State Reforms Reducing Collateral Consequences for People with Criminal Records

1. A project of State Reforms Reducing Collateral Consequences for People with Criminal Records Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2012 Panelists: Rachel Bloom, ACLU; Nicolette Chambery, CBI; Roberta Meyers, LAC/HIRE; Nicole Porter, The Sentencing Project; and Michelle Natividad Rodriguez, NELP TO HEAR this webinar, you must dial the number emailed to you in your registration confirmation, and use the access code also provided in the same email. The audio pin is on the panel to the right of this screen. The webinar will begin at 3:00 p.m. EDT Thank you for your patience.

2. Guidelines • If you choose to use your telephone to listen to the webinar, please make sure to mute yourself for the entire length of the webinar including questions. • If you choose to use your telephone to listen to the webinar, please make sure your computer speakers are off, if not it will cause you to hear an echo. Can’t hear the presentation? Dial 646-307-1716 When prompted, use the access code provided in your registration email. The audio pin is on the panel to the right of this screen. Having technical difficulties? Call 212-243-1313 for assistance.

3. Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Conviction • Collateral consequences are the additional penalties tied to a conviction that greatly impact an individual’s capacity to engage politically, economically and socially upon their reentry to society. These consequences include barriers to housing, education, and employment, felony disenfranchisement, and ineligibility for public benefits. Collateral consequences are distinct from direct consequences of convictions in that they are not factored in to the calculation of punishment or sentencing, and are triggered outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

4. The Growing Impact of Collateral Consequences • As the U.S. prison population grows, so do the number of individuals impacted by collateral consequences. • The American Bar Association has identified over 38,000 collateral consequences. • Approximately 19.8 million Americans have a felony conviction, 8.6% of the adult population. • An estimated 65 million Americans have a criminal record.

5. Momentum for Reform • Growing awareness of the negative impact of collateral consequences. • Bills to advance a proactive agenda were introduced in approximately half of all state legislatures in 2012. • Strong bipartisan support for reforming collateral consequences.

6. Agenda • Federal Opt Out (Roberta Meyers, LAC/HIRE) • Negligent Hiring (Roberta Meyers, LAC/HIRE) • Ban the Box (Michelle Natividad Rodriguez, NELP) • Expungement (Nicole Porter, The Sentencing Project) • Felony Enfranchisement (Nicole Porter, The Sentencing Project) • Universal Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act (Nicolette Chambery, Crossroad Bible Institute) • Q&A (Rachel Bloom, ACLU)

7. State Reforms Reducing Collateral Consequences for People with Criminal Records National H.I.R.E. Network Webinar Tuesday, September 25, 2012 Roberta Meyers Director rampeeples@lac.org

8. Restoring Eligibility for Public Benefits • Drug felony ban on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) • 12 States have fully opted out (DE, KS, ME, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK. PA, RI, VT) • 7 States have full ban (AL, AK, GA, MI, SC, TX, WV) • 32 States have a limited (modified) ban on SNAP or TANF • SNAP: 15 States plus DC—No Ban • TANF: 14 States—No Ban **4 States introduced measures to increase access to benefits (AL, CA, MO, PA) ***5 States adopted measures to reduce access to benefits through drug testing (GA, OK, TN, UT, and WV) 8

9. Employer Negligent Hiring Protections • Why a policy consideration? • Negligent hiring liability is one of the top reasons employers say they may not hire an individual with a criminal record. • A new policy that offers additional and overt protections to employers may increase employment opportunities for job seekers with criminal histories. 9

10. State Negligent Hiring Policies • Colorado: C.R.S. § 8-2-201(2)(a) • restricts information at trial • Florida: FL. Stat. Ann. §768.096 • presumption against negligent hiring with adequate background investigation • Massachusetts: 6 Mass. Gen. Law. 172(e) • safe harbor attached to CORI (long term care facilities) • New York: N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(15) • rebuttable presumption • North Carolina: N.C. Stat. § 15A-173.5 • limited liability attached to certificate Ohio: • immunity from negligent hiring of employee with certificate CO, MN, NJ, NY, VT, WV, and WI—new proposals introduced but not passed 10

11. Resources • Advocacy Toolkits to Combat Legal Barriers Facing Individuals with Criminal Records: http://www.lac.org/toolkits/Introduction.htm • Make Your Voice Heard: Guidelines for Effective Advocacy: http://www.hirenetwork.org/content/make-your-voice-heard-guidelines-effective-advocacy • ABA National Collateral Consequences Inventory: http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org/CollateralConsequences/index.html 11

12. “Ban the box”: Fair Hiring and Occupational Licensing StandardsNational Employment Law ProjectSeptember 25, 2012 Michelle Natividad Rodriguez Staff Attorney mrodriguez@nelp.org www.nelp.org

13. “Ban the Box:” Restoring Hope and Opportunity to Workers with Criminal Records Benefits to worker: remove chilling effect, decrease stigma, demonstrate qualifications Benefits to employers: maximize applicant pool and can reduce resource expenditure www.nelp.org

14. www.nelp.org

15. Success! Colorado HB 1263 Prohibits state agencies and licensing agencies from performing a background check until finalist or conditional offer. Must consider: (1) nature of conviction; (2) direct relationship of conviction to job; (3) rehabilitation and good conduct; and (4) time elapsed. Prohibits use of arrests not leading to conviction. No disqualifications based on expunged/dismissed unless agencies first consider factors. Exempt: statute bars, certain public safety or correction-related jobs. Voluntary information can be considered. Prohibits blanket ban ads. Supported by Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition. www.nelp.org

16. Introduced Legislation in 2012 California AB 1831 Illinois HB 1210, Amd. No. 1 Maryland SB 671/HB 800 Minnesota HF 1448/SF 1122 New Jersey A2300 Rhode Island HB 1160, SB 241 Vermont H717 www.nelp.org

17. Highlights of Introduced Legislation California: applied to city and county employment Illinois: now an even stronger bill with House Cmte. Amd. No. 1 Maryland: significant that garnered support from powerful state agency www.nelp.org

18. Highlights of Introduced Legislation Minnesota: applied to private employment New Jersey: penalty for violation is $10,000 for first offense and $20,000 for second offense Rhode Island: must be “direct causal relationship” between offense and license/employment Vermont: first attempt www.nelp.org

19. Resources65 Million Need Not Apply: The Case for Reforming Criminal Background Checks http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/2011/65_Million_Need_Not_Apply.pdf?nocdn=1State Ban the Box Guidehttp://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/ModelStateHiringInitiatives.pdf?nocdn=1 www.nelp.org

20. Changes in State Collateral Sanctions Policies The Sentencing Project Nicole D. PorterDirector of Advocacynporter@sentencingproject.org

21. Expungement and Sealing: Reducing Employment Barriers • 2012, at least 8 states - Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee and Utah—adopted measures that authorize or expand expungement relief for criminal convictions. • At least 8 other states, including Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island, introduced expungement provisions during 2012 • 3 measures -- in New Mexico, South Carolina, and West Virginia—were adopted by the legislature, but vetoed by the governor

22. 2012: Delaware’s House Bill 9 • 1997-2010: 23 states enacted reforms to disenfranchisement policy • 800,000 citizens regained voting rights

23. Introduced Legislation to Enact the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction ActCrossroad Bible InstituteNicolette Chambery Advocacy Coordinator nicolette@cbi.fm

24. UCCA Background • The Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act was written in response to the increasingly high number of men and women that were unable to find housing, employment, and access to public benefits, upon their release from prison. • Recognizing these and other missing opportunities as imperative to a successful reentry, this act provides information and relief to attorneys, their clients, and the public that equips them with tools that mitigate these effects. • Though no state has enacted UCCA, advocates are confident that progress made in past years will continue into next year.

25. 2011 Introduced Legislation • North Carolina • New Mexico • Colorado • Minnesota • Vermont • Nevada • West Virginia

26. 2012 Legislation • New York Assembly Bill 8546 • The partisan divide between Assembly Members and the Senate remains to be a barrier in passing this legislation and concern for adopting a policy too soft on crime. • Reentry reforms have been adopted on smaller scales and Assembly Members are hopeful this practice will continue to enact UCCA. • This bill is being revised to accommodate existing relief mechanisms already in place, and will be reintroduced next session.

27. 2012 Legislation • Vermont Senate Bill 38 • This measure gained significant ground last session, and supporters of this bill are confident they have extinguished concerns surrounding its enactment. • This bill will be reintroduced next year. • Advocates are hopeful the ABA study of which collateral consequences attach to a particular statute will be a great resource in the passage of this bill. The first 9 states are available on the National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction website.

28. 2012 Legislation West Virgina House Bill • This bill was originally recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary, though no action was taken and it never received a hearing. Wisconsin Senate Bill 304 • Senate Bill 304 also did not receive a hearing due to opposition from the Chair with specific concerns over public safety.

29. 2012 Legislation • Minnesota House Bill 489/Senate Bill 1448 • Though great progress continues to be made, some legislators have yet to embrace criminal justice reform. • Advocates for this measure are meeting in late September to determine new strategies for raising awareness and support for this bill to accommodate concerns from lawmakers.

30. A project of Contact Information Rachel Bloom Nicole Porter rbloom@aclu.orgnporter@sentencingproject.org www.aclu.orgwww.thesentencingproject.com Nicolette Chambery Michelle Natividad Rodriguez nicolette@cbi.fmmrodriguez@nelp.org www.cbi.fmwww.nelp.org Roberta Meyers rampeeples@lac.org www.hirenetwork.org