Category: Relief

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:

Read more

Virginia poised to enact “transformative” record clearance law

Editor’s Note:  We are delighted to post a description of the broad new record relief bill now awaiting Governor Northam’s signature, by an attorney-advocate who was actively involved in the campaign to secure its passage. Rob Poggenklass describes the ambitious new law and how it came to be enacted, as well as likely next steps for record clearance in a jurisdiction that is swiftly becoming one of the nation’s leaders in record reforms. In addition to automatic sealing, the bill’s provisions for appointment of counsel, elimination of a fingerprint requirement for petitions, and regulation of private screening companies are particularly significant for reducing access barriers and ensuring effectiveness.

The Virginia General Assembly has passed transformative legislation to allow sealing of convictions, including low-level felonies, for the first time in the Commonwealth, and to establish a system of automatic sealing of police and court records for many offenses. About 1.6 million Virginians have a criminal record, which creates significant barriers to employment, housing, education, and other necessities of life.

The legislation reflects a compromise between an automatic expungement bill sponsored by Del. Charniele Herring and a mostly petition-based one brought by Sen. Scott Surovell. It also reflects the sustained work of directly impacted individuals and other advocates who organized and insisted on far-reaching, automatic, and equitable expungement legislation.

The legislation must be signed by Governor Ralph Northam before it becomes law, but the governor is expected to sign it. After the House and Senate could not agree on record sealing legislation during a special session in the fall of 2020, the governor hired a mediator to help negotiate the compromise bill that passed both chambers in 2021.

The legislation includes five key provisions. The bill:

  1. Establishes a system of automatic sealing for misdemeanor non-convictions, nine types of misdemeanor convictions, and deferred dismissals for underage alcohol and marijuana possession.
  2. Allows for contemporaneous sealing of felony acquittals and dismissals with the consent of the prosecuting attorney.
  3. Provides for sealing a broad range of misdemeanor and low-level felony convictions and deferred dismissals through a petition-based court process. Notably, court debt will not be a barrier to record clearance under the legislation.
  4. Introduces a system of court-appointed counsel for individuals who cannot afford an attorney for the petition-based sealing process.
  5. Forces private companies that buy and sell criminal records to routinely delete sealed records and creates a private right of action for individuals against companies that refuse to do so.

Most provisions of the bill are not currently set to take effect until July 1, 2025, to give the Virginia State Police and the courts sufficient time to update their computer systems. Increased funding or other future action by the General Assembly could change the effective date.

Read more

Study: Texas diversion provides dramatic benefits for people facing their first felony

Increased use of diversion is a key feature of America’s new age of criminal justice reform. Whether administered informally by prosecutors or under the auspices of courts, diversionary dispositions aim to resolve cases without a conviction—and in so doing, conserve scarce legal resources, provide supportive services, reduce recidivism, and provide defendants with a chance to avoid the lingering stigma of a conviction record.

Despite the growing popularity of diversion in this country and around the world, there has been little empirical study of its impacts on future behavior. Until now.

By conjecture, the opportunity to steer clear of a criminal conviction might affect future behavior in opposing ways. An optimist might expect that diversion would motivate a person to avoid returning to court in the future, while preserving the ability to hold lawful employment, especially in places where criminal background checks are used to screen applicants. A skeptic might argue that diversion represents a lesser punishment that could increase offending by reducing either a specific or general deterrence effect.

Without research showing the likelihood of one or the other outcome, policymakers, prosecutors, and judges have had to operate on untested assumptions, hoping for the best. This vacuum has now been filled by a new study of Texas’ court-managed diversion program by two economists, which should be welcome news for the optimists.

Read more

“A Plan to Restructure (and Revive) Pardoning After Trump”

The title of this post is the title of my second piece for Lawfare on the future of presidential pardoning after the unjust and irregular practices that characterized pardoning under President Trump.  In response to critics who urge that responsibility for pardon advice should be removed from the Justice Department, I argue for restoring the pardon program to its historic place as an independent and respected part of that agency, so it can be an effective counterweight to the punitive views of prosecutors that have in the past frustrated pardoning.  Reestablishing a functional institutional connection between the president’s power and the rest of the justice system will better serve both the presidency and the public interest in a more compassionate approach to criminal law enforcement. I suggest that Merrick Garland, whose Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing to become attorney general begins on Monday, will understand how to reset the balance between pardon and justice to the benefit of both.

This is a follow-up to my Washington Post op ed, in which I argued that the presidential pardon power has been burdened with too many routine functions, and that the new administration should seek to restore a degree of practical efficiency to pardoning by working with Congress to reassign many of these functions to the courts — including shortening prison sentences and restoring lost rights.

The second piece is reprinted below:

A Plan to Restructure (and Revive) Pardoning After Trump

The overarching theme that emerges from four years of Donald Trump’s pardoning is an approach to government authority as transactional and personality based, rather than principled, structured, and process based. From the nation’s earliest days, unruly pardon has been harnessed to the rule-of-law virtues of the justice system, secured since the 19th century by its relationship to the Justice Department and by presidents respecting that relationship. Trump ostentatiously rejected that relationship from the start.

Trump not only detached the pardon power from the structure and operation of the justice system but he also used his power to challenge and frustrate that system. His pardons have been described by Bernadette Meyler as a throwback to the theatrical pardoning of the 17th century English kings and playwrights, enlarged and darkened by self-interest.

In the wake of Trump’s abusive and frequently haphazard pardoning, there have been calls to reform the process by which the president receives advice in pardon matters by stripping the Justice Department of its long-standing gatekeeper role. While reform of the pardon process is certainly in order, it would be a profound mistake to institutionalize Trump’s detachment of pardon from the justice system as these reformers urge.
Read more

Access Barriers to Felony Expungement: The Case of Illinois

Currently, 33 states authorize the expungement or sealing of at least some felony convictions.i However, recent research has shown that only a small percentage of eligible individuals actually complete the court petition process required to obtain this relief in most jurisdictions.ii In the fall of 2020, as an outgrowth of its work surveying record relief laws in the 50 states, the Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) decided to take a closer look at barriers that prevent people with felony convictions from accessing relief intended to benefit them.

Ideally, the most efficient way to overcome access barriers would be to make sealing automatic, dispensing with the requirement of filing individual petitions. However, the move toward automatic sealing is in its early stages,iii and we anticipate that petitions will remain the primary way to clear felony conviction records in most states for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, it is important to minimize barriers to petition-based relief at every level.

In order to minimize barriers, they must first be identified and documented. We have therefore begun work on a project to analyze barriers to petition-based sealing of felonies in a number of different states. This will hopefully encourage those states to reform their process to retain only substantive and procedural requirements that are truly necessary from a policy perspective, and to shift burdens now placed on individual applicants to the government wherever practicable. At the same time, the revealed difficulty of accessing petition-based relief on an equitable basis would be a strong incentive to consider automation, and the costs and benefits of each process could more easily be compared.

As a preliminary step toward launching this project, we collaborated with Beth Johnson and her partners in the Rights and Restoration Law Group (RRLG) to develop a survey instrument that collects information about access barriers to felony expungement across four domains: (1) resource and knowledge; (2) eligibility; (3) process; and (4) effectiveness. We tested our survey instrument with practitioners from several states. Beth and her team took the survey for their home state of Illinois and analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the state’s record-sealing system.iv

We are publishing the RRLG Illinois report that follows as a pilot for additional state-specific studies. It provides detailed descriptions of the Illinois system’s strengths and weaknesses in the four areas identified above, and makes recommendations for reform. RRLG’s survey responses are in the appendix.

The Illinois report is available as a PDF here, and included in this post below.

We hope to be able to broaden this project to work with practitioners from additional states to complete the survey and write up case studies, on the basis of which we could recommend state-specific reforms as well as more general best practices. In addition to this project, we have been collaborating with Jessica K. Steinberg, director of the Prisoner & Reentry Clinic at GW Law, on an initiative in which the clinic has created a survey tool and conducted data collection on pro se access barriers to felony expungement in 34 states, with a white paper planned for later this year.

In the meantime, here are links to the survey questions used for this report. We invite anyone interested to complete it, to help us gather data for this undertaking:

Part I. Resource & Knowledge Barriers: https://forms.gle/MxRYtcpvMahYybcM7

Part II. Eligibility Barriers: https://forms.gle/RHQo92DedtddqyrJ7

Part III. Process Barriers: https://forms.gle/nAjUHKwKjmbKzXMZ9

Part IV. Effectiveness Barriers: https://forms.gle/t2iNh1RPJDPLDkXm7

Read more

After a haul of record relief reforms in 2020, more states launch clean slate campaigns

Yesterday, the Clean Slate Initiative, a bipartisan national effort to automate the clearing of criminal records, announced four new state campaigns in Texas, New York, Oregon, and Delaware, joining ongoing campaigns in Louisiana, Connecticut, and North Carolina to advocate for automatic record relief legislation.

This announcement follows a productive year for record relief reforms in 2020, when Michigan became the sixth state to enact automatic relief for a range of conviction records, the most expansive such authority enacted to date. In total, 20 states enacted 35 bills and two ballot measures creating or expanding record relief (i.e. expungement, sealing, set-aside) last year. Michigan, along with three other states, also enacted major legislation expanding eligibility for petition-based conviction relief. Kentucky and North Carolina authorized the automatic sealing of many non-conviction records (with simplified petitions for others), consistent with a 2019 model law on non-conviction records developed by a group of practitioners under CCRC’s leadership. Other reforms addressed marijuana offenses, victims of human trafficking, juvenile records, and more.

Below we summarize 2020’s record relief reforms, broken down into six categories: general conviction relief (9 states, 14 laws), automatic conviction relief (4 states, 5 laws), non-conviction records (4 states, 4 laws), marijuana offenses (6 states, 5 laws, 2 ballot measures), offenses by victims of human trafficking (3 states, 3 bills), and juvenile records (5 states, 6 laws). Seven bills that were vetoed are described at the end. (Our full report on 2020 legislation is available here. Further detail about a particular jurisdiction’s record relief laws can be found in the CCRC Restoration of Rights Project, which includes both individual state profiles and 50-state comparison charts for conviction and non-conviction records.)

Read more

CCRC proposes a reintegration agenda for the 117th Congress

The new Congress has an opportunity to make significant bipartisan progress on criminal justice reform, including reducing barriers to successful reintegration for people with a criminal record.1 This agenda recommends specific measures by which Congress can accomplish this.

During the wave of criminal record reform that began around 2013, every state legislature has taken some steps to chip away at the negative effects of a record, thereby supporting opportunities to earn a living, access public benefits, education, and housing, regain voting rights, and otherwise reintegrate into society.2 Many states have entirely remade their record relief systems—authorizing or expanding expungement, sealing, set-aside, certificates of relief, and/or deferred adjudication—and limited the consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment and licensing.3

Congress has belatedly become interested in the reintegration agenda, limiting background checks in federal employment and contracting in 2019, and removing some barriers to public benefits in 2020. However, many federal barriers remain, and individuals with federal records have no access to the kind of relief mechanisms now available in most states. Recent controversies over presidential pardoning offer an incentive to wean the federal justice system from its dependence upon presidential action for the sort of routine relief these mechanisms promise.

During the pandemic, the need to access opportunities and resources is perhaps unprecedented. We therefore urge Congress and the Biden Administration to take an ambitious and bipartisan approach to criminal record reforms in the four areas described below:

  • Record relief: authorize federal courts to expunge certain records, grant certificates of relief, and increase use of deferred adjudication; give effect to state relief in federal law; prohibit dissemination of certain records by background screeners and the FBI; provide relief from firearms dispossession.
  • Federal public benefits: end record-related restrictions in small business relief, SNAP and TANF benefits, and student financial aid.
  • Employment & licensing: establish enforceable standards for consideration of criminal record in federal employment and contracting, and limit record-based restrictions in federally-regulated occupations.
  • Voting rights: allow voting in federal elections unless a person is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution.

CCRC’s full federal agenda can be accessed here, and is reprinted below.

Read more

Marijuana expungement accelerates in 2020

*NEW: Marijuana legalization and expungement in early 2021

Marijuana expungement reforms continued to accelerate last year, and record relief has now attained a more prominent role in the broader legalization movement. As we documented in our recent report on 2020 criminal record reforms, six states enacted specialized marijuana relief laws in 2020, following 7 states (and D.C.) that did so in 2019, and 4 states in 2018. This brings the total number of states with specialized marijuana expungement laws to 23.

In Congress, the House passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act in November, which establishes a process to expunge convictions and conduct sentencing review hearings related to federal marijuana offenses. However, the Senate did not bring it up for consideration so it will have to be reintroduced in the new Congress.

In 2020, Arizona and Montana approved ballot measures to authorize expungement for many marijuana offenses; Vermont made expungement automatic for marijuana possession of 2 ounces or less; Michigan and Utah streamlined marijuana record relief procedures; and Virginia restricted access to records of marijuana possession offenses. These laws are described in greater detail below.

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:

Read more

Momentum grows to restore voting rights to people with a felony

Our new report on 2020 legislative reforms shows continued progress in state efforts to expand voting rights for people with a felony conviction. Despite a courtroom setback at the Eleventh Circuit, where a federal appeals court ruled that Florida’s landmark 2018 felony re-enfranchisement initiative does not restore the vote to people who owe court debt, two additional states and D.C. took major actions to restore voting rights to people convicted of a felony. Already in 2021, an impressive 19 states are considering bills to ease or eliminate prohibitions on voting based on a past conviction.

In 2020, California restored the vote to people on parole, via a ballot initiative amending the state constitution. Iowa‘s governor issued an executive order restoring voting rights to people convicted of most felonies after completion of incarceration and supervision. And the District of Columbia repealed felony disenfranchisement altogether so that even people in prison may vote. Since 2016, 19 states have taken steps to restore the right to vote for people with a felony and expand awareness about eligibility. 

In 2021, at least 19 state legislatures are considering bills that would expand the franchise to those with a conviction:

  • 5 states are considering measures to amend their constitutions or statutes to eliminate felony disenfranchisement entirely (Nebraska, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Virginia). They would join Maine, Vermont, and D.C., as jurisdictions that have fully abandoned felony disenfranchisement. Connecticut also has a proposed bill that to eliminate disenfranchisement for certain felony offenses and restore the vote after incarceration for the others.
  • 10 states are considering bills to re-enfranchise individuals not presently incarcerated for a felony conviction: Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Washington, Texas, and Virginia (Alabama’s bill would do so 5 years after release). The Washington measure is sponsored by newly elected Rep. Tarra Simmons, believed to be the first Washington state lawmaker formerly convicted of felony.
  • The only 4 states remaining without a statutory mechanism for re-enfranchisement (Kentucky, Iowa, Mississippi, Virginia) are considering measures to restore the vote upon completion of incarceration and supervision, or earlier, for a disqualifying offense (in the case of Mississippi, after incarceration and parole only; in the case of Iowa, 5 years after completion of incarceration and supervision; Virginia has proposals to eliminate disenfranchisement completely or restore the vote upon release). These four states currently make re-enfranchisement wholly dependent upon discretionary gubernatorial action (or in Mississippi, discretionary legislative action).
  • In addition, Tennessee has a pending bill that would remove requirements that a person has paid all restitution and court costs, and be current on child support, before voting rights may be restored. Maryland and Missouri are considering bills to facilitate voting in jails for eligible individuals, and Maryland has another bill to require individuals released from correctional facilities and/or on community supervision to be informed that they are eligible to vote. Nebraska also has a pending bill to remove the two-year waiting period after completion of a felony sentence for voting rights restoration.

Our full report on 2020 criminal record reforms is available here. For an overview of loss and restoration of voting rights, see our Sept. 2020 national survey and our 50-state comparison chart. In addition, our Nov. 2020 report documents which states treat unpaid court debt as a barrier to regaining the vote.

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 26