Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:38 pm
Time: 9:38 pm
Results for criminal records
35 results foundAuthor: Orchowsky, Stan Title: Improving State Criminal History Records: Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released in 2001 Summary: JRSA is working with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) on a project designed to improve state criminal history records. The project allows State Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs) to develop the capacity to obtain and analyze their states' criminal history records or, in the case of SACs that already have this capacity, to participate in coordinated studies of key topics of interest to state justice decisionmakers. SACs will provide feedback to their state criminal history repositories on errors in the data discovered as the analyses are undertaken. This ongoing process of analysis and correction of data in the files will help improve the overall quality of the data in the criminal history records. The first project involved SACs in nine states (Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah) studying sex offender recidivism using the criminal history records data. This report presents the findings of this analysis. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association, 2009. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 24, 2010 at: http://www.jrsa.org/programs/sex-offender-final-report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.jrsa.org/programs/sex-offender-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 119682 Keywords: Criminal RecordsRecidivismSex Offenders |
Author: Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services Title: Improving State Criminal History Records Through Analysis: Profiling Drug Offenders Summary: Ohio’s criminal history database is a central repository for criminal history information for the state of Ohio. It was developed and housed at the Attorney General’s Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (BCI&I) office in 1921. It first became computerized (computerized criminal history database, or CCH) in 1972. There are multiple sources that provide data to CCH. Currently, over 1200 law enforcement agencies throughout Ohio enter arrest data and fingerprint cards into the database. Ohio courts are required to submit final dispositions to BCI, where they are logically linked to their corresponding arrests in CCH. Ohio correctional facilities enter information into CCH as well, including the offender’s fingerprints, the charge(s) for which he is being incarcerated, and demographic data. Through a partnership between the BCI&I and the Office of Criminal Justice Services (OCJS), a division of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, OCJS was able to obtain secure access to a portion of the CCH database. Records which were made available to OCJS included information on demographics, arrests, charges, and judicial processing. Identifying information, such as names and social security numbers, were excluded. Historical records were linked through a single unique identifier, the subject ID number. This report presents the findings of this analysis. Details: Colombus, OH: Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services, 2007?. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2010 at: http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/ocjs_CCH_DrugOffendersFinal.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/ocjs_CCH_DrugOffendersFinal.pdf Shelf Number: 120194 Keywords: Criminal RecordsDrug Offenders (Ohio)Recidivism |
Author: Blumstein, Alfred Title: Potential of Redemption in Criminal Background Checks Summary: Background checking, especially checking of criminal-history records, is becoming increasingly ubiquitous in the U.S. Recent advances in information technology and growing concern about employer liability have combined to increase the demand for such background checks. Also, a large number of individual criminal records have accumulated and been computerized in state repositories and commercial databases. As a result, many people who have made mistakes in their youthful past, but have since lived a law-abiding life face hardships in finding employment. The concern is evidenced by the report from the Attorney General sent to Congress in June, 2006 on criminal history background checks (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). In the report, there is a recommendation for time limits on the relevancy of criminal records, which reflects the fact that the potentially lasting effect of criminal records is a common concern among many governmental and legal entities that have a say in this issue. Such entities include the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is concerned about discrimination based on criminal records because those with criminal records are disproportionately racial/ethnic minorities. The American Bar Association (ABA) is also concerned about the negative lasting effect of criminal records in employment settings. Both these organizations are taking an initiative to broaden the discussion about the problem of the way in which criminal records are currently used and to address how to regulate the use of criminal records, including a time limit on their relevancy. It is our goal in this project to provide guidance on the possibility of “redemption,” (which we define as the process of lifting the burden of the prior record), and to provide guidance on how one may estimate when such redemption is appropriate. Numerous studies have shown in the past that recidivism probability declines with time “clean,” so there is some point in time when a person with a criminal record who remained free of further contact with the criminal justice system is of no greater risk than any counterpart, an indication of redemption from the mark of an offender. We henceforth call this time point “redemption time.” Sections of this report discuss the recent trends about the practice of criminal background checking, particularly by employers, and the volume of computerized criminal records that are available for such background checks. They also address the problem of the lack of guidelines that could help employers understand how the “age” of a criminal record relates to the level of risk of a new crime. By discussing the trends, we demonstrate that the problem of redemption is a pressing public concern, and that empirically based guidance on redemption is urgently needed. Details: Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University, 2010. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232358.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232358.pdf Shelf Number: 120364 Keywords: Background ChecksCriminal RecordsEmploymentEx-Offenders |
Author: Mills, Linda Title: Inventorying and Reforming State-Created Employment Restrictions Based On Criminal Records: A Policy Brief and Guide Summary: Gainful employment is essential to any strategy to reduce recidivism, and thus to reduce crime and make communities safer. However, among the many hurdles facing people coming home from prisons and jails in successfully reintegrating into society, getting a good job is often one of the most daunting. Equally daunting, for both the person with the record and for workforce staff who might attempt to help him search for jobs, is figuring out what occupations and places of employment are possibly open to people with criminal records. States increasingly have created hiring restrictions that may turn the fact of criminal record into a bar to employment. These restrictions, imposed on both the public and private sectors, vary widely and can affect the ability of the 71 million people in the U.S. (over 30% of the adult population) whose names are in criminal history databases to secure gainful employment. Sometimes the restrictions offer the employer a measure of hiring discretion after reviewing a background check. Sometimes they give the employer the right to assess the relevance of the past crime to the job. Sometimes they provide the job seeker with an opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation. But often the restrictions offer little flexibility to either employers or people looking for work. Each restriction has its own nuances. Some restrictions put jobs or places of employment off-limits to anyone with a record of a criminal conviction. Some put them off-limits only for those convicted of certain crimes. Sometimes the restriction creates a lifetime ban. Sometimes the restriction is time-limited. Sometimes the time limits depend on the crime. For employers, it’s a minefield. Hiring in violation of the restrictions can lead to a loss of a business license and other harsh penalties. For job seekers with a criminal record, it can be Kafkaesque, with the impact of restrictions often both unknown and unknowable until after incurring the costs of a course of study, tests and fees and the application for a job or license is finally reviewed. The lack of reliable information about what jobs can be pursued can lead to deadend efforts and frustrations that impede the self-confidence that is so important to job hunting success. It can also waste precious time during the weeks following release from prison or jail when getting a job is so critical to staying out of trouble. The confusing complexity of the restrictions is due to the fact that criminal history restrictions on employment have proliferated over many years and by many entities and in response to diverse events and shifting policy tides. Adopted by both legislatures and state agencies, typically they are spread over scores of chapters of state laws, buried in agency rules and lost in obscure agency policy memos; and sometimes they exist only on the face of a job or license application. Most states have not catalogued their restrictions. In the absence of a catalogue making restrictions accessible and transparent, employers, workforce and corrections agencies, and people with criminal records are left to their own devices to figure out what the restrictions are. If they don’t get it right, which is very difficult for any of them, myth and misinformation may prevail and the consequences can be serious and costly. Just as employers and job seekers need to know what the restrictions are, so, too, do the state and local agencies that administer the restrictions and are charged with understanding and interpreting them correctly. Some departments of corrections are developing individualized reentry plans that create post-release occupational goals and that assign training programs intended to achieve those goals. Additional training and job placement is then delegated to workforce agencies upon the prisoners’ release. If the occupations for which the training is provided are off-limits to people with criminal convictions, time and tax dollars are wasted and the people being trained can wind-up with useless credentials, leaving them unprepared to find work. If policymakers want to harmonize the restrictions that have been adopted piecemeal over so many years and develop a coherent policy thread that ties them together, they need to understand their state’s restrictions, too. Inventorying the existing restrictions is an essential first step for states interested in creating consistent and meaningful employment policies that protect public safety while also reducing recidivism by opening employment opportunity. Details: Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2008. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2011 at: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/PublicationFiles/Employment%20Restrictions%20Policy%20Guide%20Sept%2008.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/PublicationFiles/Employment%20Restrictions%20Policy%20Guide%20Sept%2008.pdf Shelf Number: 113255 Keywords: Criminal RecordsEx-Offenders, Employment (U.S.)Prisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Mayors Against Illegal Guns Title: Fatal Gaps: How Missing Records in the Federal Background Check System Put Guns in the Hands of Killers Summary: Since its creation in 1999, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has blocked more than 1.6 million permit applications and gun sales to felons, the seriously mentally ill, drug abusers and other dangerous people who are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. Completing the necessary paperwork for a background check takes a gun buyer mere minutes, and more than 91 percent of these electronic screens are completed instantaneously. And, amidst a polarized national debate about gun control, the background check system enjoys nearly universal public support. Despite its relative success, NICS has serious gaps and limitations that still allow firearms to be sold to dangerous people, including some of the nation’s worst mass murderers. The NICS database can access the names of individuals who are barred from possessing guns due to citizenship status and other prohibiting factors with relative ease. That data is regularly and efficiently shared among government and law enforcement agencies. But, for complex legal and logistical reasons discussed in this report, records about the kinds of serious mental health and drug abuse problems that disqualify people from gun ownership have proven more difficult to capture. In 2007, Seung Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech before taking his own life. More than a year earlier, a judge had found Cho to be mentally ill—a determination that should have barred him for life from possessing a firearm. But the records documenting his profound mental illness were never submitted to NICS, and Cho was able to pass several background checks before buying the guns he used in the mass shooting. On January 8, 2011 Jared Loughner shot and killed six people and critically wounded 13 others in Tucson, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Media reports indicated that Loughner had a troubled past that included a drug-related arrest, an admission of drug use to the U.S. Army and suspension from community college for a pattern of disturbing behavior. He nevertheless passed background checks and bought firearms on two separate occasions, including the Glock 19 he used in his attempt to assassinate Congresswoman Giffords. News accounts suggested that Loughner’s admission of drug use should have barred him from purchasing his first gun, an assertion the government has never confirmed. After the Tucson mass shooting, Mayors Against Illegal Guns conducted an investigation to discover why critical mental health and drug abuse records are missing from the NICS database. We obtained Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data on the number of records states and federal agencies have shared with the system, analyzed related state and federal policies and interviewed more than 60 government officials responsible for NICS record collection and submission in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Based on our analysis and FBI data released on October 31, 2011, we drew the following conclusions: Millions of records identifying seriously mentally ill people and drug abusers as prohibited purchasers are missing from the federal background check database because of lax reporting by state agencies. • Many state mental health records are still missing: Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database. Seventeen states have submitted fewer than ten mental health records, and four states have not submitted any records at all. • State substance abuse records are also underreported: Forty-four states have submitted fewer than ten records to the controlled substance file in the NICS Index, and 33 have not submitted any records at all. Even though federal regulations and policy establish that a failed drug test, single drug-related arrest or admission of drug use within the past year temporarily disqualify a person from possessing a gun, the vast majority of states are unaware that these records should be shared with NICS. • While still inadequate, mental health record reporting by the states has improved: From August 2010 to October 2011, the number of state-submitted mental health records in the federal background check database increased by 35.4 percent. • States with the highest rates of mental health record submission have typically enacted policies that require or permit reporting of records: Nine of the ten states that submit the most mental health records per capita have adopted laws or policies that mandate or permit the sharing of mental health records with NICS, while just two of the ten states that submit records at the lowest rates have such laws or policies. • States with access to federal funding tend to submit more records: From August 2010 to October 2011, the nine states that received NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP) grants to improve NICS submission increased their rate of mental health record sharing by nearly twice as many records per capita as states with no federal funding. • Leadership makes a difference: In each state that has significantly improved at sharing records with the federal database, one or more state actors have taken the lead in identifying and surmounting the logistical, legal and political obstacles to compliance. Federal agencies are not reporting records to NICS despite a federal law requiring all federal agencies to report “any record of any person” who is prohibited from purchasing firearms to the FBI. • Federal agencies have shared very few mental health records: 52 of the 61 agencies for which the FBI keeps relevant data have reported no mental health records to NICS. The vast majority of federal records were submitted by just one agency—the Department of Veterans Affairs. • Most federal agencies have not submitted any substance abuse records: Only three federal agencies—the FBI, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency (CSOSA)—have shared any substance abuse records with NICS, with the vast majority submitted by CSOSA. • A Clinton-era policy directive may discourage federal reporting: Federal agencies may continue to rely on a policy memorandum issued in 1994 by former Attorney General Janet Reno that instructs federal agencies not to submit certain substance abuse records to NICS. Details: S.l.: Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 2011. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2011 at: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf Shelf Number: 123362 Keywords: Background ChecksCriminal RecordsGun ControlIllegal Guns |
Author: Rodriguez, Michelle Natividad Title: State Reforms Promoting Employment of People with Criminal Records: 2010-11 Legislative Round-Up Summary: The severe economic climate facing the states has fueled a growing recognition of the need for cost-saving alternatives to incarceration. This paper seeks to contribute to this momentum for state-level reform by identifying policies that reduce the employment barriers faced by people with criminal records. As policy makers and advocates evaluate opportunities for reform heading into the 2012 state legislative sessions, the bills highlighted here, which seek to reduce crime and reward rehabilitation, warrant close attention. People with criminal records now confront unprecedented employment challenges that are not solely the result of a weak labor market. States, for example, have collectively adopted more than 30,000 laws that significantly restrict access to employment and other basic rights and benefits for people with criminal records, according to an exhaustive analysis2 by the American Bar Association. Recognizing that many such barriers fail to increase public safety, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder urged states to evaluate and remove laws that prevent people from living and working productively. The inspiring work of state policy makers and advocates across the country has led to new model policies that allow qualified people with criminal records to compete more fairly for employment. This paper highlights these laws enacted in 2010 and 2011 and reports on state trends of concern that broadly restrict employment based on a criminal record. This paper is organized into the following policy categories: (1) inventories of collateral consequences, (2) fair hiring and occupational licensing standards, (3) restoration of eligibility for employment and occupational licensing, (4) expungement and sealing of records, (5) prohibiting discrimination based on a criminal record, (6) securing identification documents, (7) reducing child support arrearages, (8) training and job placement for people with criminal records, and (9) employer negligent hiring protections. Key developments on these policy fronts include: Three states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Mexico) have adopted “ban the box” policies that prescribe the point at which an individual’s criminal record may be revealed in the hiring process. Two states (North Carolina and Ohio) passed laws that create certificates that recognize an individual’s rehabilitation and thereby reduce employment sanctions and disqualifications. Thirteen states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah), recognizing that old, minor offenses can plague job seekers years later, took positive steps to allow the expungement and sealing of a number of low-level offenses. Five states (Colorado, Kentucky, Nevada, New York, and Virginia) created new rights for workers to more easily access identification documents and other information needed to secure employment. Three states (Colorado, Massachusetts, and North Carolina) adopted laws, in conjunction with other reforms, to limit the liability of employers that hire people with criminal records. Details: New York: National Employment Law Project (NELP), 2011. 23p. Source: Legislative Update: Internet Resource: Accessed March 10, 2012 at http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/2011/PromotingEmploymentofPeoplewithCriminalRecords.pdf?nocdn=1 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/2011/PromotingEmploymentofPeoplewithCriminalRecords.pdf?nocdn=1 Shelf Number: 124428 Keywords: Criminal RecordsEmploymentEx-Offenders |
Author: Illinois Task Force on Inventorying Employment Restrictions Act Title: Inventorying Employment Restrictions Task Force Final Report Summary: The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority is pleased to announce publication of the Final Report of the Task Force on Inventorying Employment Restrictions. Illinois Public Act 96-0593 (20 ILCS 5000) created this Task Force within the Authority, and provides that the Task Force review statutes, administrative rules, policies, and practices that restrict employment of persons with criminal history and report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly by July 1, 2013. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2013. 438p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2013 at: http://www.icjia.org/public/pdf/ResearchReports/IERTF%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.org/public/pdf/ResearchReports/IERTF%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 129547 Keywords: Criminal RecordsEx-Offender Employment |
Author: Neighly, Madeline Title: Wanted: Accurate FBI Background Checks for Employment. Reward: Good Jobs Summary: At a time when millions of America's workers continue to struggle to find work in the aftermath of the Great Recession, many face an additional barrier-faulty records released by the FBI for use in employment and licensing decisions. Although considered the gold standard of criminal background checks, the FBI records routinely fail to report important information on the outcome of arrests, information that is often beneficial to workers subject to these reports. Given the massive proliferation of FBI background checks for employment-roughly 17 million were conducted last year-these inaccuracies have a devastating impact on workers, especially workers of color who are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system. There is a solution to this problem that would immediately result in less job-loss and financial hardship: the FBI must ensure that records are accurate and complete prior to being released for employment and licensing decisions. Key Findings of this report: - The use of FBI background checks for employment is rapidly increasing. Roughly 17 million FBI background checks were conducted for employment and licensing purposes in 2012, which is six times the number conducted a decade ago. - Despite clear federal mandates that require the background reports to be complete and accurate, 50 percent of the FBI's records fail to include information on the final disposition of the case. The missing information is frequently beneficial to job seekers. For example, one third of felony arrests do not result in conviction and many others are reduced to misdemeanors. - NELP estimates that 1.8 million workers a year are subject to FBI background checks that include faulty or incomplete information, and 600,000 of those workers may be prejudiced in their job search when the FBI reports do not include up-to-date and accurate information that would benefit them. - African Americans are especially disadvantaged by the faulty records because people of color are consistently arrested at rates greater than their representation in the general population, and large numbers of those arrests never lead to conviction. For example, African Americans were more than four times as likely as whites to appeal an inaccurate FBI record under the federal port worker security clearance program. - In conspicuous contrast to background checks for employment, the FBI searches for missing disposition information when a person seeks to purchase a gun, and the extra effort tracks down nearly two thirds of the missing information in just three days. Details: New York: National Employment Law Project, 2013. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2013 at: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/2013/Report-Wanted-Accurate-FBI-Background-Checks-Employment.pdf?nocdn=1 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/2013/Report-Wanted-Accurate-FBI-Background-Checks-Employment.pdf?nocdn=1 Shelf Number: 129652 Keywords: Criminal Background ChecksCriminal RecordsEx-Offender Employment (U.S.)FBIFederal Bureau of Investigation |
Author: Lee, Dara N. Title: The Digital Scarlet Letter: The Effect of Online Criminal Records on Crime Summary: How does public access to criminal records affect crime? Economic theory suggests that expanding access to criminal information may increase the cost of crime to potential criminals by endangering their future work prospects and thus act as a deterrent. However, increased provision of information could also obstruct ex-convicts from finding legal employment and lead to higher recidivism rates. I exploit the state and time variation in the introduction of state-maintained online criminal databases - which represent a sharp drop in the cost and effort of gaining criminal background information on another person - to empirically investigate the trade-off between deterrence and recidivism. I find that online criminal records lead to a small net reduction in property crime rates, but also a marked increase of approximately 11 percent in recidivism among ex-offenders. Details: Unpublished paper, 2012. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 12, 2014 at: http://web.missouri.edu/~leedn/OnlineRecords_DLee.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://web.missouri.edu/~leedn/OnlineRecords_DLee.pdf Shelf Number: 132337 Keywords: Criminal RecordsEmploymentEx-OffendersRecidivism |
Author: Odinot, G. Title: The Dutch Implementation of the Data Retention Directive. On the Storage and Use of Telephone and Internet Traffic Data for Crime Investigation Purposes Summary: This report shows how the Dutch Data Retention Act works in practice. It provides an overview of the way in which the Retention Act is structured, and of the use of the retained telephone and internet traffic data in the investigative practice. The report also provides insight into the use and value of these data in court rulings. The main assumption behind the Data Retention Act is that certain telephone and internet traffic data can play an important role in the investigation and prosecution of serious crimes. However, the fact that these privacy sensitive data have to be stored for a certain period of time, is a continual source of discussion. This report provides insight into the use of the data that are stored according to Dutch law, in order to assess the value and the necessity of the retention directive. Hereby this report fills a need that is felt both in The Netherlands, as well as at the European level. Due to the rise of mobile phone and smartphone use, and due to the many communication possibilities provided by the Internet, distance communication has changed drastically in recent years. The current legislation does not reflect these developments, and it is unlikely that 'local' Dutch legislation can overcome this and can be meaningful in the borderless and location free space of the Internet. Given the international nature of many forms of crime, European harmonization on retention periods and the retrieval of data is desirable. European harmonization does not, however, resolve all the possible challenges presented by the virtual world. Security minded thinking stimulates an expansion of retention directives to involve more possibilities for the use of internet data in the investigation of crime. However, from the perspective of the privacy of citizens, this is an undesirable development. The search for an alternative to the current data retention is a hefty challenge. Insights offered in this report will be useful in discussions concerning these developments. Details: The Hague: WODC and Eleven International Publishing, 2014. 150p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 11, 2014 at: http://www.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/ov-201402-the-dutch-implementation-of-the-data-retention-directive.aspx?cp=44&cs=6796 Year: 2014 Country: Netherlands URL: http://www.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/ov-201402-the-dutch-implementation-of-the-data-retention-directive.aspx?cp=44&cs=6796 Shelf Number: 133278 Keywords: Criminal Investigation (Netherlands)Criminal RecordsInternet |
Author: Vallas, Rebecca Title: One Strike and You're Out: How We Can Eliminate Barriers to Economic Security and Mobility for People with Criminal Records Summary: Between 70 million and 100 million Americans-or as many as one in three-have a criminal record. Many have only minor offenses, such as misdemeanors and non-serious infractions; others have only arrests without conviction. Nonetheless, because of the rise of technology and the ease of accessing data via the Internet-in conjunction with federal and state policy decisions-having even a minor criminal history now carries lifelong barriers that can block successful re-entry and participation in society. This has broad implications-not only for the millions of individuals who are prevented from moving on with their lives and becoming productive citizens but also for their families, communities, and the national economy. Today, a criminal record serves as both a direct cause and consequence of poverty. It is a cause because having a criminal record can present obstacles to employment, housing, public assistance, education, family reunification, and more; convictions can result in monetary debts as well. It is a consequence due to the growing criminalization of poverty and homelessness. One recent study finds that our nation's poverty rate would have dropped by 20 percent between 1980 and 2004 if not for mass incarceration and the subsequent criminal records that haunt people for years after they have paid their debt to society. Failure to address this link as part of a larger anti-poverty agenda risks missing a major piece of the puzzle. It is important to note that communities of color-and particularly men of color-are disproportionately affected, and high-poverty, disadvantaged communities generate a disproportionate share of Americans behind bars. As Michelle Alexander argues in her book The New Jim Crow,mass incarceration and its direct and collateral consequences have effectively replaced intentional racism as a form of 21st century structural racism. Indeed, research shows that mass incarceration and its effects have been significant drivers of racial inequality in the United States, particularly during the past three to four decades. Moreover, the challenges associated with having a criminal record come at great cost to the U.S. economy. Estimates put the cost of employment losses among people with criminal records at as much as $65 billion per year in terms of gross domestic product. That's in addition to our nation's skyrocketing expenditures for mass incarceration, which today total more than $80 billion annually. The lifelong consequences of having a criminal record-and the stigma that accompanies one-stand in stark contrast to research on "redemption" that documents that once an individual with a prior nonviolent conviction has stayed crime free for three to four years, that person's risk of recidivism is no different from the risk of arrest for the general population. Put differently, people are treated as criminals long after they pose any significant risk of committing further crimes-making it difficult for many to move on with their lives and achieve basic economic security, let alone have a shot at upward mobility. The United States must therefore craft policies to ensure that Americans with criminal records have a fair shot at making a decent living, providing for their families, and joining the middle class. This will benefit not only the tens of millions of individuals who face closed doors due to a criminal record but also their families, their communities, and the economy as a whole. President Barack Obama's administration has been a leader on this important issue. For example, the Bureau of Justice Administration's Justice Reinvestment Initiative has assisted states and cities across the country in reducing correctional spending and reinvesting the savings in strategies to support re-entry and reduce recidivism. The Federal Interagency Reentry Council, established in 2011 by Attorney General Eric Holder, has brought 20 federal agencies together to coordinate and advance effective re-entry policies. And the president's My Brother's Keeper initiative has charged communities across the country with implementing strategies to close opportunity gaps for boys and young men of color and to ensure that "all young people ... can reach their full potential, regardless of who are they are, where they come from, or the circumstances into which they are born." Additionally, states and cities across the country have enacted policies to alleviate the barriers associated with having a criminal history. While these are positive steps, further action is needed at all levels of government. This report offers a road map for the administration and federal agencies, Congress, states and localities, employers, and colleges and universities to ensure that a criminal record no longer presents an intractable barrier to economic security and mobility. Bipartisan momentum for criminal justice reform is growing, due in part to the enormous costs of mass incarceration, as well as an increased focus on evidence-based approaches to public safety. Policymakers and opinion leaders of all political stripes are calling for sentencing and prison reform, as well as policies that give people a second chance. Now is the time to find common ground and enact meaningful solutions to ensure that a criminal record does not consign an individual to a life of poverty. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2014. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 4, 2015 at: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/VallasCriminalRecordsReport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/VallasCriminalRecordsReport.pdf Shelf Number: 134537 Keywords: Criminal RecordsEmploymentEx-Offender EmploymentEx-Offenders (U.S.)Prisoner Reentry |
Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: Relief in Sight? States Rethink the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction, 2009-2014 Summary: As this report makes clear, the legal and life-restricting consequences of having a criminal conviction are many, varied, and often bewildering. They can impact the most fundamental necessities of life - like a job, a place to live, and education - and affect not just the individuals with convictions but also their families. In some jurisdictions, they are onerous and numerous; you have to wonder what their creators thought they would accomplish in terms of enhancing public safety. The breadth and reach of collateral consequences are indeed wide when one considers the range of behaviors that are considered felonies in most states: from possession of drugs found to indicate an "intent to distribute" or stealing $500 worth of goods from a garage to more clearly serious offenses, such as stalking, armed robbery, and home invasion. Yet they are all treated the same in terms of consequences long after sentence completion. No one would argue against banning those convicted of identity theft or fraud from working in a bank, but there are many other kinds of employment opportunities for which they may be suited and should be permitted to pursue. This report documents the efforts in many states to revaluate some of these consequences, while making clear that many of the recently enacted reforms are easily undermined, worked around, or ignored. Even more frequently, the fixes are relatively insignificant or apply to such small group that they don't begin to address the problem. Collateral consequences are, of course, just one piece of the problem. The existing system of proliferating criminal penalties and attendant collateral consequences not only remains in place, it continues to grow - for example, with hundreds of new federal offenses created over the last several years. Too often we criminalize behavior that decades ago would not have been. We add on specific category or penalty enhancements for everything from where a crime was committed to the status of the victim or intended victim. Intent is equated with commission. Too many of our criminal laws are written to respond to behavior that should be dealt with (and would more effectively be dealt with) outside the criminal justice system. And evidence on the impact of public safety is mixed or limited at best. Other laws are written in ways that do not distinguish between truly harmful acts and those that only approximate those acts as exemplified by the overly broad definition of "violent", ensnaring people who may only possess a weapon in commission of an offense, even when it was not used, or never intended to be used. And finally, too often we respond to many members of our communities who are primarily sick, poor, homeless, or unable to care for themselves or their families with the hammer of the criminal justice system. And then we continue to hammer them long after they have satisfied our need for retribution. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/states-rethink-collateral-consequences-report-v3.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/states-rethink-collateral-consequences-report-v3.pdf Shelf Number: 134587 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal RecordsEx-Offenders EmploymentEx-Offenders Rights |
Author: Center for Community Alternatives Title: Boxed Out: Criminal History Screening and College Application Attrition Summary: This study helps to explain how the use of the criminal history box on college applications and the supplemental requirements and procedures that follow create barriers to higher education for otherwise qualified applicants. In this study, which focuses on the State University of New York (SUNY), we found that almost two out of every three applicants who disclosed a felony conviction were denied access to higher education, not because of a purposeful denial of their application but because they were driven out of the application process. We term this phenomenon "felony application attrition" which describes the reduction from the number of applicants who start an application and check the felony box "yes" to the number of applicants who, according to the admissions office, have satisfied all of the supplemental requirements and completed their applications. In this study, we explore how the stigmatizing and daunting impact of the supplemental procedures imposed on applicants who disclose a felony conviction contribute to this attrition. This case study of SUNY has national implications. The supplemental procedures and requirements imposed by SUNY campuses are not unique. From our 2010 study we know that 55 percent of the public colleges that responded to our survey engage in criminal history screening, and a majority of those use supplemental procedures and requirements. Federal, state and local public policy-makers are promoting reentry and reintegration efforts as a means of addressing our nation's four-decade long flawed criminal justice policies that have produced overcriminalization and mass incarceration. Such efforts, if successful, will improve society in many respects, including reducing poverty and decreasing the racial divide. At the same time, many colleges and universities are both consciously and unconsciously engaged in a practice that subverts those public policy efforts and undermines development of good citizenship, public safety, democracy, the human right to education, and expands the economic and racial divide. It is both unrealistic and disingenuous to expect people who have served their sentence after a criminal conviction to live law-abiding and productive lives if they are continuously denied employment and educational opportunities. Details: New York: Center for Community Alternatives, 2015. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2015 at: http://communityalternatives.org/pdf/publications/BoxedOut_FullReport.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://communityalternatives.org/pdf/publications/BoxedOut_FullReport.pdf Shelf Number: 134750 Keywords: College and UniversitiesCriminal RecordsEducationEx-Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: National Employment Law Project Title: Ban the Box: U.S. Cities, Counties, and States Adopt Fair-Change Policies to Advance Employment Opportunities for People with Past Convictions Summary: Nationwide, 100 cities and counties have adopted what is widely known as "ban the box" so that employers consider a job candidate's qualifications first, without the stigma of a criminal record. These initiatives provide applicants a fair chance by removing the conviction history question on the job application and delaying the background check inquiry until later in the hiring. Momentum for the policy has grown exponentially, particularly in recent years. There are a total of fourteen states representing nearly every region of the country that have adopted the policies - California (2013, 2010), Colorado (2012), Connecticut (2010), Delaware (2014), Georgia (2015), Hawaii (1998), Illinois (2014, 2013), Maryland (2013), Massachusetts (2010), Minnesota (2013, 2009), Nebraska (2014), New Jersey (2014), New Mexico (2010), and Rhode Island (2013). Six states - Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island - have removed the conviction history question on job applications for private employers, which advocates embrace as the next step in the evolution of these policies. Federally, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) endorsed removing the conviction question from the job application as a best practice in its 2012 guidance making clear that federal civil rights laws regulate employment decisions based on arrests and convictions. The Obama Administration's My Brother's Keeper Task Force also gave the movement a boost when it endorsed hiring practices "which give applicants a fair chance and allows employers the opportunity to judge individual job candidates on their merits." Fair chance policies benefit everyone because they're good for families and the local community. At a recent event in Oakland for employers to discuss reentry issues, one business owner spoke to the personal benefit he finds from hiring people with records. "I've seen how a job makes all the difference," says Derreck B. Johnson, founder and president of Home of Chicken and Waffles in Oakland. "When I give someone a chance and he becomes my best employee, I know that I'm doing right by my community." This resource guide documents the 14 states, Washington D.C., and the 100 cities and counties -that have taken steps to remove barriers to employment for qualified workers with records. Six states, Washington D.C., and 25 cities and counties now extend the fair chance policy to government contractors or private employers. Of the localities, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Columbia (MO), Montgomery County (MD), Newark, Philadelphia, Prince George's County (MD), Rochester, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington D.C. extend their fair chance laws to private employers in the area. A chart summarizing all the policies is at the end of this guide. Details: New York: NELP, 2016. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2015 at: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/Ban-the-Box-Fair-Chance-State-and-Local-Guide.pdf?nocdn=1 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/Ban-the-Box-Fair-Chance-State-and-Local-Guide.pdf?nocdn=1 Shelf Number: 135147 Keywords: Background ChecksBan the BoxCriminal ConvictionsCriminal RecordsEx-Offender Employment (U.S.) |
Author: Rodriguez, Michelle Natividad Title: Unlicensed and Untapped: Removing Barriers to State Occuptional Licenses for People with Records Summary: Nearly one in three U.S. adults has a record in the criminal justice system. It's hardly uncommon, but the resulting stigma and its lifelong consequences prove devastating for many. Sonja Blake is one of the estimated 70 million people in the United States who have an arrest or conviction record. Ms. Blake, a grandmother, cared for children at her Wisconsin in-home daycare center.[ii] After nearly a decade in business, her daycare-owner certification was permanently revoked after a change in state law, because of a 30-year-old misdemeanor conviction for overpayment of public assistance. conviction for overpayment of public assistance. Ms. Blake is one of the more than one-quarter of U.S. workers who require a state license to practice their occupations.[iii] In addition to the more typically known regulated jobs, such as nurses and teachers, many occupations in sales, management, and construction also require a state license. Critics of licensing argue that regulating occupations does little to advance safety or quality of service and instead negatively impacts consumers and low-wage workers. Others counter that state licensing for certain jobs is necessary to maintain public safety and results in higher practitioner wages and greater respect for the profession. Despite this disagreement over the value of licensing, common ground can be found in the call to reduce unnecessary conviction barriers to occupational licenses. Passing a criminal background check is a common requirement to obtain a state license. In fact, the American Bar Association's inventory of penalties against those with a record has documented 27,254 state occupational licensing restrictions. Thousands of these restrictions vary widely among states and professions. And because the criminal justice system disproportionately impacts people of color, these extrajudicial penalties - known as "collateral consequences" - perpetuate racial disparities in employment. Although no national data exists as to the number of people denied licenses because of these collateral consequences, analogous data is available in the hiring context. For example, after submitting a job application, people with records on average are only half as likely to get a callback as those without a record. And for black men with records, the impact is more severe - only one in three receive a callback. Thus, having a conviction record, particularly for people of color, is a major barrier to participation in the labor market. Details: National Employment Law Project, 2016. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2016 at: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Unlicensed-Untapped-Removing-Barriers-State-Occupational-Licenses.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Unlicensed-Untapped-Removing-Barriers-State-Occupational-Licenses.pdf Shelf Number: 138836 Keywords: Background ChecksCollateral ConsequencesCriminal RecordsEmploymentEx-offender Employment |
Author: Agan, Amanda Title: Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Statistical Discrimination: A Field Experiment Summary: "Ban-the-Box" (BTB) policies restrict employers from asking about applicants' criminal histories on job applications and are often presented as a means of reducing unemployment among black men, who disproportionately have criminal records. However, withholding information about criminal records could risk encouraging statistical discrimination: employers may make assumptions about criminality based on the applicant's race. To investigate this possibility as well as the effects of race and criminal records on employer callback rates, we sent approximately 15,000 fictitious online job applications to employers in New Jersey and New York City, in waves before and after each jurisdiction's adoption of BTB policies. Our causal effect estimates are based on a triple-differences design, which exploits the fact that many businesses' applications did not ask about records even before BTB and were thus unaffected by the law. Our results confirm that criminal records are a major barrier to employment, but they also support the concern that BTB policies encourage statistical discrimination on the basis of race. Overall, white applicants received 23% more callbacks than similar black applicants (38% more in New Jersey; 6% more in New York City; we also find that the white advantage is much larger in whiter neighborhoods). Employers that ask about criminal records are 62% more likely to call back an applicant if he has no record (45% in New Jersey; 78% in New York City) - an effect that BTB compliance necessarily eliminates. However, we find that the race gap in callbacks grows dramatically at the BTB-affected companies after the policy goes into effect. Before BTB, white applicants to BTB-affected employers received about 7% more callbacks than similar black applicants, but BTB increases this gap to 45%. Details: Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, School of Law, 2016. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: U of Michigan Law & Econ Research Paper No. 16-012 : Accessed June 28, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795795 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795795 Shelf Number: 139526 Keywords: Ban the BoxCriminal ConvictionsCriminal RecordsEx-offender EmploymentJob DiscriminationRacial Discrimination |
Author: Bonner, A. Title: Fair-Chance Hiring in Action: A Study of San Francisco's Centralized Conviction History Review Program Summary: This report, published by Stanford University, focuses on the outcomes of the San Francisco Department of Human Resources' (DHR) fair-chance hiring policies (FCHP). The report evaluates how the DHR decides whether job seekers whose criminal backgrounds may conflict with the job they are applying for have been sufficiently rehabilitated and will achieve success. Multiple regression analysis is used to compare the job success of candidates with conviction histories against candidates without. The report also suggests data collection and management practices that may enhance DHR's process and assist other entities interested in implementing FCHPs. Details: Palo Alto, CA: Public Policy Program, Stanford University, 2016. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2016 at: https://stanford.app.box.com/s/oxkjojpr6opcw1ky5zrzy7o02e9nae85 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://stanford.app.box.com/s/oxkjojpr6opcw1ky5zrzy7o02e9nae85 Shelf Number: 148123 Keywords: Criminal RecordsEmploymentEx-Offender EmploymentJobs |
Author: Emsellem, Maurice Title: Racial Profiling in Hiring: A Critique of New Summary: Two recent studies claim that "ban the box" policies enacted around the country detrimentally affect the employment of young men of color who do not have a conviction record. One of the authors has boldly argued that the policy should be abandoned outright because it "does more harm than good." It's the wrong conclusion. The nation cannot afford to turn back the clock on a decade of reform that has created significant job opportunities for people with records. These studies require exacting scrutiny to ensure that they are not irresponsibly seized upon at a critical time when the nation is being challenged to confront its painful legacy of structural discrimination and criminalization of people of color. Our review of the studies leads us to these top-line conclusions: (1) The core problem raised by the studies is not ban-the-box but entrenched racism in the hiring process, which manifests as racial profiling of African Americans as "criminals." (2) Ban-the-box is working, both by increasing employment opportunities for people with records and by changing employer attitudes toward hiring people with records. (3) When closely scrutinized, the new studies do not support the conclusion that ban-the-box policies are responsible for the depressed hiring of African Americans. (4) The studies highlight the need for a more robust policy response to both boost job opportunities for people with records and tackle race discrimination in the hiring process -not a repeal of ban-the-box laws. Details: New York: National Employment Law Project, 2016. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed September 16, 2016 at: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Policy-Brief-Racial-Profiling-in-Hiring-Critique-New-Ban-the-Box-Studies.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Policy-Brief-Racial-Profiling-in-Hiring-Critique-New-Ban-the-Box-Studies.pdf Shelf Number: 140317 Keywords: Ban the BoxCriminal RecordsDiscriminationEx-offender EmploymentRacial Profiling |
Author: Berracasa, Colenn Title: The Impact of Ban the Box in the District of Columbia Summary: Why ODCA Did This Audit The District's Fair Criminal Record Screening Amendment Act of 20141 (FCRSA) instructed the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor to provide the D.C. Council with a report on the impact of this act on employers. What We Found This report evaluates the implementation and impact of FCRSA, more commonly known as "ban the box." The law prevents employers located within the District from asking about a job applicant's criminal record until after a conditional offer of employment is made, and the law also limits the reasons for which those employers may retract an offer of employment made to a person with a criminal record. The law is designed to "remove unfair barriers to employment" and allow "returning citizens" - people who have served time in jail or prison and who are reintegrating into society - to get a "foot in the door." This report reflects fieldwork conducted from January through late April 2016. Our research aimed to assess the implementation of the law, to evaluate its effects on hiring outcomes for returning citizens (specifically on hiring within the District government), and to evaluate its impact on private-sector employers. To investigate these questions, we used several methods: analysis of District government administrative data, a private employer survey, and interviews with a subset of private employers. We were limited to reviewing District Department of Human Resources (DCHR) hiring data for District government hires due to lack of availability of the same private-sector data on hiring outcomes for returning citizens. In examining the law's implementation to date, we found that many businesses reported being unfamiliar with the law based on our surveys and interviews. Then, looking at enforcement of the law, we found many complaints against employers filed with the District's Office of Human Rights (OHR) (over 417 within the first nine months); however, 95 addresses account for most of the complaints. Of the 417 complaints, 71 have resulted in monetary settlements and 89 were closed. The complaints data show that some employers did not follow the requirements of the law and thus appear consistent with our survey and interview finding that many employers reported being unfamiliar with the law. These two findings inform our first and second recommendations about the District government's public outreach regarding the law. Additionally, the small number of individuals submitting complaints may indicate that many returning citizens are not aware of their rights under the law; thus, our fourth recommendation suggests the District government review its processes for informing returning citizens of their rights. When analyzing the effects of the law on hiring outcomes for returning citizens, we found that District agencies did increase the share of hires of returning citizens for positions requiring a background check. However, the lack of comparable private-sector data informed our fifth recommendation that the District government conduct further research on hiring outcomes for returning citizens. Finally, in analyzing the law's effect on private employers' hiring practices, we found that the law likely does not apply to many District businesses; in fact, just 25 percent of the businesses we surveyed reporting being subject to the law's effects. Additionally, a majority of employers reported minimal impact on their hiring processes. Finally, a minority of businesses reported some impact, indicating that the law increased the cost, length and/or complexity of their hiring processes. This concern over the burden of the law resulted in our third recommendation that the District government should consider providing technical assistance or tools for private employers to share best practices for complying with the law. Overall, many District businesses interviewed support the spirit of the law. What We Recommend: 1. The Mayor and Council should direct more resources to outreach and public education to ensure that all District businesses are aware of the requirements under FCRSA. 2. The Council should consider including a requirement that implementing agencies develop a public outreach and education plan -and funding to support it - in all future pieces of legislation that make substantial changes to employment law and worker rights. 3. The Mayor should consider instructing relevant District agencies to provide technical assistance or create tools for employers to share best practices to increase compliance and minimize costs and procedural burdens. 4. The District should conduct further research on the impact that FCRSA has had on returning citizens' experiences and job outcomes. Details: Washington, DC: Office of the District of Columbia Auditor, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 19, 2016 at: http://www.dcauditor.org/sites/default/files/FCRSA%20-%20Ban%20the%20Box%20Report_0.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.dcauditor.org/sites/default/files/FCRSA%20-%20Ban%20the%20Box%20Report_0.pdf Shelf Number: 148135 Keywords: Background ChecksBan the BoxCriminal RecordsEx-Offender Employment |
Author: Frase, Richard S. Title: Criminal History Enhancements Sourcebook Summary: An offender's criminal history (record of prior convictions) is a major sentencing factor in all American jurisdictions that have implemented sentencing guidelines - offenders in the highest criminal history category often have recommended prison sentences that are many times longer than the recommended sentences for offenders in the lowest category. Criminal history sentence enhancements thus substantially increase the size and expense of prison populations; and since offenders with higher criminal history scores tend to be older, the result is often to fill expensive prison beds with offenders who are past their peak offending years. Such enhancements also have a strong disparate impact on racial and ethnic minorities, and undercut the goal of making sentence severity proportional to offense severity. The Criminal History Project of the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice surveys the widely varying criminal history formulas found in guidelines systems, and encourages these systems to examine their use of criminal history to determine whether it is operating in a just and cost-effective manner. Details: Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2016. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2016 at: http://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/criminal-history-enhancements-sourcebook/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/criminal-history-enhancements-sourcebook/ Shelf Number: 140451 Keywords: Criminal HistoryCriminal RecordsSentencingSentencing Guidelines |
Author: Mungan, Murat C. Title: Stigma Dilution and Over-Criminalization Summary: Criminalizing an act that provides weak signals about a person's productivity and character can dilute the stigma attached to having a criminal record. This reduces the deterrence of serious crimes that do provide strong signals regarding the offender's character. Over-criminalization occurs when the costs associated with reduced deterrence due to stigma dilution off-set potential benefits associated with criminalizing the less harmful act. Identifying conditions under which stigma dilution is likely and comparatively costly allows the determination of factors that affect the desirability of (de)criminalizing various acts. These factors are discussed in the context of marijuana possession offenses to illustrate how over-criminalization may reduce social welfare. The normative desirability of various practices in criminal law are also discussed vis-a-vis their impacts on stigma dilution. Details: Tallahassee: Florida State University College of Law, 2015. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 717; FSU College of Law, Law, Business & Economics Paper No. 14-16 : Accessed October 8, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2534828 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2534828 Shelf Number: 145078 Keywords: Criminal RecordsDecriminalizationDrug PolicyExpungementsMarijuana |
Author: Mungan, Murat C. Title: Reducing Crime through Expungements Summary: Expungements reduce the visibility of a person's criminal record, and thereby reduce the informal sanctions that may be imposed on him. This reduction is enjoyed by the ex-convict only if he does not become a repeat offender, because otherwise he re-obtains a criminal record. Thus, the value a person attaches to having his record expunged is inversely related to his criminal tendency. Therefore, by making expungements costly, the criminal justice system can sort out low criminal tendency individuals -- who are unlikely to recidivate -- from people who have high criminal tendencies. Moreover, the availability of expungements does not substantially affect a first time offender's incentive to commit crime, because one incurs a cost close to the reduction in informal sanctions that he enjoys by sealing his criminal record. On the other hand, expungements increase specific deterrence, because a person who has no visible record suffers informal sanctions if he is convicted a second time. Thus, perhaps counter-intuitively, allowing ex-convicts to seal their records at substantial costs reduces crime. Details: Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University College of Law, 2016. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 786 ; FSU College of Law, Law, Business & Economics Paper No. 16-2 Accessed October 28, 2016 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2711024 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2711024 Shelf Number: 145015 Keywords: Costs of CrimeCriminal RecordsDeterrenceExpungements |
Author: Duane, Marina Title: Criminal Background Checks: Impact on Employment and Recidivism Summary: Criminal background checks continue to be a routine practice among many employers in the United States. According to a recent survey, almost 60 percent of employers screen job applicants for their criminal histories. Despite their prevalence, criminal background checks often generate flawed or incomplete reports, with some reports failing to include conviction information. Such flaws may undermine the value of the screenings to employers and prevent suitable candidates who pose no additional risk to the public from securing a job. This report examines criminal background checks as a significant collateral consequence for justice-involved people and explores the importance of employment to reducing recidivism. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2017. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2017 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88621/2017.03.01_criminal_background_checks_report_finalized.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88621/2017.03.01_criminal_background_checks_report_finalized.pdf Shelf Number: 141332 Keywords: Criminal Background ChecksCriminal RecordsEmploymentEx-Offender EmploymentRecidivism |
Author: Jackson, Osborne Title: The Effect of Changing Employers' Access to Criminal Histories on Ex-Offenders’ Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence from the 2010–2012 Massachusetts CORI Reform Summary: How to best reintegrate large numbers of ex-offenders into civil society is an important challenge for U.S. public policy. In 2006, the Department of Justice estimated that over 30 percent of the U.S. adult population has some type of criminal record; the percentages are even higher for some minority groups. Having a criminal record can impose lasting costs, particularly for anyone seeking job, as gaining legal employment is usually the best chance an ex-offender has to effect a positive change in his or her life. In an effort to reduce some of barriers to employment that may arise from having a criminal record, some states and localities have adopted a policy widely known as ban the box, which prohibits employers from asking about an individual's criminal history on an initial job application. In November 2010, Massachusetts implemented a version of ban the box as the first step in reforming its laws governing Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI). The second step, effective in May 2012, changed who can access the state's CORI database, enacted limits on the information that can be obtained, and imposed a time limit regarding how long misdemeanor and felony convictions will be reported on standard employer requests. On the whole, the Massachusetts CORI Reform is widely regarded as a national model to help improve ex-offenders' labor market outcomes. This study uses a unique and confidential large dataset and rigorous econometric techniques to test how well the intended reforms have worked in practice. The results may help guide and improve upon similar reform efforts in other states. Details: Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 2017. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper no. 16-31: Accessed March 21, 2017 at: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/research-department-working-paper/2016/the-effect-of-changing-employers-access-to-criminal-histories-on-ex-offenders-labor-market-outcomes.aspx Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/research-department-working-paper/2016/the-effect-of-changing-employers-access-to-criminal-histories-on-ex-offenders-labor-market-outcomes.aspx Shelf Number: 144532 Keywords: Criminal RecordsEx-Offender EmploymentEx-OffendersPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Mungan, Murat C. Title: Statistical (and Racial) Discrimination, 'Banning the Box', and Crime Rates Summary: This article presents law enforcement models where employers engage in statistical discrimination, and the visibility of criminal records can be adjusted through policies (such as ban the box campaigns). I show that statistical discrimination leads to an increase in crime rates under plausible conditions. This suggests that societies in which membership to disadvantaged groups is salient (e.g. through greater racial or religious heterogeneity) are, ceteris paribus, likely to have higher crime rates. Attempting to fix the negative impacts of statistical discrimination through policies that reduce the visibility of criminal records increases crime rates further. Moreover, such policies cause a greater negative effect for law abiding members of the disadvantaged group than members of the statistically favored group. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, 2017. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 17-13: Accessed May 10, 2017 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2940743 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2940743 Shelf Number: 145399 Keywords: Banning the BoxCriminal ConvictionsCriminal RecordsEx-offenders EmploymentRacial Discrimination |
Author: Stacy, Christina Title: Ban the Box and Racial Discrimination: A Review of the Evidence and Policy Recommendations Summary: Ban-the-box policies, for which employers remove questions about criminal history from applications and delay background checks until later in the hiring process, have gained popularity in recent years. These policies are intended to give people with criminal histories the opportunity to display their qualifications in the hiring process before being assessed-and potentially rejected-based on this history. Over 150 cities and counties and 34 states and Washington, DC, have adopted ban-the-box policies (Doleac and Hansen 2016; Rodriguez and Avery 2016). Many private employers have also voluntarily adopted ban-the box-hiring policies, including Walmart, Target, the Home Depot, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Koch Industries Inc. These policies are also being applied outside the workforce context. Some universities have adopted a ban-the-box approach to school applications, and the District of Columbia's City Council recently approved a law banning the box from housing applications. Even some hospitals have voluntarily adopted ban-the-box laws (Thill, Abare, and Fox 2014). Research on ban the box has shown that it increases callback rates for people with criminal records (Agan and Starr 2016). Agan and Starr (2016) find that ban-the-box policies "effectively eliminate" the effect of having a criminal record on receiving a callback. Case studies from specific cities support these results, showing that hiring rates for people with criminal records increased after ban the box was implemented (Atkinson and Lockwood 2014; Berracasa et al. 2016). Additionally, ban the box as a social movement has drawn attention to the plight of people with criminal records and has increased awareness of the challenges they face beyond employment. But recent research has concluded that ban the box also reduces the likelihood that employers call back or hire young black and Latino men (Agan and Starr 2016; Doleac and Hansen 2016). These findings suggest that when information about a person's criminal history is not present, employers may make hiring decisions based on their perception of the likelihood that the applicant has a criminal history. Racism, harmful stereotypes, and disparities in contact with the justice system may heavily skew perceptions against young men of color. These results do not necessarily mean that ban the box should be eliminated. Additional policies, regulations, and alterations can ensure that ban the box improves employment outcomes for people with criminal histories without causing negative effects on people of color. In this report, we review the evidence on job access for people with criminal records, racial discrimination in the job market and justice system, and the history of ban the box. We also propose policy additions and alterations that may help eliminate the unintended consequences of ban the box on young black and Latino men while maintaining or improving the benefits for people with criminal records. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2017. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2017 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88366/ban_the_box_and_racial_discrimination_1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88366/ban_the_box_and_racial_discrimination_1.pdf Shelf Number: 145636 Keywords: Ban the BoxCriminal ConvictionsCriminal RecordsEx-offender EmploymentJob DiscriminationRacial Discrimination |
Author: Blitza, Dimitra Title: Criminal Records and Immigration: Comparing the United States and the European Union Summary: As the revolution in information technology has made individual criminal history records more comprehensive, efficient and retrievable, an individual's criminal history has become increasingly significant, triggering a broad and severe range of collateral consequences. There is no better example of this phenomenon than immigration law and policy, where developments in data storage and retrieval converge with opposition to immigration, especially to immigrants who bear a criminal stigma. In debates in the United States over immigration reforms, even those politicians and legislators who advocate more liberal immigration policies generally concede the desirability of excluding those with serious criminal records from eligibility for new benefits or status. In the European Union, by contrast, although a criminal record may impact an individual's ability to travel to or reside in a European Union country, it is not as readily dispositive of immigration outcomes. As immigration policy evolves on both sides of the Atlantic, a key question for policymakers is about whether we screen for criminal records in order to protect the public safety or as a way to mark those with criminal records as somehow less deserving of immigration rights and benefits. This article details and compares the ways that the United States and the European Union use criminal records (including both conviction records and, in the U.S., some arrest records) for immigration purposes. The article also outlines guidance for policymakers in both jurisdictions. Details: New York: New York University School of Law, 2015. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 15-59: Accessed June 17, 2017 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2700688 Year: 2015 Country: International URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2700688 Shelf Number: 146228 Keywords: Criminal RecordsImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Appleton, Josie Title: Checking Up: How the Coalition's plans to cut back on criminal records checks have been defeated Summary: Since 2002, more than 40 million criminal records checks have been carried out at a cost of nearly two billion pounds, yet there has never been any significant research showing the effectiveness of mass vetting in child protection terms. In June 2010, the Coalition government promised to 'scale back' criminal records checks to 'common-sense proportions', predicting that its reforms would lead to a halving of checks from around four million to 1.7 million. This has not happened. In 2013-14, there were 3,948,793 criminal records checks at a cost of L211.6 million. Far from being scaled back, in certain ways the vetting system appears to have become more complicated, expansive and expensive. Vetting is encouraged by state agencies, such as local authorities and regulators, who demand checks even beyond current guidance. Furthermore, the interests of the regulators and the private bodies that rely on income from the checks mean that they will have little interest in reducing unnecessary vetting. This report argues that the current scale of investment in vetting is out of proportion to its positive effects. There is a need to go back to the drawing board and to ask if criminal records checks are the best manner in which to be spending L200 million a year. Details: London: Civitas, 2014. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 31, 2017 at: http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/CheckingUp.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/CheckingUp.pdf Shelf Number: 146620 Keywords: Background ChecksChild ProtectionCriminal Records |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Title: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 Summary: This report is based upon the results from a survey conducted of the administrators of the state criminal history record repositories in March-June 2015. SEARCH [National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics] surveyed 56 jurisdictions, including the 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Territory of Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico submitted survey responses. This report presents a snapshot as of December 31, 2014. Details: Washington, DC: BJS, 2015. 117p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 8, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf Shelf Number: 148082 Keywords: Criminal Records |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Justice Committee Title: Disclosure of youth criminal records Summary: Our predecessor Committee held an inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records, on which it had concluded taking evidence but had not reported by the time Parliament was dissolved before the June 2017 general election. One of our first decisions in this Parliament was that we should produce a report on this important issue, based on the evidence received by our predecessor Committee. Our report considers whether the current statutory framework for disclosing records of offences committed by people when under 18 years old is appropriate and effective, and whether it strikes the right balance between protecting employers and the public, and rehabilitating people who commit offences as children. We also consider the impact of the current regime on people who offend as young adults. Witnesses highlighted the adverse effect of childhood criminal records on individuals' access to employment, education, housing, insurance and visas for travel, and its discriminatory impact on particular groups including Black and Minority Ethnic children and those within the care system. We made direct approaches to organisations representing employers or others making use of criminal records checks for their views on the subject, but received little response from them. Overall, the inquiry evidence strongly supported the case for changing the criminal records disclosure system. For young adults, the majority of those who expressed a view thought that reform was also needed. We conclude that the current system undermines the laudable principles of the youth justice system and may well fall well short of the UK's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We regret the Government's decision to pursue an appeal against the recent Court of Appeal decision on the compatibility of the filtering regime with human rights standards, rather than tackling the urgent need for reform. We also conclude that the coherence of Government policy on this area would be enhanced by consolidating responsibility into a single Department. In addition our report makes a number of recommendations for changing the statutory framework, which can be summarised as follows: - enactment of Lord Ramsbotham's Criminal Records Bill to reduce rehabilitation periods under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) - an urgent review of the filtering regime, to consider removing the rule preventing the filtering of multiple convictions; introducing lists of nonfilterable offences customised for particular areas of employment, together with a threshold test for disclosure that is based on disposal/sentence; and reducing qualifying periods for the filtering of childhood convictions and cautions - considering the feasibility of extending this new approach, possibly with modifications, to the disclosure of offences committed by young adults up to the age of 25 - allowing chief police officers additional discretion to withhold disclosure of non-filterable offences, taking into account the age and circumstances of the offence and the individual's age at the time with a rebuttable presumption against disclosure of offences committed during childhood - giving individuals the right to apply for a review by the Independent Monitor of police decisions to disclose convictions or cautions. The 'Ban the Box' campaign aims to delay the point at which job applicants have to disclose criminal convictions by ticking a box on application forms, allowing them to be judged primarily on merit. We recommend extending this approach to all public sector vacancies, with a view to making it a mandatory requirement for all employers. We further recommend urgent amendment to Government guidance on English housing authorities' allocation schemes to reflect the 2016 court decision that found a local authority to have breached the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by taking into account an applicant's spent offences. In relation to insurance, we recommend that the Financial Conduct Authority consider undertaking a thematic review of providers wrongly declining cover or quoting higher premiums when customers disclose a criminal record. Details: London: House of Commons, 2017. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: First Report of Session 2017-19: Accessed November 18, 2017 at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/416/416.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/416/416.pdf Shelf Number: 148254 Keywords: Ban the BoxCriminal RecordsEx-offender EmploymentJuvenile RecordsYouthful Offenders |
Author: Weaver, Beth Title: Time for Policy Redemption? A Review of the Evidence on Disclosure of Criminal Records Summary: There is wide variation in disclosure practices within and between the U.S, the U.K and Europe, although there is some consensus that reasons for checking criminal records by employers include: minimising risk of liability and loss; concerns surrounding public protection where the nature of employment includes working with vulnerable groups; assessments of moral character in terms of honesty and trustworthiness; and compliance with statutory occupational requirements (Blumstein and Nakamura, 2009). As the use of criminal record background checks by employers has become increasingly pervasive, having a criminal record can have significant effects on employment prospects producing 'invisible punishment' or 'collateral consequences' of contact with the justice system (Travis 2002). Taking into account that over 38% of men and 9% of women in Scotland are estimated to have at least one criminal conviction (McGuinness, McNeill and Armstrong, 2013), issues surrounding criminal record checking and disclosure in an employment context affect a large proportion of people. In recent years, reforms to both the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and to practices of disclosure have been and are being implemented, with the aim of reducing unnecessary barriers to employment for people with convictions while promoting the protection of vulnerable groups. Additionally, a social movement to 'Ban the Box' aims to eliminate criminal history questions from standard employment applications by deferring the stage at which an employer can inquire into criminal history (Smith, 2014), based on the belief that employers use that information to immediately eliminate those with convictions from consideration. 'Ban the Box' aims to support those with convictions to be considered on the basis of their skills and experience before disclosing criminal histories (Vuolo, Lageson and Uggen, 2017). In the USA around 30 states and over 150 cities and counties have taken steps to remove barriers to employment for qualified workers with records.3 In the UK, 87 employers have signed up to 'Ban the Box'.4 How this is implemented in the USA is variable but most call for the removal of any criminal record question on applications for public and private employers. Many also include fairer hiring practice provisions informed by the guidance document issued by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2012. This document was designed to clarify standards and provide 'best practice' on how employers may check criminal backgrounds without violating prohibitions against employment discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (EEOC 2012). This proposes that employers assess criminal records on an individualised basis, considering factors such as the nature of the crime, the time elapsed since it was committed, and the nature of the job (Lageson, Vuolo, Uggen, 2015). There is some evidence that the move to more formal, regulated checks has led employers to more people with criminal records for employment than they might have previously (Hartstein, Fliegel, Mora and Zuba, 2015; Lageson, et al., 2015). These guidelines are, in part at least, informed by 'Time to Redemption' studies which empirically investigate the period of time when people with convictions can statistically be considered as exhibiting the same risk of reconviction as people with no convictions. In what follows, the findings of these 'Time to Redemption' studies are discussed, following a brief review of the evidence into the relationship between employment and desistance. This paper then explores research into employers' attitudes, beliefs and behaviours with regard to the employment of people with convictions, prior to exploring practices of disclosure and vetting in the UK, Europe and the USA. Existing practices of disclosure tend to retain the requirement that certain spent convictions will always be disclosed in certain circumstances, for the purposes of public protection. By contrast, time to redemption research measures the extent to which people with convictions become statistically close to people without convictions in terms of risk, taking into account age at offence, periods of desistance and crime type, suggesting that in general that period is between 7 and 10 years. This paper suggests that the findings of Time to Redemption studies allows for information pertaining to criminal histories to be used in a more nuanced way, concluding by bringing together these different areas of inquiry to consider implications for approaches to reform. In so doing, this paper ends by reviewing four, not necessarily mutually exclusive, approaches to reform, that might bring Scotland and the UK into closer alignment with European practices and the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular, Article 8 which provides a right to respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence. These approaches, based on a review of and informed by the evidence include: (1) reviewing spent periods and the issue of enduringly unspent convictions; (2) certificates of rehabilitation; (3) court imposed Occupational Disqualification; and the (4) guidance and revisions to anti-discrimination legislation. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, 2018. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Weaver_Time-For-Policy-Redemption1.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Weaver_Time-For-Policy-Redemption1.pdf Shelf Number: 149836 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal History Criminal Records Ex-Offender Employment |
Author: McIntyre, T.J. Title: Criminals, Data Protection and the Right to a Second Chance Summary: In 2016 Ireland belatedly introduced legislation to allow for the expungement of adult criminal records and, in doing so, highlighted a changing technological and legal context which challenges the assumptions underlying rehabilitation laws. The potential impact of convictions on individuals' life chances has increased as mandatory vetting has become more widespread. Even where vetting is not required, internet search engines render criminal histories easily accessible to curious third parties. In the other direction, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have developed privacy and data protection principles which require states to limit the availability of information about old convictions. In this article we outline the limitations of the Irish legislation and use it as a case study to consider these wider issues, examining how it illustrates the growing importance of European privacy and data protection norms in national criminal justice and rehabilitation systems. Details: (2017) 58 Irish Jurist (ns) 27. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3150591 Year: 2017 Country: Ireland URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3150591 Shelf Number: 150108 Keywords: Criminal RecordsData ProtectionExpungementOffender Rehabilitation |
Author: Stacey, Christopher Title: A life sentence for young people: A report into the impact of criminal records acquired in childhood and early adulthood Summary: This report is part of the charity's Unlocking Experience project, 1 which aims to investigate, highlight and seek solutions to structural barriers that young adults in England and Wales face as a result of criminal records. The report combines a number of activities that we've carried out as part of our work on this project, including: 1. Freedom of Information requests to the DBS and Disclosure Scotland to better understand the number of people affected by the official disclosure of criminal records through criminal record checks. 2. A survey of people who acquired a criminal record in early adulthood. 2 3. Work with the Justice Committee into their short inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records. 3 To ensure consistency, a number of terms are used throughout this report: 1. Childhood - People under the age of 18 2. Early adulthood - People aged 18-25 3. Youth or young people- People aged 10-25 (a collective term to refer to people in childhood and early adulthood) 4. Criminal record - Criminal convictions and cautions The original focus was to be on a criminal record acquired in early adulthood. However, in the course of undertaking the survey, it became clear that seeking to separate experiences according to whether the offense occurred before or after the age of 18 was a false dichotomy, particularly for those who were convicted both as a child and as a young adult. As a result, we expanded our focus to include criminal records acquired in childhood and early adulthood. This approach complements other developments around criminal records, such as the Justice Committee's inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records (which looked at both children and young adults). It also builds on the review of the youth justice system carried out by Charlie Taylor, within which the impact of criminal records featured prominently. Finally, with an eye to the Supreme Court case later this year, which involves a number of challenges to the DBS's filtering system, 4 it is hoped that this report serves as a useful addition in demonstrating the need for change. The overwhelming message from the survey was that people are held back because of old criminal records (particularly on standard and enhanced checks). Given that the survey was unable to provide a sense of the scale of the problem, we carried out some additional research, primarily by making Freedom of Information Act requests to the DBS and Disclosure Scotland. The data collection exercise provided valuable insight into the number of people affected, and highlighted the wealth of data that is available (and is not published by DBS). There is scope for further and more detailed research into the numbers and types of people affected by the disclosure of childhood and young adult criminal records. Details: Maidstone, Kent, UK: Unlock, 2018. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2018 at: http://www.unlock.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/youth-criminal-records-report-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.unlock.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/youth-criminal-records-report-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 150192 Keywords: Criminal RecordsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile RecordsYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Ekos Research Associates Title: Public Consultation on the Records Suspension Program: Final Report Summary: Under the Public Safety (PS) portfolio, the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) is an independent administrative tribunal that has exclusive authority under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) to grant, deny, cancel, terminate, or revoke day parole and full parole, statutory release, and offenders supervised on Long Term Supervision Orders. The Board also has sole authority under the Criminal Records Act (CRA) for ordering, refusing to order, and revoking a record suspension (formerly called a "pardon"). A record suspension allows people with a criminal record to have it set aside and apart from other non-suspended records in the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database. This means that a search of CPIC will not show a criminal conviction for the individual (or that they received a record suspension). Although the CRA applies only to records kept by federal organizations, most provincial and municipal criminal justice agencies also restrict access to their records once they are told that a record suspension has been ordered for an individual. Upon consent of the Minister of Public Safety, or delegate, suspended records can be disclosed in specific instances, such as for court purposes when an offender re-enters the criminal justice system as well as for vulnerable sector checks. A record suspension removes the social stigma associated with having a criminal record, and allows individuals to access educational and employment opportunities, and in-sodoing facilitates their reintegration into society as productive citizens. Since 1970, more than 490,000 Canadians have received pardons and record suspensions - 95 percent of which are still in force, indicating that the vast majority of pardon/record suspension recipients remain crime-free in the community. Between November 7 and December 16, 2016, PS conducted an online public consultation regarding a review of legislative reforms made during the last 10 years concerning the Record Suspension Program, as outlined in the CRA. The review of the CRA is aimed at ensuring that record suspensions are: - Consistent with the Government of Canada's goals to increase public safety; - Provide value for money; - Are evidence-based; and, - Are aligned with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian values. Details: Ottawa: Ekos Research Associates, 2017. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 21, 2018 at: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rcrds-sspnsn-prgrm/rcrds-sspnsn-prgrm-en.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rcrds-sspnsn-prgrm/rcrds-sspnsn-prgrm-en.pdf Shelf Number: 151171 Keywords: Criminal RecordsPardon Parole Parole Revocation |
Author: Shoag, Daniel Title: "Ban the Box" Measures Help High Crime Neighborhoods Summary: Many localities have in recent years regulated the use of questions about criminal history in hiring, or "banned the box." We show that these regulations increased employment of residents in high-crime neighborhoods by up to 4%, consistent with the central objective of these measures. This effect can be seen in both aggregate employment patterns for high-crime neighborhoods and in commuting patterns to workplace destinations with this type of ban. The increases are particularly large in the public sector and in lower-wage jobs. This is the first nationwide evidence that these policies do, indeed, increase employment opportunities in neighborhoods with many ex-offenders. Details: Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 2019. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2019 at: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Ban-the-Box-March-2019-update.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Ban-the-Box-March-2019-update.pdf Shelf Number: 154947 Keywords: Ban the Box Criminal Convictions Criminal RecordsEx-offender Employment High-Crime Neighborhoods Jobs Neighborhoods and Crime |