Tag: White House

Administration withdraws proposal to require federal job-seekers to disclose diversions

The Washington Post reports that the White House has directed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to drop its proposal to expand the types of criminal records that must be disclosed by applicants seeking federal jobs and contracting work.  OPM’s proposal, which we described in March, would have required applicants for federal jobs and contracting work to disclose participation in pretrial diversion programs in the last 7 years. In March, we launched our non-conviction records project, a major study of the public availability and use of non-conviction records – including arrests that are never charged, charges that are dismissed, deferred and diversionary dispositions, and acquittals.  The appearance of these records in background checks can lead to significant discrimination against people who have never been convicted of a crime, and result unfairly in barriers to employment, housing, education, and many other opportunities.  Our letter opposing the OPM proposal cited our research on diversions and pointed out that while “state lawmakers, judges, and prosecutors favor diversionary dispositions in appropriate cases to help people avoid the restrictions and stigma of a conviction, OPM’s proposal disfavors them by treating them like convictions.” We are pleased to see the administration quash this ill-advised proposal, in the face of opposition from advocates on the left and right, lawmakers from both parties, and prosecutors and public defenders.  At a time of growing consensus in Congress and the states about the need to prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration for individuals with a criminal record, the federal government should be moving to reduce the collateral consequences of diversion (as Indiana and Wisconsin did in 2018 when they prohibited licensing boards from considering arrests not resulting in conviction, or California and Nevada did in 2017 when they prohibited employers from considering an applicant’s successful completion of diversion). While every state legislature has in some way addressed the problem of reintegration since 2012, Congress has not enacted any laws dealing with the problems presented by collateral consequences for more than a decade.  Now is the time for federal action in support of reintegration, as the withdrawal of the OPM proposal evidently recognizes. Read more

New reports document federal progress on collateral consequences

The Presidential Memorandum that formally established the Reentry Council in April 2016 mandated a report documenting the Council’s accomplishments to date and plans moving forward.  The resulting report, The Federal Interagency Reentry Council: A Record of Progress and a Roadmap for the Future, was issued today. Also today the White House issued a fact sheet with new commitments to the Fair Chance Business Pledge. Finally, the Justice Department released a National Reentry Week After Action Report.  We will be taking a close look at these reports on the federal government’s recent efforts to address collateral consequences, and expect to post the results of our review shortly.     Read more

White House criticizes occupational licensing restrictions

Occupational licensing requirements pose more of a barrier to employment than ever before, and perhaps no group of the population has been more affected by these barriers than people with criminal histories.  About 25% of the country’s workforce is now employed in a field that requires a state occupational license, and many of these licenses take criminal history into account for eligibility or retention purposes.  As a result, a record number of people with criminal records — many of whom have devoted their lives to a particular occupation or profession — are finding it difficult or impossible to earn a living in their chosen field. Now the White House is weighing in on the issue, saying that “Policymakers should refrain from categorically excluding individuals with criminal records, and instead should only exclude those individuals whose convictions are recent and relevant, and pose a legitimate threat to public safety.” The White House’s urging appears in a new report aimed at curtailing the “inconsistent, inefficient, and arbitrary” burdens that current occupational licensing systems can place on workers, employers, and consumers.” As it stands, there are thousands of state laws that may bar those with criminal histories from obtaining licensure.  In many instances, these laws authorize or require licensing bodies to reject applicants regardless of whether an individual’s criminal record is relevant to the licensed occupation.  As a result, licenses are denied to many individuals with criminal histories even though, as the report concludes, “many of these individuals have criminal histories which should not automatically disqualify them from work in a licensed profession.” While it is understandable that some kinds of criminal convictions should disqualify applicants for certain kinds of jobs, in many cases, a criminal conviction of any kind may be a bar to licensure. Twenty-five States and the District of Columbia have no standards in place governing the relevance of conviction records of applicants* for occupational licenses. In these States, a licensing board may deny a license to an applicant who has a criminal conviction, regardless of whether the conviction is relevant to the license sought, how recent it was, or whether there were any extenuating circumstances. In many States, employers and occupational licensing boards are also permitted to ask about and consider arrests that never led to a conviction in making their employment decision. Even when consideration of criminal history is not specifically required or authorized by law, a record may still lead to denial of a license. The report points out that, “Licensing regulations often refer broadly to ‘good moral character’ as a requirement for holding a license, and in practice this has in many cases been interpreted to ban individuals with any criminal record.” Given the sizable portion of the population with a criminal record, the cumulative impact of these restrictions is substantial: Blanket exclusions for the formerly incarcerated or those with criminal records … renders a great number of individuals –as many as one in three Americans has some form of criminal record (either for arrest or conviction) – ineligible for a large share of jobs, in turn perpetuating unstable economic situations for these individuals. And it appears that the number of people subject to such restrictions has been growing, in part because states have required licensure of more and more occupations in recent years.  According to the report, the number of state-licensed workers is currently five times what it was in the 1950s. Two-thirds of that growth is attributable to an increase in the number of occupations that require licensure. The prevalence of interstate licensing compacts that standardize eligibility criteria may also be exacerbating the problem.  The report warns that these compacts may encourage overly exclusive screening since it is easier for states to find consensus at the “lowest common denominator,” than to agree to more specific criteria that represent a more tailored approach. The Nurse Licensure Compact (NLC) illustrates this point: A key difficulty in forming the NLC was the variation across States in whether and how workers with criminal histories were licensed. While individual States are free to set their licensing requirements as they see fit (for instance, by allowing nurses with criminal records to apply), the multi-State license is currently only available to nurses who satisfy a more restrictive standard (nurses with felony convictions may not apply). Even though compacts like the NLC may not directly affect a person’s ability to obtain a license in their home state, they greatly diminish the interstate mobility of those with criminal records. To address these issues, the White House report calls upon policymakers to “endeavor to strike a more appropriate balance between protecting the public and ensuring that licensing laws do not prevent qualified individuals from securing employment opportunities.”  In addition to pushing for narrow tailoring of criminal history criteria, the report specifically urges policymakers to give licensees and applicants “a timely right to appeal and seek waivers from background check exclusions,” and to “provide transparent and clear explanations of their background check requirements.” Though the report encourages the federal government and Congress to take a role in funding and promoting such reforms, it  places most of the responsibility on the states: Ultimately, however, most of the power is in the hands of the States. State legislators and policymakers should adopt institutional reforms that promote a more careful and individualized approach to occupational regulation that takes into account its costs and benefits, and harmonizes requirements across States. However, this belies the substantial role that the federal government plays in influencing state licensing policies. While the report concedes that some licenses are issued or required by the federal government (4% of the workforce holds a federally issued license), it fails to acknowledge that federal laws and policies dictate state licensing requirements in fields like finance and commercial transport so that federal licensing mandates tend not to be distinguished from the state licensing requirements that implement them. A huge number of individuals are affected by these federal licensing mandates: Consider, for example, that many state commercial driver’s license requirements are dictated by federal law, and that truck drivers make up the largest portion of the workforce in 28 states.  In transport and other fields where the federal government exercises control, states will be unable to change their policies until the federal government implements reforms of its own. Still, it is encouraging to see the White House take a reform-minded stance on the issue of licensing.  Reversing a trend that has been decades in the making is no easy task, but it is one that is essential if we are to restore the economic security and mobility of the millions of Americans with a criminal record. The report, Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policymakers, is available here.   * Our own research shows that 30 states have standards in place that generally govern the relevance of convictions in occupational licensing determinations.     Read more

Glenn Martin’s “prison-like” White House experience

The Crime Report published this report about Glenn Martin’s recent experience as an invited guest at the White House, described in Glenn’s open letter to the President, giving further details of the treatment he received and describing the Administration’s response. Glenn Martin’s “prison-like” White House experience July 2, 2015 09:01:56 am https://apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.gapi.en.RArmLpCIYB0.O/m=auth/exm=plusone/rt=j/sv=1/d=1/ed=1/am=UQ/rs=AGLTcCNdsHwKwytm_BdBPIfRKL9FK1gKdQ/t=zcms/cb=gapi.loaded_1 By Graham Kates Two weeks after criminal justice advocate Glenn Martin was nearly denied access to a White House event he was invited to, he’s still waiting for an explanation. In a widely distributed “open letter” to President Barack Obama last week, Martin revealed that he was required to have a special escort in order to enter the White House complex for a discussion with senior officials on breaking down barriers facing ex-prisoners. Martin, who is one of the country’s leading advocates for ending those barriers, is an ex-inmate himself. Now head of JustLeadershipUSA, he served time for a robbery conviction 20 years ago—and has since achieved national prominence for his work with former prisoners. Although he was invited to the meeting, along with a select group of advocates, scholars, elected officials and law enforcement authorities, he was treated as a security risk. “The staggering symbolism of the ordeal was not lost on me, Mr. President,” Martin wrote in the June 25 letter to Obama and Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy. “In a country where 65 million people have a criminal record on file, being selectively barred from entering the White House for a discussion about those very same people was as insulting as it was indicative of the broader problem.” The White House declined to comment on Martin’s treatment, but a spokesperson pointed to the creation of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council — a Department of Justice initiative focused on prisoner reentry policy established in 2011 — and other reform efforts, such as inviting formerly incarcerated individuals like Martin to the White House.The Secret Service also declined to comment on Martin’s visit. However, spokesperson Robert Hoback briefly described White House security protocol in an emailed statement. “Every visitor to the White House Complex undergoes a comprehensive security check prior to the scheduled visit,” Hoback wrote. “There are many considerations taken into account in making a final determination before allowing an individual access to the White House Complex.” For Martin, the incident underlines the obstacles facing former inmates. In fact, he said used the incident in his White House discussions that day “to frame the topic for larger criminal justice reform.” But the incident still frustrates Martin. He said in an interview Wednesday that he had waited years for the chance to meet with White House advisors about criminal justice reform, only to undergo an experience he described as “humiliating.” When he and his companions arrived at the White House’s Eisenhower Executive Office Building on June 17 to discuss the issues of gun violence, policing and mass incarceration in the United States, he was singled out. At the first layer of White House security, several fellow guests received green passes. He was given a pink pass with the words, “Needs Escort.” He was eventually pulled aside by a Secret Service agent who at first told him he could not enter. He soon learned the special attention was because of his time in prison—the very experience that makes his voice so sought out by criminal justice policymakers around the country, including those who work for the President. In the 15 years since Martin was released from prison, he rose to become vice-president of the Fortune Society in New York—a leading nonprofit that helps former inmates reintegrate into society— and in 2014, he left to form JustLeadershipUSA, an advocacy group staffed by ex-inmates, which lobbies for better prison conditions as well as support for re-entry programs. He said in an interview with The Crime Report that his White House treatment underlined the work that still needs to be done to end the systemic discrimination that prevents ex-inmates from accessing jobs, housing, healthcare and other basic needs. While Obama and other elected leaders have called for reform, he said, the incident shows that actual change has been slow. “The truth is that their actions don’t appear to match up with the rhetoric yet. This is the chance to inject the voices of the communities who are impacted by this, but we’re still treated like threats,” Martin said. At the White House, it didn’t matter that Martin was an invited guest. He was forced to wait with Secret Service agents as the people with whom he was preparing to discuss the ramifications of mass incarceration walked by. “In some strange way it felt very prison-like,” Martin recalled. “To be stopped by a person dressed like he’s in a police uniform, and he’s not telling you why. And then you just go where you’re told without explanation.” He said he was told the person who invited him had to come get him. “I said, ‘So you think Roy Austin, Jr. is going to come downstairs and help me?” Martin said, referring to the director of the White House Office of Urban Affairs, Justice, and Opportunity. He might never have gotten in at all, if a White House staffer had not happened to walk by, realized he was invited, and gotten him through security. He was still required to have an escort at all times. “They were apologetic and probably a little bit embarrassed about it,” Martin said of some presidential staff. “They said they recognized it as a problem with previous visitors.” Martin said he has since heard from other advocates with criminal records who have had similar experiences at the White House. “I know a lot of people who are tenacious advocates and have been through this, but haven’t done anything about it, because they didn’t want speaking out about it to hurt (their advocacy),” Martin said. “I guess they think it’s going to be embarrassing to the administration.” Please enable JavaScript to view the &amp;amp;lt;a href=”http://disqus.com/?ref_noscript”&amp;amp;gt;comments powered by Disqus.&amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;gt; <!– Comments –>   Read more

White House escort insults and humiliates people with a record

June 25, 2015 President Barack Obama 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Obama, I write to you as a national leader, criminal justice reform advocate, and founder of JustLeadershipUSA, a bold new organization dedicated to cutting the US correctional population in half by 2030 on the guiding principle that those closest to the problem are closest to the solution. Recently, I had the honor of participating in a strategic planning initiative that addressed both the intersection of, and possible remedies to, the issues of gun violence, policing, and mass incarceration in the United States.  On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, George Washington University Law School served as host to a select group of civil rights and religious leaders, scholars, elected officials, law enforcement officials and foundation officers brought together by The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and The Joyce Foundation. Our day culminated with an invitation to join members of your domestic policy staff in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building for a discussion about their work on these issues. A day of thoughtful and inspired dialogue, however, quickly turned into one of needless humiliation and stigma for me. As each of my colleagues received green passes granting them immediate access, I received a pink ID bearing the label: “Needs Escort.” Its inspiration was quickly and unsurprisingly confirmed: anyone with a criminal conviction requires an escort at all times on the White House grounds. The staggering symbolism of the ordeal was not lost on me, Mr. President. In a country where 65 million people have a criminal record on file, being selectively barred from entering the White House for a discussion about those very same people was as insulting as it was indicative of the broader problem. Along with millions of others, I have watched with tremendous pride and optimism as your administration has stated that our carceral policies are patently counterproductive. Further, those policies disproportionately target communities of color, running roughshod over our declared principles of justice, fairness, and proportionality in the process. I submit to you that the treatment I received as an invited White House guest, and by extension all others with prior convictions, further erodes the life of those principles. In your letters of commutation you have concluded, “Remember that you have the capacity to make good choices. By doing so, you will affect not only your own life, but those close to you. You will also influence, through your example, the possibility that others in your circumstances get their own second chance in the future.” This counsel is as applicable to our nation’s corridors of power as it is to our most travailed citizens. The work of the mature democracy is to organize itself in such a way that best enables that process without undue hardship. Along my journey to national advocacy, I’ve disabused myself of several of our national delusions, the most poignant being the myth of the voiceless masses who require the spokesmanship of a noble and courageous few. I never met any of the alleged voiceless during my incarceration, only the deliberately silenced. In the corridors of our nation’s highest office, I found my voice and my person restricted in an agonizingly similar way to that which I encountered in prison. Rather than being debilitated, I walked away further emboldened and hopeful that when guided by a commitment to justice, power might listen. There is strong evidence to believe that is the case. In your March interview with David Simon you stated rightfully: “Part of the challenge is going to be making sure, number one, that we humanize what so often on the local news is just a bunch of shadowy characters and tell their stories.” There is no expression capable of fully capturing how uplifting these remarks are for millions of our country’s men and women. In the spirit of that conviction, I humbly request a meeting with myself and a select group of other formerly incarcerated leaders at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Glenn E. Martin Founder and President JustLeadershipUSA     Read more