Tag: COVID-19

Applying for SBA COVID-19 relief with a criminal record in 2021

Last Updated: September 9, 2021 In December 2020, Congress authorized additional COVID-19 financial relief for small businesses and nonprofits, available through the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA’s two primary programs for COVID-19 financial relief are the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which provides forgivable loans to small businesses and nonprofits to help keep their staff employed during the crisis; and the COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, which provides advances and loans to small businesses and nonprofits that experience a temporary loss of revenue due to COVID-19. After the first COVID-19 relief bill, the CARES Act, funded these programs in March 2020, the SBA imposed broad criminal history restrictions on applicants. In the face of pressure, the administration relaxed those restrictions several times over the course of the following months.  In March 2021, the Biden Administration removed an additional restriction.  In this post, we review those developments and describe the SBA’s current criminal history policies, also available on the SBA’s website (PPP and EIDL). To summarize, as a result of developments to date, the SBA now excludes from PPP relief only a narrow category of people with a criminal record: those 1) actually incarcerated or with pending felony charges; or 2) convicted, pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to, or commenced any form of parole or probation within the last 5 years for certain financial felonies. The category of those excluded from EIDL relief is broader: 1) anyone convicted of any felony within the past five years, and 2) anyone with any sort of pending criminal charges. We conclude with a series of recommended changes to the laws governing SBA loans that affect people with a criminal record, and to related SBA regulations and policies.  These recommendations include consideration of how a loan applicant’s criminal record is treated in the rules and policies governing the SBA’s general lending programs under Section 7(a) and 7(b) of the Small Business Act, whose only mention of criminal record is to authorize the SBA to “verify the applicant’s criminal background, or lack thereof,” including through an FBI background check. In Spring 2020, after Congress first authorized hundreds of billions of dollars for small business relief during the early months of COVID-19, the SBA, by rule and by policy, imposed unusually broad and frequently changing restrictions on applicants with an arrest or conviction history. It applied even more restrictive policies on application forms than in published regulations. Alerted to the problem by emails from affected small business owners, we identified and described the relevant policies, and collaborated with a consortium of other organizations to persuade the SBA to roll back these restrictions. As we documented, these criminal history restrictions, neither required nor contemplated by Congress, impeded access to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, for small business owners, sole proprietors, and nonprofits. Paycheck Protection Program Facing a chorus of criticism, and the introduction of a bipartisan Senate bill to roll back most of the PPP criminal history restrictions, SBA eased some of them, in a limited fashion, on June 12. Shortly thereafter, multiple federal lawsuits were filed challenging the PPP restrictions. On June 24, SBA further relaxed them, this time in a far more significant fashion, notably making the business owners who had sued eligible. The change came less a week before the June 30 final deadline to apply for the original round of PPP. A day before the deadline, a federal judge ruled that the SBA’s criminal history restrictions, except for the June 24 policy change, were likely unlawful. The court extended the deadline, but only for those who had sued. Shortly thereafter, Congress extended the PPP application deadline to August 8 for everyone, giving many newly eligible business owners their first opportunity to apply. After Congress authorized a new round of PPP funding in December, the SBA reopened the program on January 11 for first-time participants, and on January 13 for certain business who are eligible to apply for Second Draw PPP Loans. The SBA’s criminal history restrictions reflecting the June 24 policy change, excluded applicants if: An owner of 20 percent or more of the equity of the applicant is presently incarcerated or, for any felony, presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction; or has been convicted of, pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to, or commenced any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment) for, a felony involving fraud, bribery, embezzlement, or a false statement in a loan application or an application for federal financial assistance within the last five years or any other felony within the last year. See Interim Final Rule on Paycheck Protection Program as Amended by Economic Aid Act (published on Jan. 14, 2021 in the Federal Register); see also FAQs for Lenders and Borrowers (effective Dec. 9, 2020). On March 3, 2021, following an announcement from the Biden White House, the SBA removed the one-year lookback restriction related to non-financial fraud felonies, consistent with bipartisan Congressional support for reducing criminal history restrictions in the Paycheck Protection Program. Therefore, the current policy excludes an applicant if: An owner of 20 percent or more of the equity of the applicant is presently incarcerated or, for any felony, presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction; or has been convicted of, pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to, or commenced any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment) for a felony involving fraud, bribery, embezzlement, or a false statement in a loan application or an application for federal financial assistance within the last five years. Economic Injury Disaster Loans For most of 2020, SBA was nontransparent about its criminal history restrictions for COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) and advances. According to an alleged leak of documents on May 3, 2020 (which we believe was reliable), the SBA for some time had been denying applicants if they had ever been arrested, unless the arrest was for a misdemeanor and occurred more than 10 years ago. On May 20, 2020, an SBA spokesperson, without disputing the authenticity of the leaked documents, nonetheless stated that their information “is incorrect. An applicant with a felony conviction in the last 5 years would be declined.” Several months later, in an FAQ published on September 8, 2020, the SBA finally disclosed its criminal history restrictions for COVID-19 EIDL, which were broader than the May 20, 2020 spokesperson’s statement (and broader than the PPP restrictions): Applicants [for COVID-19 EIDL] may be declined if they have been convicted of a felony in the past five years; or ever been engaged in the production or distribution of any product or service that has been determined to be obscene by a court…are currently suspended or debarred from contracting with the federal government or receiving federal grants or loans; and/or those who are presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction. Those restrictions remained operative through at least FAQs that were effective Feb. 4, 2021. However, in new FAQs published and effective September 8, 2021, SBA incorporated the current criminal history restrictions of the Paycheck Protection Program into the COVID-19 EIDL program, replacing all previous guidance: Ineligible entities:…. • Any 20% or more owner of the applicant currently incarcerated • Any 20% or more owner of the applicant presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction for any felony • Any 20% or more owner of the applicant, within the last 5 years, for any felony involving fraud, bribery, embezzlement, or a false statement in a loan application or an application for federal financial assistance, has 1) been convicted; 2) pleaded guilty; 3) pleaded nolo contendere; or 4) commenced any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment)? • Any 20% or more owner of the applicant, in the past year, has been convicted of a felony committed during and in connection with a riot or civil disorder or other declared disaster…. See FAQ Regarding COVID-19 EIDL (effective Sep 8, 2021). Preexisting SBA 7(a) Requirements The 7(a) statute authorizes the SBA to “verify the applicant’s criminal background, or lack thereof,” including through an FBI background check. An SBA regulation makes ineligible “[b]usinesses with an Associate who is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or has been indicted for a felony or a crime of moral turpitude.” An SBA policy statement goes beyond this regulation to makes ineligible businesses with an Associate currently under specified forms of diversionary or conditional dispositions, order of protection, a sex offender registry, or facing any charges in any jurisdiction. This policy statement further provides that various principals of a business “must be of good character.” (The “good character” determination requires disclosure and documentation of: 1) current charges; 2) arrests in the past 6 months; and 3) any (excluding minor vehicle violations) convictions, guilty and no contest pleas, or placement on pretrial diversion or any form of parole or probation, at any time. Expunged and sealed records must be disclosed. A person may then be approved if they have satisfied all sentencing conditions and do not have a felony conviction, misdemeanor conviction for a crime against a minor, recent misdemeanor conviction, or recent charges. Otherwise, in any of these situations, the SBA requires that they undergo an FBI fingerprint background check followed by an individual “good character” determination by the SBA.) Recommended reforms Along with the Justice Roundtable, we recommend that the Biden Administration and the 117th Congress make the following changes in the SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program and 7(a) Loans: Executive Branch Proposals The SBA should thoroughly review and revamp its general 7(a) rules and policies to remove any exclusions based on criminal history. The SBA should ensure that if any criminal history restrictions remain in regulations, the restrictions in policy documents and application forms for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and other loans within the general 7(a) program are no broader than the regulations require. Legislative Proposals Amend the Small Business Act to prohibit the SBA from excluding people from eligibility for 7(a) loan assistance based on criminal history. Strengthen the Paycheck Protection Program Second Chance Act (S.3865), a bipartisan Senate bill that would prohibit many criminal history restrictions for PPP relief, by removing categorical exceptions for applicants with an equity ownership of 20 percent or more who are incarcerated or were convicted of certain felonies. Note: This post was originally posted on Jan. 21, 2021, and has been updated to reflect that on March 3, 2021, the SBA issued new rules removing a one-year look-back restriction related to non-financial fraud felonies, and that on September 8, 2021, the SBA issued new guidance for COVID-19 EIDL. Read more

New Jersey Launches Electronic Filing System for Expungements

Editor’s note:  In 2019, New Jersey enacted a “clean slate” expungement authority that will eventually be automatic and is now available by petition. The same law directed the development of an e-filing system that is expected to eliminate many access barriers in the existing petition-based process. A detailed description of New Jersey’s expungement authorities, including its new “clean slate” law, can be found in the NJ profile from the Restoration of Rights Project.   The New Jersey Courts recently announced the statewide launch of its eCourts Expungement System developed in accordance with recent amendments in the law to help increase efficiency of the expungement process. The new system allows attorneys and pro se petitioners to create and file petitions for traditional, “clean slate,” and cannabis-related expungements.  It introduces a number of efficiencies, including accessibility of state records databases, document creation for expungement petitions, and automatic service of applications on numerous parties. Electronic filing is an important step as the state moves towards an automated expungement system, embracing the development of a “clean slate” model.  Under the new law, the state will develop and implement an automated process to expunge conviction records after a period of ten years from the most recent conviction, payment of fine, satisfactory completion of probation or parole, or release from incarceration whichever is later.  A task force will be established to examine, evaluate and make recommendations on its implementation. But for now, the Expungement System should make the expungement process much easier for many who have access to computers and the internet. Previously, petitioners, even those who were filing through the JEDS system, were required to file several copies of their written or typed expungement applications and then serve copies on many other parties via certified mail, with return receipt requested, at a substantial cost. The court, however, will still accept paper expungement applications, important for those who may not have access to a computer or the internet. Attorneys can access the system through eCourts, and pro se users can create an account through the New Jersey Court’s Self-Help Center (“Submit Expungement Petition Online” under “COVID-19 Self-Help Resources”). Users can enter a municipal or superior court case number, and the expungement system will search and pull the petitioner’s court records from criminal, municipal and family court databases. Petitioners will have the ability to enter additional information not captured by the expungement system database; review and upload additional or supportive documents; and select or deselect which cases should be included on the proposed final order. Once the petition is submitted and verified by the petitioner, the system will automatically create an order for hearing and serve the necessary parties with the documentation. It will also serve those parties if a final order of expungement is entered, and will provide a copy of the order to the petitioner. The Expungement System does not provide eligibility advice or inform users as to whether any particular cases or any application is eligible for expungement. Users should consult with attorneys or advocates as to their eligibility prior to using the system or use other eligibility resources such as LSNJ’s CYRO eligibility interview. After filing, the prosecutor’s office will continue to be responsible for review of the petitioner’s application to confirm eligibility for expungement and will object if it determines that an application is ineligible. Expungement System user guides are available on the Court’s website. LSNJ’s eligibility tools and resources are available at LSNJLAW’s Clearing Your Record Online. Akil Roper is Chief Counsel for Reentry at Legal Services of New Jersey.  Legal Services of New Jersey coordinates and supports the statewide system of legal services providing civil legal assistance to low-income individuals. Read more

How Utah Got Automatic Expungement

Editor’s note: We are pleased to publish this fascinating account of how one state transformed its record relief system in little more than a year from a standing start, written by a person who had a central role in the transformation.      In March of 2019, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB 431, Utah’s Clean Slate law.  At the time, this made Utah the third state in the nation to pass a law automating the criminal record expungement process.  That law went into effect on May 1, 2020, but due to COVID-19, implementation efforts were delayed.  Several months later, implementation is back on track, and it is now anticipated that Utah’s state agencies will begin clearing court and repository records of non-convictions and qualifying misdemeanor convictions by the end of March. Preliminary estimates suggest that hundreds of thousands of people across the state will have their records expunged automatically. What follows is a story about how Utah, one of the reddest states in the nation, came to adopt such a generous and efficient record relief system. As someone who was involved in that process from the beginning, I hope it will be helpful to others seeking to push their own states in that direction. The Case for Clean Slate Perhaps the most tragic thing about the number of people struggling with the collateral consequences of a criminal record is that, in many states, so many are eligible to clear their records but so few ever make it through the process.  The petition-based systems that exist in most states are costly, confusing, and cumbersome.  Utah is no exception. While Utah’s eligibility criteria for expungement are quite generous (allowing for multiple felony and misdemeanor records to be expunged), the expungement process is expensive and time-consuming.  In most cases, individuals must hire an attorney to understand the complex eligibility criteria and procedural requirements. Then they must apply for and obtain from the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI), a “certificate of eligibility,” which expires after 90 days and involves additional cost. Then they must travel to several municipal courthouses across the state to file their paperwork in person, and potentially go back to court later for a full hearing before a judge if either the prosecutor or the victim objects. From start to finish, the process can take more than a year to complete.  As a result, only around 2,000 expungement petitions are filed statewide each year, which represents a small percentage of those who are eligible. The Path to Clean Slate Utah’s Clean Slate story starts with jobs.  In 2018, Utah’s unemployment rate was under 3%, one of the lowest rates in the nation.  I remember sitting in the back of courtroom, listening to a judge ask a defendant whether he worked.  The individual said no, and the judge said, “Well why not?  In this economy, if you can breathe, you can find a job.”  But that wasn’t quite true.  While jobs were plentiful, one thing was still keeping people out of the work force: criminal records. In December 2017, I was working as the Criminal Justice Advisory Council Director for Salt Lake County.  I received a phone call from the Department of Workforce Services, with a request to put on a criminal record expungement workshop for job seekers.  The Department explained that while Utah’s economy was one of the best in the nation, criminal records continued to be a huge barrier to employment. In my former life, I was a public defender, and had some experience with criminal record expungement work, since Utah has offered expungement on a fairly broad basis for several decades. I told the Department that I did not think that a workshop telling people how to navigate Utah’s complicated petition-based expungement process was going to be very effective, nor did I think that the target audience was likely to have the resources necessary to navigate it. But I was excited about the interest and wanted to do something.  Instead, I asked whether the Department would be interested in trying to do something different: putting on an “Expungement Day” event.  Unlike other expungement clinics, the goal of “Expungement Day,” would be to bring the lawyers, courts, criminal repository, and community partners into one room, and work together to try to streamline the criminal record expungement process into a single day, allowing anyone who showed up to leave with a clean record. This turned out to be an ambitious goal.  Representatives from the administrative agencies, defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and people with records, gathered around one table.  While they worked in different parts of the same system, many of these people had not met before.  We talked about what barriers we would need to overcome to clear a person’s record in one day.  We’d need money.  Lots of attorneys.  Pre-screening.  Prosecutors.  Judges.  BCI on site.  Fingerprint pads.  Printers. We decided to do it.  With the help of the Utah Bar Foundation and a lot of private law firms, we raised almost $20,000, so we could provide eligible individuals with expungements that were totally free of charge.  We recruited volunteer attorneys and rented a big warehouse. Our goal was to get 50 clients to sign up.  I worked with the Mayor’s Communications Director to publish this story in our local paper.  “Call [this number] to sign up,” it said.  It was my office number.  A few hours later, my phone started ringing.  It didn’t stop for close to a month, and I couldn’t keep my voicemail empty.  In total, we received close to 500 phone calls from people across the state wanting help clearing their criminal records. I knew there weren’t enough legal aid resources in our state, but the need was eye-opening to me.  We registered dozens of people for the event and somewhat reluctantly, told people we would also try to accommodate walk-ins—anyone who wanted to come wait in line in case of a no-show or in case the volunteer attorneys finished early with a registered participant and had extra capacity. Expungement Day was on April 5, 2018.  It will probably continue to be one of the most impactful days of my professional career.  Hundreds of people lined up to receive services.  It takes about 6 hours to drive the length of our state, and some people had driven all night to attend.   Some people were able to leave with clear records that day, but a lot of people weren’t.  We had to turn hundreds of people away. There was so much momentum coming out of the event, that we wanted to do more.  By working together to examine the petition-based process from start to finish, we realized just how broken our system was.  I did a google search to try to figure out what else people were doing across the country.  That is how I learned about Sharon Dietrich, and Pennsylvania’s Clean Slate effort to automate the process.  Their bill hadn’t passed yet, but it looked likely.  I thought we should do it in Utah.  I asked Representative Eric Hutchings, who served on our County’s Criminal Justice Advisory Council, whether he would run the bill.  He said we would.  We took the issue to the rest of the Council, and there was overwhelming support. After a lot of meetings with the key agencies and several months of work, we built a coalition of advocacy groups on the right, center, and left.  With the help of the Crime and Justice Institute, and the newly formed National Clean Slate Initiative, we engaged our statewide Chamber of Commerce, which became a key supporter and champion for the bill as a way to increase our talent pool.  We worked with prosecutors and law enforcement officers all across the state, many of whom testified in support of the bill.  People with records showed up to share their stories. And Clean Slate passed.  Unanimously. Utah’s Clean Slate Law In a nutshell, Utah’s Clean Slate law automates the criminal record expungement process, meaning that an individual with a qualifying record will no longer have to petition the court for relief.  Instead, two government agencies—the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts and the Utah Department of Public Safety, will work together to identify eligible records, and expunge them automatically.  What this means in practical terms is that the record will no longer be available to the public, or to most state employers, and the person may respond to inquiries about their criminal history as if the conviction had never occurred. Utah’s Clean Slate law applies to non-conviction records, most class B and class C misdemeanor offenses, and class A drug possession offenses.  Individuals with these offenses will be eligible to have their records automatically expunged after a waiting period of 5-7 years, depending on the severity level of the offense.  In other words, individuals who qualify for Clean Slate relief will not have to pay or do anything.  The government will identify their criminal records and expunge them.  People with ineligible convictions, including any felonies, will still have to go through the petition process. Implementation Efforts and Challenges Our law isn’t perfect and is the product of lots of compromise.  One of the most heart-breaking compromises we had to make is that individuals with outstanding legal financial obligations in connection with the eligible case are not eligible for relief.  The numbers are not in yet, but I think this will disqualify thousands of people.  Pennsylvania just eliminated this requirement, and I’m hoping we will eliminate ours in the future. People ask me all the time how implementation is going.  It hasn’t always been easy.  For starters, we weren’t expecting a global pandemic to hit us in the middle of our implementation period.  As in other places, COVID-19 slammed the court system, slashed budgets, and overwhelmed a technology team that was faced with the challenge of turning a largely in-person process into a virtual one.  In the midst of this crisis, it’s sometimes been hard to keep Clean Slate a priority. We’ve also encountered challenges with court records.  In Utah, as in many other places, court records are case-based, not person based, so you have to match the cases to a person before you can determine whether someone is eligible for relief.  And we’re struggling with data integrity issues (old records, missing birth dates or dispositions, social security numbers or names that don’t quite match, or are off) that sometimes make it challenging to determine whether a case is eligible for automatic clearance. So, we have work still left to do.  But it’s possible. Code for America is helping the courts identify eligible records, and we are launching a website and public education campaign to raise awareness about the law and help people determine whether they have qualified. Having been through this journey from the beginning, I am a Clean Slate believer.  Utah is one of the reddest states in the nation, and support for this law was unanimous.  Our country is so divided, but this was an issue that everyone could get behind, because belief in second chances exists across ideologies and political party lines. Clean Slate is the product of a broken petition-based process that denies opportunity to millions nationwide.  It’s broken everywhere and record clearance processes won’t truly be meaningful and accessible to people until they are fixed.  So, if you’re thinking about making changes to your expungement law, you should think about Clean Slate. Resources: Click here for a detailed report on Utah’s Expungement Day and how it led to our Clean Slate legislative campaign. Click here to see a short video about Utah’s Clean Slate law. Click here for more information about the National Clean Slate Initiative. About the Author Noella Sudbury is a lawyer, former public defender, and policy advisor.  She is the owner and founder of Sudbury Consulting, LLC.  She works in Utah and nationally on policy issues, and offers technical assistance, research, and campaign support on criminal justice reform and access to justice issues. Read more

Bipartisan coalition calls on SBA to roll back record-related restrictions in COVID-19 small business loan programs

On April 17 a diverse bipartisan group of civil rights, advocacy, and business organizations, including CCRC, sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and SBA Administrator Carranza expressing concern over the restrictions imposed by the SBA on people with a record of arrest or conviction under two programs recently authorized by Congress in response to the COVID-19 crisis.  The letter points out that these unwarranted restrictions on loan programs intended to aid small businesses and non-profits will have a significant and detrimental impact in communities across the country, and a particularly harsh effect on minority business owners and employees who are disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system as a result of institutional discrimination.  It urges that federal relief be made equitably accessible to all who need it. The letter describes how the SBA’s program restrictions based on record are unnecessary and confusing inconsistent with Congress’ intent in enacting the CARES Act overbroad and unfair racially discriminatory In conclusion, the letter urges the SBA to take the following steps: At a minimum, bring the record restrictions for PPP and EIDL programs in line with those that applied to Section 7(a) and 7(b) loans under regulations adopted prior to enactment of the CARES Act. Relax existing rules and policies that restrict access to PPP or EIDL financial assistance for people with a record in the urgent circumstances presented by the pandemic, in line with the purposes of the CARES Act. Ensure that the application forms for SBA financial assistance accurately reflect the eligibility requirements and are written in a clear manner. An Appendix to the letter describes how the new rules and policies governing the Payroll Protection Program are more restrictive than those governing the 7(a) program generally, and how barriers based on arrest or conviction may also disqualify people with any sort of a record from loans under the EIDL program authorized under the SBA’s existing 7(b) disaster loan program. The letter —available in PDF and reprinted below – was sent by the following organizations: American Civil Liberties Union Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Collateral Consequences Resource Center Community Legal Services of Philadelphia Drug Policy Alliance FreedomWorks Georgia Justice Project Interfaith Action for Human Rights Jewish Council for Public Affairs Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana Justice Action Network Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers National Employment Law Project Public Interest Law Center Reproductive Justice Inside Safer Foundation Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Women Against Registry April 17, 2020  The Honorable Steven Mnuchin                                 The Honorable Jovita Carranza Secretary                                                                Administrator U.S. Department of Treasury                                     U.S. Small Business Administration Washington, D.C. 20220                                           Washington, D.C. 20416 Dear Secretary Mnuchin and Administrator Carranza, As a bipartisan and diverse group of organizations working to ensure fair treatment of people with a record of arrest or conviction, we write to express our deep concern over the restrictions imposed by the Small Business Administration on this population’s eligibility for benefits under the two programs authorized and funded by the CARES Act (see Appendix).  With one in three Americans having a record, and people with records experiencing an unemployment rate five times higher than the average, these restrictions will have a significant and detrimental impact on individuals, families, and communities across the United States. The restrictions will have a particularly harsh effect on minority business owners and employees who are disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system as a result of institutional discrimination. Specifically, these restrictions are: Unnecessary and confusing: There are no statutes requiring the SBA to categorically disqualify individuals from its loan programs based on an arrest or conviction record; the authority to perform a background check does not translate into authority to exclude. SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Interim Final Rule, and the PPP’s even more restrictive application form, are far more exclusionary than the preexisting rule on record restrictions for small business loans under the 7(a) program, which only excludes those with active criminal cases. SBA’s new rule excludes anyone convicted of any felony within the last 5 years, and its application form additionally disqualifies anyone who pleaded guilty or no contest, or was placed on pretrial diversion, probation, or parole during that period (see Appendix). The lack of new policy guidance for Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) for people with a record, especially regarding the new advances, also leads to additional exclusion. The new restrictions constitute unnecessary overreach that interferes with the ability of small businesses to operate and pay their employees. The PPP Interim Final Rule, policy guidance, and application form are confusing and likely to have a chilling effect that will discourage many eligible business owners from applying; and, they may lead to applicants inadvertently answering the records questions incorrectly. The policy guidance and application form for Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) advances are similarly confusing and are likely to have the same chilling effect. Inconsistent with Congress’ intent:  The intention of the emergency relief programs authorized by the CARES Act is to sustain small businesses that are trying to save the economy by keeping people employed. Eligibility requirements should be relaxed in these circumstances, not heightened. SBA’s new restrictions on eligibility for its loan programs, which already operate to exclude many people with a record, contravene the intent of the CARES Act, and are inconsistent with SBA’s more general mandate of encouraging entrepreneurship and expanding access to employment, including for people with a record of arrest or conviction. A significant number of people with an arrest or conviction history have established their own small businesses, since it is frequently difficult for them to secure employment with others. Moreover, these businesses also tend to be more willing to hire employees with a record. Driving them out of business will result in a severe impact on employment of a population that already is disadvantaged in the workplace. A large percentage of small businesses are owned by single owners or a limited number of co-owners, so that any disqualification affecting 20%+ equity owners will have a significant impact on small business owners generally. A policy that excludes from loan eligibility small businesses that are owned in whole or in part by people with arrest or conviction history is not only inconsistent with the CARES Act and the mandate of SBA’s own authorizing statutes, it also frustrates federal and state efforts to encourage the reintegration of individuals involved in the criminal legal system. Overbroad and unfair: The PPP’s categorical bars based on certain arrest or conviction records mean that there is no opportunity for an individual determination that considers factors such as rehabilitation, the circumstances of the conviction/disposition, or whether the nature of the underlying crime might adversely affect the ability to properly utilize the loan. The EIDL program restrictions go even further by asking about any involvement with the criminal legal system at any time, which could potentially exclude applicants with any arrest or conviction record. The PPP and EIDL restrictions extend to individuals that the criminal legal system has specifically determined should not be convicted of a crime, including those that participate in diversionary programs or obtain deferred adjudications – the very kinds of dispositions that are supposed to help protect people involved in the criminal legal system from harsh economic collateral consequences. The SBA’s requirement that people disclose sealed and expunged records circumvents protections in state law for these cleared records and is contrary to the intent and purpose of those laws. Racially discriminatory: The SBA’s restrictions will have a disparate impact on minority business owners and employees, who are disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system as a result of institutional discrimination. People with a record are already subject to myriad disadvantages in seeking to reintegrate into society, notably in bank lending, but also in housing, employment, licensing, education, voting, and other areas. The SBA must act now to: At a minimum, bring the record restrictions for PPP and EIDL programs in line with those that applied to Section 7(a) and 7(b) loans under regulations adopted prior to enactment of the CARES Act. Relax existing rules and policies that restrict access to PPP or EIDL financial assistance for people with a record in the urgent circumstances presented by the pandemic, in line with the purposes of the CARES Act. Ensure that the application forms for SBA financial assistance accurately reflect the eligibility requirements and are written in a clear manner. As the COVID-19 crisis continues to devastate communities across this country, federal relief must be made equitably accessible to all who need it. Sincerely,   American Civil Liberties Union Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Collateral Consequences Resource Center Community Legal Services of Philadelphia Drug Policy Alliance FreedomWorks Georgia Justice Project Interfaith Action for Human Rights Jewish Council for Public Affairs Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana Justice Action Network Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers National Employment Law Project Public Interest Law Center Reproductive Justice Inside Safer Foundation Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Women Against Registry     APPENDIX: PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS (Prepared by CCRC, last revised 4/17/20) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) The CARES Act authorizes the PPP, which provides small business loans under the SBA’s 7(a) loan program, with provisions for expanded eligibility, allowable uses, and forgiveness.[1] Barriers based on arrest or conviction for 7(a) loans in general: By statute: The SBA “may verify the applicant’s criminal background, or lack thereof,” prior to approval, including through an FBI background check.[2] By regulation: “Businesses with an Associate who is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or has been indicted for a felony or a crime of moral turpitude” are ineligible.[3] By policy statement: SBA interprets its regulation to also make ineligible an Associate under deferred prosecution, conditional discharge, order of protection, or a sex offender registry, or currently facing any charges in any jurisdiction.[4] SBA also states that various principals of a business “must be of good character,” which is determined through a character evaluation, requiring disclosure of any: 1) current charges; 2) arrests in the past 6 months; and 3) time the person has been convicted, pled guilty or no contest, or been placed on pretrial diversion or any form of parole or probation—other than for a minor vehicle violation. Expunged and sealed records must be disclosed, with no exceptions. A person will generally be approved if they provide documentation that they have satisfied all sentencing conditions (presumably including payment of costs and restitution) and do not have a felony conviction, misdemeanor conviction for a crime against a minor, recent misdemeanor conviction, or recent charges. Otherwise, they are subject to a fingerprint-based FBI background check and an opaque individual determination by the SBA.[5] Barriers based on arrest or conviction specific to PPP loans: By statute: The CARES Act does not specifically authorize much less require barriers based on arrest or conviction for PPP loans. To be consistent with its purposes, the CARES Act should be read to say at the least that new barriers based on arrest or conviction should not be applied to PPP assistance.[6] By regulation: SBA Interim Final Rule (Apr. 15): “You are ineligible for a PPP loan if….iii. An owner of 20 percent or more of the equity of the applicant is incarcerated, on probation, on parole; presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction; or has been convicted of a felony within the last five years.” By application form: Borrower Application (Apr. 3): asks two questions; a “yes” to either is disqualifying: 1) “Is the Applicant (if an individual) or any individual owning 20% or more of the equity of the Applicant subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction, or presently incarcerated, or on probation or parole?” 2) “Within the last 5 years, for any felony, has the Applicant (if an individual) or any owner of the Applicant 1) been convicted; 2) pleaded guilty; 3) pleaded nolo contendere; 4) been placed on pretrial diversion; or 5) been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment)?” (Note: this is far broader than the Interim Final Rule: the second question includes “any owner” and covers dispositions other than conviction.) Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) EIDL loans are authorized under the SBA’s existing 7(b) disaster loan program. The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Phase 1) appropriated additional funds and deemed coronavirus a disaster.[7] Pursuant to the CARES Act, SBA is also allowing business owners in all states, D.C., and territories to apply for an EIDL advance of up to $10,000, which “will be made available within days of a successful application, and this loan advance will not have to be repaid.”[8] Barriers based on arrest or conviction for EIDL: By statute: Individuals convicted during the past year of a felony during and in connection with a riot or civil disorder or other declared disaster are ineligible.[9] By regulation: “Businesses with an Associate who is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or has been indicted for a felony or a crime of moral turpitude” are ineligible.[10] By policy statement: The SBA policy statement provides: “It is not in the public interest…to extend financial assistance to persons who are not of good character. If any adverse information develops concerning the character or background of a disaster loan applicant or principal owner [on forms], SBA must make a determination as to the applicant’s character before a loan can be approved.”[11] Thus, the SBA will not approve a loan “if the applicant or principal owner is presently on parole or probation following conviction of a serious criminal offense. However, [it] will consider approving an application submitted by partnerships, corporations, and LLEs, where the apparent bar to eligibility was committed independently of any official act for the business and the individual will divest all direct and indirect interest in the business.” By application form: Forms, including the COVID-19 EIDL portal, include the usual EIDL three-part question, which requires a “yes” or “no” to the entire question: “a. Are you presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction? b. Have you been arrested in the past six months for any criminal offense? c. For any criminal offense – other than a minor vehicle violation – have you ever been convicted, plead guilty, plead nolo contendere, been placed on pretrial diversion, or been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment)?” The SBA has not provided guidance on whether applicants who answer “yes” to this question can obtain an EIDL advance. Under pre-existing policy, if this question is answered “yes,” the SBA requires the applicant to provide a Form 912 with an explanation of the offense(s), and in some cases a fingerprint sample, before the SBA will make a character determination.[12]   [1] CARES Act (H.R. 748), secs. 1102-1105; 15 U.S.C. 636(a). [2] 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(1)(B). [3] 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(n). An “Associate” includes officers, directors, owners of 20% or more of the equity, key employees, and other specified entities. See 13 C.F.R. § 120.10. [4] See SBA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10 5(K)(B)(2)(III)(A)(13) (eff. April 1, 2019). [5] The good character requirement applies to every proprietor, general partner, officer, director, managing member of an LLC, owner of 20% or more of the equity, trustor, or person who runs day-to-day operations.” See id. [6] See CARES Act (H.R. 748), sec. 1102. [7] Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 6074), tit. 2. [8] CARES Act (H.R. 748), sec. 1110; https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/coronavirus-relief-options/economic-injury-disaster-loan-emergency-advance. [9] See P. L. 90 448, 1106(e), HUD Act of l968, and 13 CFR §123.101(a). [10] 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(n). An “Associate” includes officers, directors, owners of 20% or more of the equity, key employees, and other specified entities. See 13 C.F.R. § 120.10. [11] SBA SOP 50 30 9(3.6) (effective May 31, 2018) at p. 32. [12] Id. Read more

Prosecutors’ role in deciding how long people stay in prison

A timely new article from CCRC board member Nora V. Demleitner, law professor at Washington and Lee University, considers the central role of prosecutors in determining who goes to jail and prison and how long they stay there.  Demleitner reviews—as a “case study of prosecutorial authority”—prosecutors’ actions to reduce confined populations during the COVID-19 crisis.  While prosecutors’ key role in charging and sentencing at the front end of a criminal case is well-established, in ordinary times their influence in its later stages, including in prison release decisions, is not so obvious.  Professor Demleitner shows how the pandemic “highlights the tools prosecutors have at their disposal and how they can directly impact the size of the criminal justice system.”  This in turn leads her to consider how “prosecutorial thinking” focused on public safety as opposed to public health “increasingly influences other branches of government” even in the midst of a pandemic. Professor Demleitner’s article, “State Prosecutors at the Center of Mass Imprisonment and Criminal Justice Reform,” will be published in the April 2020 issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter.  The abstract is included below: State prosecutors around the country have played a crucial role in mass imprisonment. Little supervision and virtually unsurpassed decision making power have provided them with unrivaled influence over the size, growth, and composition of our criminal justice system. They decide which cases to prosecute, whether to divert a case, whether to offer a plea, and what sentence to recommend. Their impact does not stop at sentencing. They weigh in on alternative dockets, supervision violations, parole release, and even clemency requests. But they are also part of a larger system that constrains them. Funding, judicial limits on their power, and legislative grants of authority to other players in the criminal justice system all serve to limit the freedom of prosecutors. The public health threat COVID-19 presents to those detained in jails and prisons has turned into a case study of prosecutorial authority. It powerfully displays the sway political ideology, divergent purposes of punishment, and public safety considerations hold over release decisions. The prosecutors most successful in decreasing inmate population numbers quickly have been not only proactive but also able to build effective coalitions with other criminal justice actors. Whether COVID-19 will in the long run lead to smaller jail populations and shorter prison terms remains an open question. Yet, it further reinforces and strengthens the role of prosecutors whose expansive reach into our communities—with an eye to incarceration or decarceration—continues to be a powerful feature of the American criminal justice system. Read the article here. Read more