Tag: utah

Illinois set to become fifth state to cover criminal record discrimination in its fair employment law

NOTE: Governor Pritzker signed S1480 into law on March 23. In our recent report on criminal record reforms enacted in 2020, we noted that there were only four states that had fully incorporated criminal record into their fair employment law as a prohibited basis of discrimination. These states (New York, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and California) provide that employers can only disqualify a person based on their record if it meets a specific standard, such as being related to the work in question or posing an unreasonable risk to public safety. Illinois will become the fifth state to take this important step as soon as Governor Pritzker signs S1480. Illinois has been working up to this, having amended its Human Rights Act in 2019 to prohibit employment discrimination based on “an arrest not leading to a conviction, a juvenile record, or criminal history record information ordered expunged, sealed, or impounded.” With S1480, Illinois has now taken the final step of incorporating criminal record fully into the law’s structure, which includes authorization to file a lawsuit in the event administrative enforcement is unsatisfactory. A preliminary analysis of the new Illinois law indicates that it now offers more protection for more people with a criminal record in the employment context than any state in the Nation other than California. The provisions of the Illinois bill, enrolled and sent to the governor for signature on February 12, are described below.  We then compare them with the laws in the four other states that incorporate criminal record into their fair employment law. This post notes the handful of additional states that have fortified their record-related employment protections in recent years, then summarizes relevant reforms that were enacted in 2020. The new Illinois law makes it unlawful for any employer, employment agency, or labor union to use a conviction record “as a basis to refuse to hire” or to take other employment related adverse action, unless “there is a substantial relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the employment sought or held” or “the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public.” 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-103.1(A). “Substantial relationship” is defined to mean “a consideration of whether the employment position offers the opportunity for the same or a similar offense to occur.” In making a determination under subsection (A), the employer must consider a variety of factors including the length of time since conviction, the extent of the record, the nature and severity of the conviction itself and its relationship to the safety and security of others, the age of the employee at the time of the offense, and evidence of “rehabilitation efforts.” 5/2-103.1(B). If the employer reaches a preliminary determination of disqualification or other adverse action, the employer must give written notice and an opportunity for respond, and in the event of a final determination an explanation of the reasons.” 5/2-103.1(C). The new Illinois law compares well with the laws in the four other states that incorporate criminal record into their fair employment law. Although the Illinois “substantial relationship” standard is not as protective as New York’s “direct relationship” standard, Illinois law elaborates the standard with the same public safety emphasis and offers more procedural protections in the form of reasons and an opportunity for reconsideration. Also, unlike New York, it prohibits any consideration of non-conviction records and sealed or expunged convictions. Hawaii has a weaker “rational relationship” standard and also excludes a large number of employments, although it bars inquiry into criminal record until after a conditional offer has been made and thereafter prohibits any consideration of non-conviction records, as well as any conviction more than seven years in the past for felonies and five years for misdemeanors (as reduced in 2020). California also bars inquiry until after a conditional offer has been made, prohibits consideration of non-conviction records and records that have been the subject of judicial relief, provides considerable procedural protections, and has the strongest standard for testing the relevance of a conviction (“direct and adverse relationship”). Wisconsin’s law is the weakest of the five: it applies a “substantial relationship” standard but does not elaborate it, and it offers no procedural protections to applicants or existing employees other than administrative enforcement of this substantive standard. The District of Columbia has also enacted robust fair chance employment protections that apply to both public and many private employers, but its law stops short of authorizing individuals dissatisfied with action by the Office of Human Rights to go to court. Colorado, Connecticut, and Nevada have recently prohibited some employers from considering certain criminal records, but those prohibitions are not fully integrated into a broader nondiscrimination law. Other states are still catching up, with many stalled at the “ban the box” stage. Our report on new legislation in 2020 documented comparatively modest but still noteworthy advances toward fair chance employment in 6 states last year. We reprint the discussion of 2020 reforms from our report below: In 2020, 6 states expanded access to employment for people with a record through 7 bills and one executive order. Two states (New Hampshire and Virginia) enacted a ban-the-box law applicable to public employment, while North Carolina’s governor issued a broad executive order that not only prohibited public employers from making application-stage inquiries, but also established standards for considering criminal record thereafter. Maryland’s legislature overrode a governor’s veto to apply application-stage limits on inquiry to private employers with more than 15 employees. Hawaii amended its venerable fair employment law to reduce the periods after which a conviction may not be considered by any employers. Overall, however, these 2020 laws had limited effect on the fair employment landscape. At the end of 2020, there were still only four states (California, Hawaii, New York, and Wisconsin) that included discrimination based on criminal record as part of their general fair employment scheme, and all but California’s law were enacted many years ago. Colorado, Connecticut, and Nevada have, like Illinois, more recently prohibited some employers from considering certain criminal records, but those prohibitions are not fully integrated into a broader nondiscrimination law. Most of the fair employment laws recently enacted involve fairly modest limits on application stage inquiry. The National Employment Law Project keeps a running tab of new “ban-the-box” laws, and reported in September 2020 that 36 states and more than 150 municipal and county ordinances now require public employers to consider applicants’ qualifications before their criminal histories, with 14 extending these limits to private employers.  However, as noted in our Many Roads report, few of these laws include the kind of robust post-inquiry standards that make the 2020 North Carolina Executive Order described below stand out. The new employment laws and orders in 2020 are described briefly below: Hawaii shortened the lookback period in which a person may be disqualified based on conviction under its fair employment law, to seven years for felonies and five years for misdemeanors, excluding periods of incarceration (SB 2193). Hawaii includes discrimination based on conviction record in its more general fair employment practices law, and under preexisting law it is an unlawful employment practice to inquire into arrest and conviction records before the employee receives a conditional offer of employment, and an employer could withdraw an offer only if a conviction within the previous 10 years (exclusive of any period of incarceration) “bears a rational relationship to the duties and responsibilities of the position.” Under this new law, 10-year period is reduced to 7 years for felonies and 5 years for misdemeanors. Maryland enacted a ban-the-box law applicable to private employers with more than 15 employees, overriding Governor Hogan’s veto. The law prohibits inquiry into an applicant’s criminal record until the first interview; and authorizes civil penalties.  Certain employment is excepted. The law specifically does not preclude local jurisdictions from imposed stricter standards (HB 994). Md. Code Lab. & Empl. § 3-1403. North Carolina’s governor issued an executive order (EO 158), which directs all state agencies to remove questions about criminal record from employment application forms, and to defer inquiries until “the completion of the initial job interview.” The order further prohibits agencies from considering the following: (i) expunged or pardoned convictions, (ii) charges or convictions that do not relate to the underlying employment matter, (iii) arrests not resulting in a conviction, or (iv) charges resulting in dismissal or not guilty. State employment decisions “shall not be based on the criminal history of an individual unless that criminal history is demonstrably job-related and consistent with business necessity associated with the position, or if state or federal law prohibits hiring an individual convicted of certain crimes for a particular position.” New Hampshire prohibited an application-stage inquiry into criminal record in public employment prior to the initial interview, “unless the public employer is required to screen applications for specific criminal convictions because it is prohibited from hiring those with such convictions under state or federal law” (HB 253). N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 275:37-c(II). Utah removed an absolute barrier based on certain convictions for employment with vulnerable populations, if the applicant will be serving only adults whose only impairment is a mental health diagnosis. In addition, certain convictions cannot be disqualifying after 10 conviction-free years for felonies, and three years for misdemeanors (HB 436). Virginia prohibited inquiry into criminal record by public employers prior to interview. Excepts law enforcement employment and certain other sensitive employments (HB 757). Va. Code Ann. §§ 2.2-2812.1, 15.2-1505.3. Virginia added crimes to the list for which an exception is available for employment with a substance abuse or mental health program at community services boards and private providers of behavioral health services licensed by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services. This law also allows the Department to hire individuals convicted of various crimes at a state facility if the Department determines the individual has been rehabilitated successfully and is not a risk to those receiving services (HB 1540). Virginia also decriminalizes marijuana possession, restricted public access to records relating to past arrests, charges, or convictions for this offense, prohibited employers and educational institutions from inquiring about them, and prohibited state and local officials from requiring an applicant for a license, permit, registration, or governmental service to disclose information about them (SB 2 / HB 972). Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-250.1; 19.2-389.3. Read more

Two significant new occupational licensing laws enacted in 2021

After 11 states enacted 19 laws limiting consideration of criminal records by occupational licensing agencies last year, the first significant record reforms of 2021 are occupational licensing laws enacted by Ohio and the District of Columbia.  D.C.’s new law is particularly comprehensive, and applies both to health-related and other licensed professions in the District. The new District of Columbia law, Act A23-0561, is described in detail in the DC profile from the Restoration of Rights Project.  It provides that no one may be denied a license based on conviction of a crime unless it is “directly related” to the licensed occupation, as determined by a detailed set of standards; prohibits inquiry about a record until an applicant has been found otherwise qualified and then prohibits consideration of certain records (including non-conviction and sealed convictions); and provides procedural protections in the event of denial. The new law also establishes a pre-application petition process for individuals with a record to determine their eligibility, and requires the Mayor to report annually to the Council on each board’s record.  The Institute for Justice has described the “landmark” new D.C. law as “the best in the nation, second only to Indiana.” The new Ohio law, HB 263, is more complex and less protective than DC’s, requiring licensing boards to publish lists of two types of convictions: those that “shall” be disqualifying (overcome only by a court-ordered certificate) and those that “may” be found disqualify based on their “direct relationship” to the licensed occupation. Other convictions and non-conviction records may not be grounds for denying a license, and vague terms like “moral character” and “moral turpitude” may not be used. If a conviction is on the list of those “directly related,” the board must still consider certain standards linked to an applicants overall record that are linked to public safety, and may not deny after a period of either five or 10 years depending on the offense.  In the event of denial, a board must provide procedural protections including written reasons and a hearing.  These new features supplement the provision for a binding preliminary determination enacted by Ohio in 2019. Michigan’s governor also signed a series of bills regulating occupational licensure on the last day of 2020, which include some of the features of the schemes described above but retain the unfortunate disqualification standard of “good moral character.” While Michigan’s licensing law could use improvement, it contributed to the state’s earning the title of Reintegration Champion of 2020. Our report on new legislation in 2020, documenting that 11 states enacted 19 licensing reform laws, noted that “[o]f all the criminal record reforms enacted during this modern reintegration reform era, no other approaches the regulation of occupational licensing agencies in terms of breadth, consistency, and likely efficacy.”  We reprint the discussion of 2020 licensing reform from our report here: In 2020, 11 states enacted 19 laws limiting consideration of criminal records by occupational licensing agencies. Four states (Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, and Rhode Island) regulated licensing agencies statewide for the very first time; two other states (Utah and West Virginia) improved upon their first venture into licensing regulation in 2019; and Pennsylvania made improvements in licensing standards originally adopted in an earlier era of reform in the 1970s. These enactments continue a trend begun in 2017 that has transformed the licensing policy landscape across the Nation and opened opportunities in regulated professions for many thousands of people. As explained in our national report The Many Roads to Reintegration, these licensing reforms are particularly important in supporting reintegration, since studies have shown that more than 25% of all jobs in the United States require a government-issued license.  Occupational licenses offer a gateway to the middle class, particularly for people who may have learned a trade or gained a skill while in prison. The new wave of licensing reforms resurrects a progressive approach to occupational opportunity that dates from the 1970s.  In recent years it has been strongly influenced by model legislation developed by the Institute of Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm, and the National Employment Law Project (NELP), a workers’ rights research and advocacy group.  Despite their origin in differing regulatory philosophies, the IJ and NELP model laws reflect a similar approach:  they 1) limit the kinds of records that may result in disqualification, rejecting vague “good moral character” and other criteria irrelevant to competence; and 2) insist that individual denials be grounded in findings of rehabilitation and public safety with rigorous due process guarantees, making agency procedures more transparent and accountable.  In the IJ model, applicants may seek binding preliminary determinations of qualification, and agency compliance is monitored by disclosure and reporting requirements. Some of the more familiar provisions of these new laws are drawn from the IJ or NELP models: Preliminary determination: Providing for a preliminary determination of qualification, for a small fee with quick turnaround and written reasons Relevant standards: Deleting vague standards like “good moral character” in favor of standards likely to evidence low risk and rehabilitation Prohibited considerations: Barring consideration of certain types of records and other types after a specified time Transparency: Requiring agencies to publish a list of disqualifying convictions and to provide written reasons for rejection in individual cases Accountability: Including reporting requirements intended to monitor agency compliance. The new occupational licensing laws in 2020 are summarized below: Colorado enacted the “Occupational Credential Portability Program,” which authorizes approval of an application for reciprocal licensure by anyone licensed in another jurisdiction, apparently without regard to whether they meet Colorado’s standards for licensure that relate to consideration of criminal record, unless they have committed an act that would be grounds for disciplinary action in Colorado (HB 20-1326). Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 12-20-202(3)(a), (b), (f)(III). In addition, HB 20-1424 creates “social equity licenses” to operate legal marijuana businesses, available to people who: (1) themselves or their family members were arrested, convicted, or subject to a civil forfeiture for a marijuana offense; (2) have a low income; or (3) live in an “opportunity zone” or “disproportionate impacted area.” Iowa had no general law regulating consideration of criminal record in occupational licensing prior to 2020. HF 2627 adds a new section to Chapter 272C of the Iowa Code to impose an unusually robust and license-specific “direct relationship” test on all but a few health-related licenses. Each covered board must provide a list of offenses that “directly relate[] to the duties and responsibilities of the profession,” and may not deny a license based on non-conviction records or any finding that an applicant “lacks good character” or “suffers from moral turpitude.” Iowa Code Ann. §272C.15. Under the new section, an agency “shall grant” an exception to an individual “who would otherwise be denied a license due to a criminal conviction” if the individual is determined to be rehabilitated and an “appropriate candidate for licensure” based on a list of factors that include the nature and seriousness of the crime, the passage of time, and other mitigating or aggravating factors. There is a rebuttable presumption that an applicant is “rehabilitated” five years after release from incarceration unless the conviction was for certain violent or sexual crimes. The board shall consider whether a “certification of employability” has been issued and any letters of reference. A prospective applicant may petition for a preliminary determination, for which a board may charge a fee of $25. Grounds for denial must be in writing, and the applicant must be given an opportunity to appeal and informed that evidence of rehabilitation will be considered on reapplication. The board’s findings on each criterion specified must be “sufficient for review by a court.” The board has the burden of proving direct relationship. An individual may be requested to submit a “complete criminal record,” which includes the complaint and judgment for each conviction. Idaho had no general law regulating consideration of criminal record in occupational licensing, prior to 2020. SB 1351 adds a new chapter 94 to Title 67 of the Idaho Code, inter alia establishing a committee “to study and review occupational licensing and certification laws in general in order to determine, as applicable, how the legislature may be able to ease occupational licensing barriers while still protecting the public health and safety.” The new law authorizes a non-binding preliminary determination as to whether a person’s conviction would be disqualifying, and establishes a multi-factor test to determine whether a person’s criminal record is “currently relevant to the applicant’s fitness” to engage in the occupation. A license may not be denied on the basis of “vague or generic terminology related to a criminal conviction, including but not limited to ‘moral turpitude’ or ‘moral character.'” “Where such terms appear in code or rule with respect to a criminal conviction, a licensing authority shall conduct a relevancy evaluation pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.” The “relevancy” standard was inserted in a variety of licensing chapters as a basis for denial or revocation of a license, replacing a formulation that permitted adverse action based on “conviction of any felony, or conviction of any other crime involving moral turpitude.” It was also inserted into the rules of the division of human resources and the personnel commission that regulate public employment in the state. Louisiana’s SB 354 provides for issuing a card to individuals leaving prison that includes a list of all vocational licensing and certification programs completed while incarcerated. Michigan enacted a series of bills applicable to occupational licensure to limit agency consideration of certain types of criminal record. HB 4488 and related bills retained the standard of “good moral character” as a basis for restricting licenses to those with a criminal record but limited it for most licenses to exclude non-convictions, misdemeanors that do not carry a prison term, and convictions “unrelated to an individual’s capacity to serve the public.”  The new law requires each licensing agency to specify the crimes that are likely to fall into the last-mentioned category. They must also provide a statement of reasons in the event of denial (“including a complete record of the evidence upon which the determination was based”), an opportunity to appeal, and judicial review. An annual report must be submitted with the number of applications denied because of lack of good moral character and a summary of the convictions on which denials were based. Missouri provided very little protection to a person with a criminal record in the licensing process prior to 2020. The Fresh Start Act (HB 2046) requires that a disqualifying criminal record must be “directly related” to the license, also specifying that certain violent crimes “shall” be considered “directly related” to whatever license is involved even if sentence is not imposed. Drug crimes “may” be disqualifying for certain occupations, while fraud offenses “may” be disqualifying for other occupations. If convicted of a lesser included offense, the period of disqualification as “directly related” lasts only for four years after release from incarceration. “Direct relationship” is determined by a multi-factor test. Applicants may apply for a preliminary determination that is binding on the agency. If a person is denied a license, they have a right to a hearing, as well as written findings addressing each factor on which the agency relied sufficient for a reviewing court. “In any administrative hearing or civil litigation authorized under this subsection, the licensing authority shall carry the burden of proof on the question of whether the applicant’s criminal conviction directly relates to the occupation for which the license is sought.” The new law does not apply to significant classes of licenses, including teachers, various health professionals, accountants, real estate brokers and agents, and peace officers. Pennsylvania enacted SB 637 to bolster its weak occupational licensing law dating from the 1970s. SB637 supersedes any law that disqualifies an individual for a license or provides for “good moral character” findings, requires that there be a “direct relationship” between the crime and the profession and whether licensing the individual poses a public safety risk, as determined by an “individualized assessment” under a long list of specified factors. It excludes those convicted of sexual offenses from health care licensure and establishes a separate set of standards for those convicted of violent crimes. Prohibits consideration of juvenile adjudications, non-conviction records, and records of convictions that have been expunged or sealed). It also authorizes restricted licenses for applicants who cannot immediately demonstrate fitness due to a criminal conviction, and it provides for a “preliminary determination” for applicants considering undergoing training for a license, which is binding unless the crime is one on the list of crimes “directly related,” in which case it may be subject to further inquiry when a formal application is filed. The law falls short in not ruling out consideration of dated or minor convictions, although it does rely on a public safety standard for denial of a license and gives those recently released from prison a chance to demonstrate their abilities. While existing law requires boards to defend record-related denials with written reasons, neither old nor new law provides an opportunity for an administrative appeal, requiring a disappointed applicant to file a lawsuit. Rhode Island enacted its first generally applicable law regulating the occupational licensing process, extending it as well to professional and business licenses issued by state agencies. S 2824 applies a “substantial relationship” standard to licensing boards under most departments of state government, establishes standards for determining substantial relationship, excludes certain records from consideration, allows applicants to establish rehabilitation by detailed standards, provides detailed procedures in the event of denial, suspension or revocation, and includes accountability standards. Records that may not be considered include non-conviction records, juvenile records, expunged records, records of misdemeanors that may not be punished by incarceration, and any crime that is not substantially related. If a licensing authority intends to deny, suspend, or revoke an occupational license solely or in part because of a conviction, the person must be given reasons in writing, and if the conviction is “substantially related” an analysis under each of the criteria. The person must be permitted to respond and given an opportunity to appeal. Every agency must post on its website each year a report with “(1) the number of applicants granted licenses, the number of applicants denied licenses for any reason, and, to the extent available, the demographic breakdown of the applicants, including race, ethnicity, and gender, and city or town of residence; and (2) The number of applicants denied solely, or in part, because of a criminal conviction. The law took effect on January 1, 2021. Utah’s legislature acted to enhance a 2019 law that provided for a preliminary determination of qualification for licensure applicable to many state licensing boards, upgrading its standard for decision-making from “reasonable relationship” to “substantial relationship.” SB 201 takes regulation of licensing a step further, establishing heightened standards for consideration of licensure of applicants with criminal records. Licensing boards must “provide individualized consideration to the applicant or licensee,” and “determine whether the criminal conviction bears a substantial relationship to the applicant’s or licensee’s ability to safely or competently practice the occupation or profession.” In this determination the board will “consider the applicant’s or licensee’s current circumstances” measured by a number of the customary factors such as age when offense committed, time since conviction, and various indicia of rehabilitation. Applicants are provided an opportunity to appeal a denial. § 58-1-402. Certain convictions are per se “not evidence of unprofessional conduct,” including non-convictions, and convictions where seven years have passed since release from incarceration without a conviction or guilty plea. Convictions for violent and sexual crimes, and for fraud or embezzlement are excepted. § 58-1-501(4). Vermont has very weak regulation of occupational licensing agencies, allowing denial or discipline for “unprofessional conduct” based on “[c]onviction of a crime related to the practice of the profession or conviction of a felony, whether or not related to the practice of the profession.” 233 did nothing to tighten this standard, providing only that its licensing boards must offer interested persons a pre-application determination regarding whether their criminal background will be disqualifying. This request shall provide documentation related to the individual’s conviction or convictions, evidence of rehabilitation, and identification of the profession or professions for which the individual seeks licensure. An applicant would pay a $25 fee for this so-called “second chance determination,” and this fee would be deducted from the license application fee if the applicant does thereafter seek licensure. The new law applies to the professions and occupations regulated by the Office of Professional Regulation, the Department of Environmental Conservation (for well drillers), the Standards Board for Professional Educators, the Board of Medical Practice, the Electricians’ Licensing Board, and the Plumbers’ Examining Board. Washington enacted HB 2870 to create a “social equity program” to reduce barriers to entry to the cannabis industry for individuals and communities most adversely impacted by the enforcement of cannabis-related laws. West Virginia enacted two laws (HR4352 and HR4353) extending regulation enacted in 2019 to a variety of different licenses, applying a “rational nexus” standard for denial, lifting mandatory bars after five years, and authorizing a preliminary determination. 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

Pennsylvania expands access to 255 licensed occupations for people with a record

On July 1, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed into law an expansive new regulation of the state’s occupational licensing process, giving the agencies that control access to 255 occupations detailed new standards for considering criminal records in the licensing process.  Pennsylvania has not addressed these issues on a state-wide basis since the 1970’s, and with proper implementation the new law promises a path to the middle class for skilled individuals whose career prospects might otherwise be limited. While Pennsylvania’s law is by far the most ambitious one of its kind passed this year, five other states have also passed laws since the beginning of 2020 regulating consideration of criminal record in occupational licensing.  Two were states that previously had no general law governing this issue (Idaho and Missouri) and three were states that extended laws passed in recent years (Iowa, Utah and West Virginia). Pennsylvania’s new law is analyzed in detail below.  The provisions of the other five states’ new licensing laws are summarized briefly at the end of the post, and the laws of all six states are written up in greater detail in the relevant state profiles in the Restoration of Rights Project. Pennsylvania’s new occupational licensing law Pennsylvania’s new law (SB637) is very strong substantively.  To summarize, it supersedes provisions in existing law that provide for “good moral character” criteria for certain licenses, as well as laws that mandate disqualification, including 10-year bars that apply in numerous health-related licensing schemes.  It requires each licensing agency to identify offenses that may be disqualifying as “directly related” to the occupation, pursuant to a notice-and-comment rule-making process.  If an offense is not considered “directly related,” the new law mandates an individualized assessment of each applicant pursuant to detailed criteria that emphasize public safety.  It gives individuals recently released from prison a chance to demonstrate their abilities through offering “restricted” licenses to those who cannot immediately demonstrate fitness under the law’s new standards.  Finally, it expands the category of records that may not be considered to include convictions that are subject to an order of “limited access.”  At the same time, unlike recent licensing reforms in some other states, it does not rule out consideration of dated or minor convictions. The new law is not as strong from a procedural standpoint as some other recent licensing reforms, and its due process provisions are not well-developed.  For example, it does not require licensing agencies to defend record-related denials with written reasons, nor does it provide for an administrative appeal, so that applicants who have been denied a license must seek redress in the courts through the state’s administrative procedure act.  In this respect, disappointed applicants seeking to  challenge an agency decision are in no better position under this 2020 law than disappointed applicants for employment under Pennsylvania’s 1980 law, which also has strong standards but no enforcement mechanism. It is possible that the legislature decided to wait to see how licensing agencies perform under the new substantive criteria before imposing new procedural requirements.  As an interim accountability measure, the new law includes a requirement that each agency make detailed statistical reports to the legislature after two years.  If the agencies proceed with good will to implement the new criteria, many individuals previously excluded should benefit. As background, in 2017 Governor Tom Wolf directed the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (BPOA) in the Department of State to study several licensing-related issues in Pennsylvania, including how licensees are disciplined, how licenses from other jurisdictions are considered, and how a criminal record operates to deny many licenses either by operation of law or because of unaccountable discretionary decisions.  The resulting report (Review of State Occupational and Professional Licensure Board Requirements) found a number of flaws in how people with criminal records are treated in the licensing process: Criminal history bans also vary from board to board, with significant bans set in statute for most healthcare-related occupations. Lastly, the requirement to demonstrate “good moral character” is loosely defined and while this administration has provided guidance through policy statements regarding the use and review of criminal histories there is the potential for it to be applied unevenly across boards. The governor and administration officials should examine the impact of criminal history bans and “good moral character” requirements on ensuring Pennsylvania residents are able to engage in the workforce without unnecessary barriers. The report found that, particularly with respect to health-related licenses, “[a]mong the regional comparison group, Pennsylvania is an outlier in applying an automatic criminal history licensure ban.”  See report at p. 25, also listing professions that have a 10-year bar.  The report made a number of recommendations which provided new organization for the 29 agencies and commissions that regulate 255 licensure types, a single disciplinary structure, and licensure by endorsement for people with out-of-state licenses.  Most importantly for our purposes, the report made a number of recommendations related to criminal records that two years later have now made their way into SB637. The new law applies to the 29 licensing agencies under BPOA jurisdiction, and includes architects, pharmacists, veterinarians, podiatrists, psychologists, physicians, nurses, barbers and cosmetologists, occupational therapists, nail technicians, and engineers.  Building trades requiring a license, teachers, and lawyers are not covered. Under preexisting law, licensing agencies “may consider convictions of the applicant of crimes but the convictions shall not preclude the issuance of a license, certificate, registration or permit.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9124(a).  Licensing agencies may not consider records of arrest if there was no conviction of a crime based on the arrest; convictions which have been annulled or expunged; convictions of a summary offense; convictions for which the individual had received a pardon from the Governor; or “convictions which do not relate to the applicant’s suitability for the license, certificate, registration or permit.”  § 9124(b)(2).  Agencies are free to suspend or revoke a license because of a felony conviction, or where the applicant was convicted of “a misdemeanor which relates to the trade, occupation or profession for which the license, certificate, registration or permit is sought.”  § 9124(c). SB637 established in Title 63 of the Pennsylvania statutes a new Chapter 31 to establish standards for consideration of criminal record in licensing.  The new law amends existing § 9124(a) to add to records that may not be considered any that have been made subject to limited access, including by the state’s automated “clean slate” process.  It also specifically supersedes any other provision of law that disqualifies an individual for a license or provides for “good moral character” findings.  § 3113(a).  It then establishes in §§ 3113(b) and (c) an elaborate two-stage inquiry to determine qualification for licensure: First, the agency must determine, considering a list of potentially disqualifying crimes developed through a notice-and-comment process under § 3117, whether there is a “direct relationship” between the applicant’s criminal record and the profession. (“Direct relationship is defined in § 3102 as having “a direct bearing on the fitness or bearing on the fitness or ability to perform one or more of the duties of responsibility necessarily related to the profession trade or occupation”).  § 3113(b) Second, if there is not such a direct relationship, the agency must make an “individualized assessment” as to whether licensing the individual would pose a public safety risk, as determined under a long list of specified factors.  § 3113(c). Section 3113(d) makes clear that those convicted of sexual offenses may not qualify for health-related licenses, and § 3113(e) establishes a separate test for offenses involving violence. Additional features of the new law: § 3114 prohibits consideration of juvenile adjudications (this is in addition to the various exclusions in § 9124(a) above for non-conviction records, and records of convictions that have been expunged or sealed); § 3112 authorizes restricted licenses for applicants who cannot immediately demonstrate fitness due to a criminal conviction, §§ 3112 (barbers and cosmetologists) and 3112.1 (all other occupations), with various standards for demonstrating “fitness” that relate to conduct in prison and supervision, and “a commitment to living a law-abiding life,” §§ 3112(B) and 3112.1(B); § 3115 provides for a “preliminary determination” for applicants considering undergoing training for a license, which is binding unless the crime is one on the list of crimes “directly related,” in which case it may be subject to further inquiry when a formal application is filed; § 3116 provides for issuance of a best practices guide; § 3117 provides for a process (involving the business community as well as the boards) for identifying crimes that will be presumptively considered “directly related” for each profession, and for publishing them for public comment. Section 3118 provides for a report to the legislature within two years by the Secretary of the Commonwealth on the implementation of each section of the act, and statistical report on applications received, granted and denied under each section of the act.  Effective date: Sections 3112 through 3115 are effective at end of 2020, the rest are effective immediately. Other new occupational licensing laws enacted in 2020 Idaho: As of 2020, licensing agencies must determine whether a person’s criminal record is “currently relevant to the applicant’s fitness” to engage in the occupation, using a multi-factor test; vague terms like “moral character” are prohibited.  Individuals may apply for a non-binding preliminary determination. SB1351 Iowa: A 2020 general licensing law enacted a direct relationship standard, defined rehabilitation broadly (and presumed it after 5 years for most crimes), provided for a preliminary determination, and provided for strong due process protections.   HF2627.  Previously, the only licenses for which consideration of criminal records was limited were in trades taught in the state’s prisons (e.g., electrician, plumber, mechanical, contractor, and barbering licenses). Missouri: The 2020 Fresh Start Act requires licensing agencies to apply a “direct relationship” standard, and provides that they may not deny a license “solely” because an applicant has a felony conviction.  Licensing agencies may consider a conviction “some evidence of an absence of good moral character,” but they must also consider the nature and date of the crime, as well as conduct after the conviction.  A license may not be denied “primarily” because of a conviction that was pardoned, and expunged records may be grounds for denial of some licenses involving sensitive employment.  HB2046. Utah: An occupational licensing agency may not disqualify based on conviction unless it is “substantially related” to the occupation, and applicants must be given individualized consideration pursuant to a multi-factor test, with an appeal in the event of denial.  Non-convictions, and most convictions after seven conviction-free years may not be considered.  Potential applicants may apply for a preliminary determination as to whether their criminal history will be disqualifying.  SB201. West Virginia: Licensing agencies may not disqualify an applicant because of a conviction unless it has a “rational nexus” to the desired occupation, determined by specified standards including seriousness of crime, passage of time, and evidence of rehabilitation.  Agencies are not required to give reasons for denial, but they are authorized to give potential candidates a preliminary determination respecting likely disqualification.  An applicant who is denied licensure may reapply after 5 years (with violent and sexual crimes subject to a longer period). HR4352, HR4353. Read more

UPDATED: 50-State Chart on Relief from Sex Offender Registration

We have completed an overhaul of our 50-State chart on relief from sex offender registration obligations, to bring it up to date and ensure that it is thorough and accurate.  This chart documents the duration of sex offender registration requirements, as well as legal mechanisms for early termination from such requirements. In conducting this review, we have identified a handful of states that have, since the chart was last revised in November 2017, expanded the availability of relief from sex offender registration requirements, including for people who have successfully completed diversionary dispositions, people with serious disabilities, and people who are registered based on out-of-state offenses.  These recent changes in the law, incorporated in the chart, are summarized below. In 2018, Missouri enacted SB 655, substantially revising its sex offender registration scheme in a manner expected to reduce the number of people who are required to register.  Previously, all sex offender registrants were required to register for life, and the only mechanisms for relief were either: 1) a petition to the court 10 years after registration for people with certain non-violent offenses, or 2) a petition 2 years after a guilty finding for certain consensual youthful sex offenses.  Under the new scheme, which follows federal guidance, registrants are classified as tier I, II, or III, with Tier I requiring 15 years of registration, Tier II requiring 25 years, and Tier III requiring life.  Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 589.400, .401.  Tier I registrants may petition for a 5-year reduction of their 15-year registration obligation after 10 years with a “clean record,” and Tier III registrants for a juvenile adjudication may petition for removal after 25 years with a “clean record.”  Id.  One reason the new law is seen as likely to reduce the number of registrants in the state is that Tier I registrants under the new scheme comprise a substantially larger number of offenses than those authorized to petition for 10-year removal under the old law.  (One puzzling provision of the new § 589.401 is one that authorizes Tier II registrants to petition for relief after 25 years, the point at which their registration obligation would otherwise expire automatically.  §§ 589.400(4)(2), 589.401(4)(2).  We must assume this is a drafting error.) In 2019, Tennessee enacted HB 624, which allows a person who is required to register due to a diversionary plea, to obtain termination of registration requirements upon successful completion of the term of judicial diversion and dismissal of the charges.  §§ 40-39-207(a)(1) and (c). Also in 2019, Utah enacted HB 298, which adds a new provision authorizing people who are currently required to register for a period of 10 years after termination of sentence to petition the court for an order to be removed from the registry as early as 10 years after being sentenced to probation or committed to a community-based residential program, or 10 years after release from incarceration to parole, as long as the person commits no further serious offense, completes treatment, pays restitution, and otherwise complies with the terms of registration.  Compare § 77-41-105(3)(a) with § 77-41-112(1)(b).  This law, effective in May 2019, is likely to result in earlier termination of a registration obligation for people convicted of less serious offenses. In 2018, Colorado enacted SB 26, which allows a registrant who suffers from a severe disability that is permanently incapacitating, to petition to discontinue registration.  § 16-22-113(2.5).  Georgia and Virginia have similar laws.  SB 26 also authorizes Colorado residents who are required to register because of an out of state conviction (which requires registration in the jurisdiction of conviction), to petition a Colorado court to discontinue the registration requirement if the person would not be required to register had the conviction occurred in Colorado.  § 16-22-103(3). Read more