the SBA’s “good character” requirement.

CCRC worked with the Washington Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights to draft comments on the proposed rule that are critical of the SBA’s vague and open-ended test of business owners’ “character” that results in disqualification of many deserving individuals from this and other federal programs administered by the SBA. Those comments, which are joined by 24 other organizations, were filed on August 5 and are available here.

Read more

How Europe manages access to criminal records – a model for U.S. reformers

We are pleased to republish a book review by CCRC Executive Director Margaret Love of a collection of essays about how European countries manage access to criminal records. The philosophy and values underpinning the EU approach revealed in these essays are so different from our own that their product will make record reformers in the U.S. green with envy.

For example, the review points out that one of the foundational premises of European systems of criminal records is that giving the public broad access would be “contrary to ‘fundamental’ considerations of privacy and human dignity protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, which implicitly limit loss of liberty and public stigmatization through disclosure of a past crime.” Accordingly, employers and other non-law enforcement entities can have access to criminal records only if their subject explicitly authorizes it, and even then a request will be permitted only in specified circumstances where a criminal record is deemed relevant.

Individuals asked to produce their record may decide that the uncertainty of benefit is not worth the risk of exposure. In this fashion, individuals may take responsibility for achieving their own social redemption even if they lose an economic opportunity.

Only a “dystopian account” of the Australian system of accessing criminal records will seem familiar to U.S. practitioners.

Here is the review by CCRC’s Margaret Love, which originally appeared in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Books:

Read more

CCRC is seeking its next Deputy Director

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center is seeking an enterprising and committed individual with strong technical skills to serve as its next Deputy Director. The incumbent will work with the Executive Director in all aspects of CCRC’s program, and will have primary responsibility for maintaining the Restoration of Rights Project (RRP), including its various derivative reports for which CCRC is best known. The RRP is a unique national inventory of laws and practices relating to criminal record relief and restoration of rights in each U.S. jurisdiction, which attracts thousands of visits to the CCRC website each day. Keeping the RRP current in real time requires strong research skills, patience and attention to detail in analyzing complex statutes, and a passion for issues relating to restoration of rights after arrest or conviction.

In producing the annual reports on new legislation and issue-specific analyses of current trends, the Deputy Director will have an incomparable opportunity to guide the development of public policy in this important emerging area of the law.  The incumbent will be responsible for developing other aspects of CCRC’s work, and will have opportunities to publish scholarly articles and participate in academic conferences.

CCRC was established in 2014 to promote public engagement on the myriad issues raised by the collateral consequences of arrest or conviction.  It provides technical assistance to advocates and lawmakers in support of state reform efforts, participates in court cases challenging specific collateral consequences, and collaborates with other organizations in reporting on such issues as court debt as a barrier to record clearing and exclusion of convicted individuals from jury service. In addition to maintaining the Restoration of Rights Project, CCRC provides technical assistance to advocates and lawmakers in support of state reform efforts, participates in court cases challenging specific collateral consequences, and collaborates with other organizations in reporting on such issues as court debt as a barrier to record clearing. Most recently, through its Fair Chance Lending Project, CCRC has advocated for the elimination of criminal record restrictions in federally guaranteed small business loans and federal contract set-aside programs.

A fuller description of CCRC’s work and of the Deputy Director position is here.

The CCRC Deputy Director is a full-time remote position and may be particularly attractive to individuals seeking a flexible work schedule.  Compensation is negotiable depending on experience. An early start date is desirable, and a limited-term tenure may be possible.

TO APPLY:  Submit the following materials to margaretlove@pardonlaw.com

  • Cover letter
  • Resume
  • Writing sample
  • List of three references

Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis until the position is filled.

Applying for a USDA loan with a criminal record

This post is a part of CCRC’s Fair Chance Lending Project (FCLP), and was prepared by students from Yale Law School’s Community Economic Development Clinic, which is working with CCRC on the project. The FCLP promotes greater access to government-sponsored loans to justice-impacted small business owners and managers, particularly within the Small Business Administration loan guarantee programs. The post builds on briefing materials originally prepared by CCRC staff, including its former intern Jack Keating.

Applying for a USDA Loan with a Criminal Record

The United States Department of Agriculture offers a selection of guaranteed loan programs for farms and other small businesses in rural communities. While these USDA loan programs are broadly analogous to the Small Business Administration’s business loan guarantee programs, their eligibility requirements differ in at least one significant way: the USDA imposes no general criminal record restrictions on loan eligibility for justice-impacted individuals who own or manage small businesses. Instead, USDA imposes only narrow record-based restrictions that are specifically required by statute, and that are likely to apply to very few loan applicants. Because applicants for SBA loans are more likely to be racial or ethnic minorities than applicants for the USDA’s financial products, the disparate impact of the SBA’s uniquely stringent criminal background requirements is amplified

In this post, we describe the restrictions on lending to justice-impacted individuals within programs administered by the USDA, focusing mainly on the agency’s flagship Business & Industry Loan Guarantees Program. CCRC’s Fair Chance Lending Project is focused on advocating for changes to SBA lending policies, and we believe that other agencies’ practices may provide instructive alternative models that can guide the SBA as it modernizes its rules.  Thus, in a final section we discuss the implications of USDA loan policies for those of the SBA.

Read more

Oklahoma enacts automatic record clearing law

On May 2, 2022, Oklahoma Governor Stitt signed into law a comprehensive process making expungement automatic for all otherwise eligible misdemeanors and a range of non-conviction records.  See HB 3316, enacting 22 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 18(C).  Oklahoma thus becomes the tenth state to join the bipartisan trend toward broadening the availability of record clearing to people with convictions, without requiring them to file a petition and go to court for relief.  In addition to these states, another 10 states now make expungement automatic for non-conviction records. 

The Oklahoman reported that the “clean slate” bill passed the House and Senate with strong bipartisan support, with a combined five votes against, and it was promptly signed into law by Oklahoma’s Republican governor.  The bill’s primary sponsor Rep. Nicole Miller, R-Edmond, said that “There was certainly a general consensus that, you know, this this isn’t anything that’s partisan related; what it’s about is it’s about humans. So this is really a measure to help people.” 

Under Oklahoma law expunged records are sealed, but remain available to law enforcement and may be used in subsequent prosecutions.  Any record that has been sealed may be ordered “obliterated or destroyed” after an additional 10 years.  § 19(K).  Oklahoma also authorizes its courts to expunge up to two non-violent felonies, andn also pardoned felonies, but these were not included in the new law (styled “clean slate”).  The law is effective November 1, 2022, and the process for automatic expungement is to commence three years after that date.   

The Oklahoma process for expunging records without a petition is spelled out in a new § 19(B): the Oklahoma Bureau of Criminal Investigation must provide a list of eligible cases to the prosecutor on a monthly basis for a 45-day review.  The prosecutor mayh object only for specified reasons:  the case does not meet the definition of a clean slate eligible case; the individual has not paid court-ordered restitution to the victim; or “the agency has a reasonable belief, grounded in supporting facts, that an individual with a clean slate eligible case is continuing to engage in criminal activity, whether charged or not charged, within or outside the state.”  A list of cases as to which there has been no objection is then sent to the court for expungement.  The court must expunge all cases on the list sent to it, and notify all agencies holding records directing them to expunge as well.  The law does not provide for notifying individuals in case of prosecutor objection, or after their record has been expunged, al though the state supreme court and the BCI are authorized to make rules governing the process.  The BCI is required to provide to the legislature a list of individuals whose records have been expunged on an annual basis.  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

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 58