Category: Administrative law

CCRC files congressional testimony on fair chance lending

The Collateral Consequences Resources Center submitted a statement for the record ahead of tomorrow’s hearing before the Subcommittee on Diversity & Inclusion of the House Committee on Financial Services: “Access Denied: Eliminating Barriers and Increasing Economic Opportunity for Justice-Involved Individuals.” The CCRC statement recommends that Congress conduct oversight on criminal history restrictions in federally sponsored small business lending policies, and facilitate access to these resources for small businesses owned by justice-impacted individuals. CCRC’s statement describes some of its research about the the U.S. Small Business Association’s (SBA) criminal history policies and identifies the following concerns: The SBA’s extensive criminal history restrictions are not provided by statute. Many of the SBA’s criminal history restrictions are also not included in its published regulations. The SBA’s criminal history restrictions are overbroad and lack specific justification. The SBA’s criminal history restrictions have racially disparate impacts. You can read the statement here. Read more

“The Future of the President’s Pardon Power”

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center is pleased to announce a series of online panels on successive Tuesdays in September, starting on September 14, that will explore in depth the use of the pardon power by President Donald Trump, and how it both reflects recent trends in pardoning and is likely to influence pardoning in the future. The first panel, on September 14, will discuss Trump’s abandonment of the bureaucratic tradition in pardoning and what this reveals both about his concept of office and about the nature of the constitutional power.  The second panel, on September 21, will consider whether Trump’s pardons may prompt much-needed reforms in sentencing law and practice.  The third panel, on September 28, will consider possible changes in how the pardon power is administered resulting from its idiosyncratic use by President Trump, and whether the Justice Department should remain responsible for advising the president in pardon matters. This series is jointly organized by CCRC, the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, the Federal Sentencing Reporter, and the David F. and Constance B. Girard-diCarlo Center for Ethics, Integrity and Compliance at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. The panels are based on the essays in Volume 33, Issue 5 of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. Margaret Love, executive director of CCRC, curated and introduced the FSR essays, and recruited participants for the panels. Register for each panel here.   PANEL 1: Donald Trump’s Theatre of Pardoning: What Did We Learn? September 14, 2021 | 12:30 – 2:00 p.m. EDT | Zoom Panelists: Frank Bowman, Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School Amy Povah, founder, CAN-DO Justice through Clemency Kenneth Vogel, The New York Times  Moderator:  Margaret Love, executive director, Collateral Consequences Resource Center, former U.S. Pardon Attorney   PANEL 2: Supplementing the Pardon Power: Second Looks and Second Chances Tuesday, September 21, 2021 | 12:30 – 2:00 p.m. EDT | Zoom Panelists: Jack Chin, Edward L. Barrett Jr. Chair of Law, Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law, and Director of Clinical Legal Education, University of California, Davis, Law School John Gleeson, attorney and former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Judge Beverly Martin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit JaneAnne Murray, professor of practice, University of Minnesota Law School Moderator:  Carter Stewart, executive vice president, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio   PANEL 3: Managing the Pardon Power: Should the Justice Department Remain the Gatekeeper? Tuesday, September 28, 2021 | 12:30 – 2:00 p.m. EDT | Zoom Panelists: Rachel Barkow, Vice Dean and Charles Seligson Professor of Law, New York University School of Law Jeffrey Crouch, assistant professor of American politics, School of Public Affairs, American University Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Rumpel Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation Margaret Love, executive director, Collateral Consequences Resource Center, former U.S. Pardon Attorney Moderator:  Douglas Berman, Newton D. Baker-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law and executive director, Drug Enforcement and Policy Center   Read more

Federal policies block loans to small business owners with a record

Starting a small business is increasingly recognized as a pathway to opportunity for individuals with an arrest or conviction history—particularly given the disadvantages they face in the labor market. An estimated 4% of small businesses in the United States have an owner with a conviction (1.5% have a felony conviction). Small businesses provide “a vital opportunity for those with a criminal record to contribute to society, to earn an honest profit, and to give back to others.” They also frequently employ people with a record and help reduce recidivism. A growing number of organizations and government programs are devoted to supporting individuals with a record in building their own businesses. Yet many structural barriers remain, including a series of little-known federal regulations and policies that impose broad criminal history restrictions on access to government-sponsored business loans, notably by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).  A recent article illustrates the steep challenges faced by business owners with a record by telling the stories of several entrepreneurs who were either denied an SBA loan or were discouraged from even trying for one because of a dated felony conviction.  One of those entrepreneurs comments: “You might do five years, ten years, one year, but you pay for it until you’re in the grave.” To illuminate and help reduce these barriers, our organization is working to develop a new “Fair Chance Lending” project. We hope to show that—rather than broadly exclude individuals with a criminal history—officials should draw record-based restrictions as narrowly as feasible, facilitate access to resources, and celebrate entrepreneurial efforts, consistent with growing national support for reintegration and fair chances in civil society. The SBA’s record-related lending policies came into focus in the spring of 2020 when the agency imposed remarkably broad criminal history restrictions on hundreds of billions in financial relief for small businesses and nonprofits authorized through the CARES Act in response to COVID-19. The SBA’s pandemic relief programs were massive: in fiscal year 2020, the agency distributed $525 billion through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and $211 billion through the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program. But hundreds of thousands of small businesses and nonprofits were barred by the SBA from accessing these funds through shockingly extensive criminal history restrictions not required or suggested by statute, with disproportionate impacts on Black and Latino/Latinx communities. A recent RAND study found that just one aspect of these restrictions—the disqualification from PPP relief of all businesses with an owner or “associate” with a felony conviction within the previous five years—excluded an estimated 212,655 small businesses with 343,198 employees. When we began to write about SBA’s restrictions on COVID-19 relief shortly after the passage of the CARES Act, our servers crashed because of the level of public interest, requiring us to update our systems. Thousands of business owners emailed us, with a wide variety of disqualifying records and types of businesses, desperate for help, fearful of publicly discussing their predicament lest their backgrounds be exposed. We researched the issues in detail and joined a large bipartisan group of organizations calling on the SBA to revise its restrictions. The SBA, also facing public pressure from impacted individuals, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, and litigation, rolled back most of the restrictions it had imposed, with the Trump Administration loosening restrictions on multiple occasions over the course of 2020 and the Biden Administration making additional changes in early 2021. Despite the massive impact of these restrictions on the first round of emergency relief, the SBA did not initially explain or attempt to justify them. When sued in June 2020, the SBA defended its rule on grounds that criminal history can speak to an applicant’s “higher likelihood of reincarceration” and “potential for misuse of funds.” See Defy Ventures v. U.S. Small Business Administration, 469 F. Supp. 3d 459, 476 (D. Md. 2020). Despite the easing of record-related restrictions on COVID-19 relief, the SBA continues to maintain extensive criminal record barriers in its general business loan and disaster assistance programs which are summarized below. The SBA treats criminal history as a credit risk, despite the absence of any evidence to support that position or statutory authority for it.1 While the agency has awarded a handful of grants in recent years to community-based organizations working with formerly incarcerated entrepreneurs, its general lending programs all but preclude loans to the entrepreneurs themselves. In addition to its various lending programs, the SBA provides training, contracting opportunities, and other forms of assistance to small disadvantaged businesses through the 8(a) Business Development Program, which allows participants to take advantage of set-aside and sole-source contracts to help aspiring entrepreneurs compete for positions as government contractors. The 8(a) Program allows for, and often requires, consideration of applicants’ criminal backgrounds as part of a mandate that applicants have “good character.” In contrast, the SBA’s rural-focused sister agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, appears to administer its various lending programs to farmers and ranchers with narrowly-tailored criminal history restrictions tied to specific statutory provisions.2 The SBA’s criminal history restrictions very likely contribute to racial inequalities in the economy. The SBA’s criminal history restrictions on COVID-19 relief led to documented racial disparities. The SBA’s comparable criminal history restrictions in its general loan programs almost certainly have similar effects, particular given the well-documented racial disparities in the instance of criminal records in general. The SBA makes little effort to justify its broad policy-based restrictions, which heightens their contrast with the targeted statutory restrictions that apply to rural-focused lending programs administered by the USDA. The criminal record restrictions in the SBA’s lending programs are described in greater detail below. Criminal record restrictions in the Small Business Administration’s lending programs The SBA 7(a) and 504 programs The SBA’s most common business loan, through the 7(a) program, guarantees a large percentage of a loan provided by a private lender. The SBA’s development company program, the 504 program, provides long-term, fixed rate financing for major fixed assets through Certified Development Companies. Both programs authorize individual loans of up to $5 million. In fiscal year 2020 alone, the SBA provided $22.5 billion in loans through the 7(a) program and $5.8 billion through the 504 program. An SBA regulation makes ineligible for either program “[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.” SBA’s policy statement applicable to both programs imposes additional blanket restrictions, also making ineligible businesses with an associate currently under specified forms of diversionary or conditional dispositions, an order of protection, registered with a sex offense registry, or facing any criminal charges in any jurisdiction. This policy statement further provides that various individuals associated with the business must also be “of good character,” as determined by the SBA (this includes any proprietor, general partner, officer, director, managing member of a limited liability company, owner of 20% or more of the equity of the Applicant, Trustor, or any person hired to manage day-to-day operations). Each of these persons must disclose and provide documentation about: (1) any arrests in the past six months; and (2) any criminal offense (excluding minor vehicle violations), any convictions, guilty pleas, no contest pleas, or any placements on pretrial diversion or any form of parole or probation, at any time. All expunged and sealed records must be disclosed. If any person has not satisfied all sentencing conditions (which may include payment of court debt), the applicant is not eligible for a loan. A lender may proceed with a loan (assuming all other requirements are met) if all the documented criminal records are older than six months and involve either: a non-conviction or a misdemeanor conviction not involving a crime against a minor. However, if any person has: a prior felony conviction that was not reduced to a misdemeanor, a prior misdemeanor conviction for a crime against a minor, or, within the previous six months, either a misdemeanor conviction or charges filed, they are required to complete an FBI fingerprint background check and undergo an individualized character determination by the SBA—before a lender may process the loan. It is unknown how often lenders actually proceed with the FBI/SBA process at that point rather than simply deny the application. It is also unknown how often the SBA finds that such a person meets the “good character” requirement in its policy statement. 2. The SBA microloan program The SBA’s microloan program, which provides loans of up to $50,000 through authorized nonprofit community-based intermediaries, imposes narrow criminal history restrictions. The SBA distributed $85 million through this program in fiscal year 2020. Regulations provide that businesses are ineligible only if they have an associate who is incarcerated or under indictment for a felony or crime of moral turpitude, or on probation or parole for certain offenses. The SBA’s policy statement for the microloan program does not impose any additional blanket restrictions or good character requirements, although it vests discretion with the lender to determine whether to lend to an applicant with a criminal record other than the disqualifying records described above. 3. The SBA disaster loan program The SBA’s disaster loan program, which provides long-term, low-interest loans to recover from disasters, also includes criminal history restrictions. First, an applicant is not eligible by statute if an owner was convicted in the previous year of a felony during and in connection with a riot or civil disorder or other declared disaster. Second, the applicable SBA policy statement states that it will not approve a loan if the applicant or principal owner is presently on parole or probation following conviction of a “serious criminal offense” (unless, for partnerships, corporations, and limited liability entities, the offense was unrelated to the business and the individual will divest all interest in the business). Third, the SBA requires that all of the following persons undergo a “character evaluation”: proprietors, limited partners who own 20% or more interest,  general partners, or stockholders or entities owning 20% or more voting stock, if they have any current charges pending, have been arrested in the previous six months, or if they have for any criminal offense excluding minor vehicle violations, any convictions, guilty pleas, no contest pleas, or any placements on pretrial diversion or any form of parole or probation. A detailed explanation about the records must be provided, including unpaid fines and fees. An application can be processed without an FBI fingerprint check only if the disclosed criminal activity “is both minor in nature and was committed more than 10 years ago.” Otherwise, an FBI background check must be completed. Finally, the SBA will make a determination of whether the person is “of good character.” (Note that separate criminal history requirements apply to COVID-19 disaster loans.) *** In the coming months, we plan to continue this work by conducting further research on SBA, USDA, and state policies, convening conversations between stakeholders, and issuing policy recommendations on this important issue. 1 The Small Business Act authorizes the SBA to “verify [a loan] applicant’s criminal background, or lack thereof,” and authorizes the conduct of an FBI investigation of loan applicants. See 15 U.S.C. §636(a)(1)(B).  But neither this provision nor any other law requires that a background check be conducted as a condition of making a loan, much less does it require the agency to treat criminal history as a measure of creditworthiness.  Cf. 13 C.F.R. §120.150(a) (SBA regulation stating that it will consider “character” and “reputation” in determining if an applicant is “creditworthy”). The only statutory criminal history restriction on SBA loan applicants that we can identify is a half-century old exclusion from 7(b) disaster loans of persons convicted in the year prior to application of a felony “during and in connection with a riot or civil disorder.” See Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Act of 1968, P.L. 90-448 § 1106(e). In addition, the SBA, and every other federal agency, is subject to a government-wide provision that can result in disqualification from federal loans and grants for a period of time based on certain drug convictions. See 21 U.S.C. § 862 (denial of federal grants, contracts, loans, and licenses based on court-imposed and mandatory debarments based on convictions for trafficking or possessing controlled substances). 2 Record-related barriers covering USDA lending programs appear to be few and targeted, rooted in statutes, and triggered by specific offenses. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 889 (conviction for planting, cultivation, growing, producing, harvesting, or storing a controlled substance triggers prohibition for that crop year and four succeeding crop years on access various USDA loan, grant, payment and contract programs); 7 C.F.R. § 718.6 (same); 7 U.S.C. § 2209j (permanent or 10-year debarment from USDA programs for fraud in connection with USDA programs); 2 C.F.R. § 417.865 (same). One of the USDA’s business loan programs, for example, the Business & Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantees program, described by the USDA as “similar” to the SBA 7(a) program but targeted to rural businesses, does not appear to contain any additional criminal history restrictions except an optional bank “character” review that is not specifically linked to criminal record. See 7 C.F.R. § 5001.202 (“When applicable, a [lender’s] evaluation [of an applicant] may include the character of persons with management control or a 20 percent or more ownership interest in the borrower.”). In addition, the USDA, like every federal agency, is subject to government-wide provisions that can result in disqualification from federal loans and grants for a period of time based on specific types of criminal convictions. See note 1. Read more

DC’s non-conviction sealing law is uniquely complex and restrictive

Last year, 20 states enacted reforms expanding access to expungement, record-sealing, and other forms of record relief. Many legislatures, including the District of Columbia Council, are considering reform proposals this session. Given the progressive steps taken by the District in the past year to expand opportunities for people with a criminal record to vote and obtain occupational licensing, we are optimistic that the Council will enact significant improvements to its lagging record-sealing law. Compared to states across the country, DC’s record relief law is very prohibitive and unusually complex. First, its non-conviction sealing scheme is “one of the most restrictive” in the country (as we described it in our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records). Second, to seal a misdemeanor conviction, an 8-year waiting period must be satisfied (far longer than most states), and then a series of rules exclude individuals based on a long list of ineligible offenses and a variety of disqualifying prior and subsequent records. Finally, DC allows only a single specific felony conviction to be sealed,1 while 34 states allow a range of felonies to be sealed or expunged. This post explains how DC’s law on sealing of non-conviction records in particular does not fare well in the national landscape. Summary Current DC law is out of step with national trends toward automatic and expedited sealing of non-conviction records at or shortly after disposition (approaches enacted last year in Kentucky and North Carolina, for example). It is also more complex and restrictive than analogous laws in almost every state in three primary areas: The waiting period before a person may apply for sealing a non-conviction record is longer than in most states, and the effect that a prior or subsequent conviction has on extending the waiting period is unusually severe. The provision ruling out sealing for a successfully completed deferred sentencing agreement based on the person’s other record is counterproductive and harsher than the norm. The procedures and standards that apply in proceedings to seal a non-conviction record are more burdensome and restrictive than in any state, differing little from the procedures and standards that apply to sealing a conviction record. D.C. law on sealing of non-conviction records Like most states, DC law makes arrests and charges that do not result in conviction potentially eligible for sealing relief. Like half the states, DC law also requires individuals seeking to seal an arrest record to return to court to file a petition for relief, even if no charges were ever filed. On top of this, DC law requires a two-year eligibility waiting period when the arrest was for a less serious misdemeanor, a four-year waiting period if the arrest was for many misdemeanors and any felony, and a three-year waiting period even if no charges were filed. See D.C. Code § 16-803(b)(1)(A). In addition, many years may be added to the waiting period if an individual has an additional conviction record or pending charges. If the individual has ever been convicted of a felony, the waiting period is extended for a decade after completion of the felony sentence. See §§ 16-803(a)(1)(B), 16-803(b)(1)(B). These lengthy waiting periods may be waived by the prosecutor, but it is not clear how frequently this occurs. While a few states have equally lengthy waiting periods before a felony arrest is eligible for sealing, and a handful of states still disqualify people from sealing non-conviction records if they have a prior felony conviction, DC law stands alone in extending the waiting period based on a long list of prior misdemeanor convictions, wherever and whenever obtained. DC law also provides that non-conviction records resulting from successful completion of a deferred sentencing agreement with the government are never eligible for sealing if the person has a “disqualifying conviction,” defined to include many prior and all subsequent misdemeanors.  §§ 16-803(a)(2), 16-803(b)(2). This creates a substantial disincentive to participating in deferred sentencing agreements, bucking the national trend favoring diversion programs. Comparison with state laws on effect of prior or subsequent record:  Of the 48 states that authorize sealing or expungement of non-conviction records,2 42 states authorize sealing of non-conviction records entirely without regard to an individual’s other criminal record.3 More than half of these states have a streamlined process: either making sealing of non-convictions automatic (16), expedited at disposition (4) or expedited administratively (3). Most of the remaining 19 states authorize sealing of non-convictions within a year of disposition, and do not distinguish between misdemeanor and felony arrests. A few states require a conviction-free waiting period of three years or more before a petition to seal may be granted, and that there be no charges pending.4 But the only state whose analogous law rivals DC’s in complexity and severity is Alabama. Where non-conviction records resulting from diversionary dispositions are concerned, a few states require a longer waiting period before sealing the record, many require that an individual have no pending charges at the time sealing is sought, and a few don’t allow sealing at all. DC law is on the more restrictive end, denying sealing for successful deferred sentencing dispositions if the person has an additional conviction record, including for many misdemeanors. As noted, the clear trend across the country has been to encourage participation in diversionary dispositions by offering sealing upon successful completion, which enhances their beneficial effect on reducing recidivism and enhancing labor market outcomes. 1 DC allows the sealing of a felony conviction for failure to appear. 2 Only one state (AZ) makes no provision at all for sealing non-conviction records, and one other (ME) seals records in the state repository automatically but leaves non-conviction records in court systems open to the public. 3 Three states disqualify a person from non-conviction relief based on the person’s prior record, and two of the three (OK, WV) do so only for prior felony convictions. Only one state (FL) makes any prior conviction disqualifying, and then only if it was obtained in a Florida court. Three other states consider prior record in limited circumstances: One state (RI) disqualifies based on a prior felony conviction for dismissals only, and an additional two states (VA, WA) give courts discretion to deny non-conviction relief based on a person’s prior record. 4 Alabama, Maryland, Missouri, and Oregon. Read more

Study measures gap between availability and delivery of “second chance” relief

Professor Colleen V. Chien of Santa Clara University has published a major empirical study in the Michigan Law Review that examines the gap between eligibility for and actual delivery of relief from contact with the criminal justice system, a construct she calls the “second chance gap.” (The term is defined with examples here.) Last week, Chien led a team of law students, researchers and data analysts from Santa Clara University in launching the Paper Prisons Initiative, a project that draws on her study’s methodology to estimate this gap for each state’s record relief laws. During the current wave of criminal record reforms that began around 2013, every state legislature has taken steps to chip away at the negative effects of a record through authorizing or expanding expungement, sealing, and other forms of record relief. At the same time, it has become evident that bureaucratic and structural obstacles prevent many of these laws from achieving their full promise—particularly when they require a potential beneficiary to navigate a complex and burdensome judicial or administrative process. Last June, Professors Sonja B. Starr and J.J. Prescott published the first broad-based empirical study of a state law limiting public access to criminal records, revealing that just 6.5% of those eligible for relief in Michigan successfully completed the application process within five years. This conclusion has given additional impetus to the movement to make record-sealing automatic: six states now authorize “clean slate” relief for a range of conviction records, 16 states do so for non-conviction records, and clean slate campaigns are underway in several additional states. In “America’s Paper Prisons: The Second Chance Gap,”  Professor Chien provides a more general perspective on the gap between eligibility and delivery of second chance relief documented for Michigan by Starr and Prescott. In her article, Chien looks at three forms of relief from contact with the criminal justice system—record-clearing, restoration of voting rights, and shortening prison sentences. Based on her analysis, the paper concludes that in many cases only a small fraction of those eligible for relief (usually less than 10%) have received it. Most notably, she uses novel data collection and analysis to estimate that at least 20 to 30 million American adults have non-conviction records that appear to be clearable under existing law but that have not been cleared. In follow-up state-specific papers available on the Paper Prisons Initiative website, she and her team have estimated the second chance expungement gap in convictions relief for a number of states. I. The first part of “America’s Paper Prisons” explores the reasons for the “second chance gap”: In the same way that the accused remain innocent until proven guilty in the U.S. criminal justice system, many second chance programs require defendants to “prove” that they deserve second chances before awarding them. As such, getting one’s second chance through petition-based processes may include enduring a bureaucratic process, amassing information through a variety of sources, and being evaluated by an adjudicative or administrative body. The high cost of doing so in many cases may be insurmountable. Chien divides the barriers that contribute to the second chance gap into three categories: administrative barriers, like informational and transactional costs; structural barriers, like a requirement to pay court debt and participate in a formal court hearing; and substantive barriers, like perceptions that the costs of the process outweigh its benefits.[1] II. The second part of Chien’s paper estimates the second chance gap for an assortment of relief mechanisms, drawing on both original data collection and secondary sources. Chien uses two metrics: the “uptake gap,” which measures the share of individuals over time who are eligible and have not applied or not received relief; and the “current gap,” which looks at the share of individuals at the certain moment in time who are eligible but have not received relief. Her analysis shows, on a nearly uniform basis, that only a small percentage of eligible individuals obtain relief in petition-based programs. The relief mechanisms she studies confer different benefits, are animated by differing policy objectives, and vary in eligibility criteria and administrative process. Still, a general pattern is clear across the following second chance gaps that Chien presents: Early release of prisoners During President Obama’s Clemency Initiative, only an estimated 3% of candidates who were eligible under the program’s criteria actually received clemency.[2] Under the federal statute allowing release of federal prisoners for “extraordinary and compelling reasons” (a.k.a. “compassionate release”), just 2 federal prisoners were granted release during a 13-month period in 2015-16.[3] Two California ballot measures, one allowing resentencing and reduction in classification for people convicted of certain theft and drug possession felony convictions (Prop. 47), and another allowing the same for certain marijuana convictions (Prop. 64), had 9% and 3% estimated uptake rates, respectively. Restoration of voting rights In 12 states that require people who have lost their voting rights due to a felony conviction to apply for restoration of their rights—either through a pardon application, judicial restoration procedure, or other administrative process—an estimated 12% of those who had completed their incarceration and supervision time had regained their voting rights over the course of various sampled time periods.[4] Expungement or sealing of criminal records Chien and researchers at Santa Clara and Columbia Universities provide an estimate of the national “current gap” in non-conviction relief. They created a novel dataset of 60,000 criminal histories of gig-economy jobseekers randomly chosen at the state level, with background checks between 2017-18, and analyzed them with reference to the non-conviction record-clearance laws of all 50 states. They conclude that an estimated 28 million American adults have non-conviction records that are either fully or partially clearable (state-by-state results are also provided in the appendices). Estimated uptake rates for the expungement of eligible conviction records are generally low across several states, based on original analysis by Chien and the Paper Prisons Initiative. The following are uptake estimates for expungement of eligible conviction records: Washington (<3%); New York (<1%); North Carolina (~13%); Michigan (6.5%), Connecticut (~<3%); and for the expungement of either conviction or non-conviction records: Oregon (~6%), Colorado (5%), Delaware (6%), Iowa (~22%); Missouri (1%), Minnesota (~6%).[5] III. The third part of the paper examines practices to narrow the second chance gap, with a menu of insights for those designing and implementing record reforms. Chien illustrates how small differences in how a law is drafted or implemented can lead to divergent outcomes, even when the burden of delivering relief is placed on the government. For example, Alaska and Vermont both have rules purporting to restrict the dissemination of non-conviction records after specified time periods. Alaska prohibits online publication of a case sixty days after all charges result in acquittal or non-dismissal. Vermont courts seal records 12 months after a dismissal or finding of no probable cause. But while Vermont non-conviction records almost never appear on background checks, Alaskan records do, likely owing to the Vermont state repository’s decision not to report information on non-convictions even before the 12-month waiting period has run. This section includes a useful discussion of how to draft eligibility criteria to allow for implementation at scale, including avoiding “hard-to-ascertain criteria” that present administrability problems. For instance, determining whether fines and fees have been paid is a constant challenge, very specific offenses grade and classification requirements are not always recorded, and specific disposition criteria are vulnerable to changes in definition and “unclean” (inaccurate or incomplete) data (Table 5). IV. Chien’s final section discusses several open policy and research questions concerning access to relief (the inequities of debt-related barriers to automated relief[6]; the challenges of unclean data and ambiguous dispositions) and the effect of relief (the persistence of sealed records on the internet and in electronic databases[7]; the lack of notice to beneficiaries of automatic relief). Chien also tackles a concern at the intersection of automatic record relief and racial discrimination in hiring. Studies have found that “Ban the Box” policies, which prohibit criminal history inquiries until later in the hiring process, can lead employers—in the absence of this information—to discriminate against young men of color on the assumption that they have criminal records. Professors Jennifer Doleac and Sarah Lageson, who conducted some of these studies, argued last year that a similar harmful effect might result from broad-based automatic sealing laws. Here, Chien distinguishes automatic sealing from Ban the Box by arguing that because automatic sealing does not apply to all records, but only to a subset of records that meet specific eligibility criteria, employers “won’t know what they are missing,” and as a result will be less likely to replace individualized determinations with generalized discrimination. However, Chien acknowledges the need for more data and research, and that implementation matters. Another open question not addressed here is the extent to which access barriers can be diminished short of a full “clean slate” solution. While there is growing support for automatic relief, especially when it comes to restoring voting rights and clearing many criminal records, it seems that individualized review is likely to remain the norm in the near term for questions like early release from prison or sealing a serious felony conviction. In many cases, full discretionary review may be replaced with a presumption in favor of relief, which can be overcome following official objection. Moreover, even when a discretionary decision is required, barriers can be minimized by such measures as assigning administrative tasks to the government and providing counsel to those who need it (two key provisions in Virginia’s “transformative” new record-sealing legislation). Overall, Prof. Chien’s study makes wide-ranging contributions to the field of criminal record relief, bringing to the fore the urgency and challenges of narrowing the second chance gap. CCRC was pleased to assist with Chien’s analysis of state laws for expunging non-conviction records.  We are also a partner on the new Paper Prisons Initiative, which “conducts empirical research to draw attention to the tens of millions of Americans burdened by contact with the criminal justice system despite being eligible for relief from this contact,” and which has already produced reports estimating the “second chance gap” for record relief in 10 states. [1] By comparison, Starr and Prescott attribute the low uptake of Michigan expungements to six likely factors: (1) lack of information; (2) administrative hassle and time constraints; (3) fees and costs; (4) distrust and fear of the criminal justice system; (5) lack of counsel; and (6) insufficient motivation. [2] Chien cites a study of the Initiative by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that attributed at least some part of this gap to President Obama’s decision to apply the criteria announced at the outset of the Initiative more flexibly, and to other administrative issues. In the end, only 5% of those who received commutations satisfied all of the announced criteria. See Glenn Schmitt et al, U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, An Analysis of the Implementation of the 2014 Clemency Initiative (2017), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20170901_clemency.pdf. [3] Chien notes that the requirement that the Bureau of Prisons support a prisoner’s petition for compassionate release was repealed by the First Step Act in 2018, resulting in a substantial increase in petitions granted by federal courts. In 2020 health risks due to COVID-19 led to many more grants. [4] Chien notes that this estimated percentage may be low because it does not account for the small subset of offenses ineligible for reenfranchisement or for felony-reenfranchisement waiting times. It also does not appear to account for people who have completed incarceration and supervision but remain ineligible to restore their voting rights due to outstanding court debt, in at least some of the states in question (i.e., Alabama, Arizona, Tennessee). [5] The uptake estimates are derived from the Paper Prisons Initiative’s multi-year comparison of estimated eligible records with estimated expungement rates (except the Michigan estimate, which is based on the Prescott and Starr empirical study). These figures, provided by Chien, were updated from the time of her paper’s publication to take into account a November 2020 SEARCH report, and are available on the Paper Prisons website, https://paperprisons.org, within the individual state expungement or sealing gap reports. See Becki Goggins et al.; Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2020: A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report, SEARCH (2020), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/255651.pdf. [6] Notably, Pennsylvania enacted legislation last year eliminating unpaid fines and fees (excluding restitution and a filing fee) as barriers to existing automated and petition-based sealing. [7] Virginia’s newly enrolled record-sealing legislation includes a provision requiring that private companies that buy and sell criminal records to routinely delete sealed records (this is also the current practice of Pennsylvania state courts). The bill creates a private right of action for individuals against companies that refuse to do so. Read more