MAJR has brought together several focus groups to recommend action on critical policies for justice reform. The purpose of these groups is to focus the discussion on selected topics which will lead to effective legislation in the coming sessions.
1. Alternative Dispute Resolution
MAJR believes that community mediation, community conferencing, and mediation programs connected with the State’s Attorneys Offices are promising evidence-based practices for criminal diversion. These programs save resources for the state and local agencies and provide more holistic solutions to the community and individuals involved in conflicts.
MAJR’s Alternative Dispute Resolution focus group recommends that the Maryland Justice Reinvestment Coordinating Council propose criminal justice diversion policies that:
- Study and document ADR practices in use in several established programs in order to facilitate replication statewide. This includes analysis of screening and referral protocols, which are critical to program success, and identification of best practices the state should support.
- Increase the state’s investment in ADR, both through expansion of existing programs and through establishment of new programs.
2. Reentry in Maryland’s Criminal Justice System
Maryland Alliance for Justice Reform (MAJR)’s 2015 initiatives offer the General Assembly a toolkit to begin repair of our state’s corrections system. Central to those recommendations were several initiatives to reduce low-risk prison populations and repurpose the same funds for screening, reentry, offender employment, and other services to lower recidivism and to increase public safety.
An expert panel was assembled to consider further those initiatives and to make explicit recommendations to pursue in the near future. Those recommendations focused on the following eight areas:
Recommendation: Reentry via local reentry centers should be offered, based on evidence-based risk/needs screening, to all Maryland inmates 6 months or more prior to release from incarceration.
Status quo: Limited “reentry referral services” are only marginally effective. Currently, most Maryland DOC centers and most local detention center reentry programs offer only limited referral services:
They assist inmates to obtain Division of Corrections (DOC) identification cards, consistent with MD Code, Correctional Services, § 9-609.1, and provide referral pamphlets. These DOC identification cards, however, are not uniformly accepted by all branches of the Social Security Administration, the Md. Motor Vehicle Administration and other government offices.
- This limited referral service often is not tailored to individual needs. For example, it may not include information as to an offender’s community on the opposite side of the state.
- The limited referral service often is untimely, for example, information may not be distributed until 30-60 days before an inmate’s release. With inmates’ limited ability to communicate while incarcerated, this is too little, too late.
- Direct access to local housing, employment, mental health, and other needed services too often remains unavailable until the day of release.
B) FULL REENTRY. Status quo: Full reentry services including work release can be very effective: Montgomery County’s Pre-Release Center (MPRC) offers a “full-service reentry” model, including work-release, transitional housing, contacts with local service providers, and more.
Recommendation: MPRC’s model reentry program—nationally recognized for its excellence—can and should be imitated in other counties. Md. Code, Correctional Services Art., sec. 9-402, may be amended to provide full reimbursement for counties that transform work-release units into reentry centers; sec. 11-316 may be amended to permit up to 12 months reentry participation. If availability of county trained staff is insufficient, full service local reentry alternately might be managed and staffed contractually with assistance from nonprofit organizations such as Volunteers of America or the Episcopal-Jericho programs.
Status quo: In recent years, a number of “statewide reentry” symposiums have been sponsored by a State Senator, by the Md. Correctional Administrator’s Association, and by other nongovernmental organizations. The Division of Corrections has sponsored multiple reentry pilot programs. However, none has succeeded in coordinating or implementing needed screening, best practices or plans for full reentry services for all Maryland inmates.
Recommendation: Maryland’s Department of Public Safety and Corrections should designate an administrator to coordinate state and local reentry programs, to facilitate standardized screening, to teach best practices, and to implement universal reentry services for all state and local inmates with a sentence of 6 months or more.
Status quo: Major gaps in funding for inmates’ substance abuse, mental health and other medical needs occur at the time an inmate is released from incarceration to community supervision. Under current Medicare, Medical Assistance, Social Security and related rules, an inmate does not qualify to begin the lengthy process of applying for such assistance during incarceration.
Recommendation: Inmates transitions’ through house arrest are not considered “incarceration” for purposes of applying for medical assistance. Use of transitional house arrest may assist in avoiding gaps and easing transitions to stepped-down levels of supervision.
Status quo: Some local reentry programs have attempted to use correctional officers as staff with minimal training. Difficulties sometimes have arisen with some correctional officers whose personalities are unsuitable to assist transitioning inmates with “motivational interviewing” and greater respect.
Recommendation: A reentry center should employ staff with appropriate social work and mental health education, perhaps from an independent agency such as the Health Dept. If current correctional officers are reassigned, they should be carefully screened & educated for these new responsibilities.
Status quo: Successful existing full-service reentry programs do not provide “one-size-fits-all” services. Screening should recognize that inmates’ risk levels exiting incarceration may differ from the same inmates’ scores on entering incarceration. Also, a higher level of scrutiny is needed for sex offenders and violent offenders, who may not be appropriate for standard reentry programs.
Recommendation: Each full service reentry program needs the capacity for at least three tracks-
- Assistance for those who are not employment-ready (e.g., developmentally-disabled inmates in need of supported or transitional employment; also, inmates unable to earn a GED, with no work history) as well as those who are unemployable (e.g., disabled or retirement age);
- Assistance for inmates who are semi-prepared for employment (reentry practitioners report this is the largest group— inmates’ needs include training for modern IT, id. cards, financial assistance, transportation assistance, housing assistance); and
- Less assistance for inmates who are employment ready and have good work experience.
Status quo: Under the prior Governor’s administration, Maryland counties seeking to establish reentry pilot programs contacted the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) and asked for cooperation to identify and transfer inmates from DPSCS custody to local detention centers. DPSCS agreed in concept, but failed to produce and transfer any inmates, despite the passage of many months.
Recommendation: The current Governor’s administration had designated a DPSCS administrator for reentry coordination. This administrator and DPSCS secretary should develop a system to identify inmates by their county of residence, to screen them for reentry needs, and to refer the most qualified inmates for local reentry programs, as available. If local reentry programs are not currently available, the DPSCS Secretary and the reentry administrator should implement a program where inmates are placed in state pre-release / reentry programs located in or as near as possible to their county of residence during their last 12 months prior to release.
Status quo: Several Maryland counties have “Drug Court” dockets, a few have “Mental Health Court” dockets, and fewer still have “Reentry Court” dockets. There also is one “Veterans Court” in Prince Georges County. The Maryland Judiciary has established an “Office of Problem-Solving Courts (OPSC)” to advise and assist courts with these specialized dockets.
Recommendation: While the populations of a drug court, a mental health court, a veterans court, and a reentry court may differ demographically, the resources, staff and management for each type of docket is quite similar, as recognized by Maryland Courts’ consolidation of its OPSC program. Maryland courts could achieve more efficient use of their resources by using existing drug courts as templates and by implementing additional docket time for the same or supplemental staff to assist, as needed, for reentry court dockets.
However, it also should be recognized that successful reentry programs can be operated without implementation of a specialized “Reentry Court” docket, as has been demonstrated by Montgomery County’s successful reentry program. In Montgomery County, the original sentencing judge may act as needed for an ex-offender’s reentry. Indeed, some “problem-solving court” training would benefit every judge assigned supervision of a sizable probation or reentry docket because the “problems” to be solved—addiction, mental disorders, etc.—actually are very common to a majority of criminal defendants.
3. Employment For Those In Maryland’s Criminal Justice System
Both federal and state studies clearly show that ex-offenders who are employed are much less likely to commit new offenses than those who are unemployed. Unemployed offenders are twice as likely to return to prison than those who have a job.
Maryland also has recognized that an ex-offender’s ability to support himself “as soon as possible after release is important to reentry success …” But, despite this, Maryland now offers only 1 in 10 inmates the opportunity to participate in job-training programs while in state prisons.
An expert panel was assembled to consider further employment initiatives and to make explicit recommendations to pursue in the near future. Those recommendations focused on the following five areas:
Status quo: Marylanders who have any criminal convictions, even without incarceration, often have difficulty finding employment. Inmates, upon release, have even greater difficulties finding employment.
Recommendation: Because employment is a “protective factor,” reducing the likelihood of repeat offenses by approximately 50%, Maryland should offer reentry assistance for inmates to find transitional employment upon their release. And, Maryland should seek ways to encourage employers and employment programs to hire those with criminal records.
Status quo: Currently, reentry programs must solicit and educated individual employers, seeking ones who may agree to hire those with a criminal record.
Recommendation: Maryland state government should establish programs to officially and comprehensively inform all employers of possible tax credits, “enterprise zone benefits,” federal bonding, and other programs. For convenience, MD employer packets should be made available for use by county reentry centers, as well as private reentry and employment assistance programs.
Status quo: Currently, Maryland programs for reentry and ex-offenders’ employment lack an ongoing statewide network to strategize on best methods to obtain employment opportunities for their participants.
Recommendation: Maryland state government should sponsor periodic conferences and other ongoing resources to assist state and local reentry programs to coordinate and share employment development resources.
Preliminary discussions suggest that best options may include: employer education as to benefits of hiring qualified ex-offenders, social enterprise employers with specific goals to assist ex-offenders, and support for family / friends businesses that may offer jobs. Good models of social enterprise employers in Maryland include the Humanim group, the “2 A.M. Bakery,” “Keepin’ It Clean” catering, the Light House BEST catering program, and others.
Mentoring ex-offenders to become self-employed entrepreneurs is reportedly a long-term solution for particular individuals; however, start-up times may be too lengthy and actual earned income too delayed for most reentry programs of 6 months or less.
For the most difficult to employ, in-house options such as employment within the institution or within the reentry facility may be offered. Local government sponsored employment such as Baltimore’s Youthworks also should be considered. https://youthworks.oedworks.com/
Status quo: Transportation to employment often presents difficulties for ex-offenders in reentry programs and can prevent them from maintaining employment.
Recommendation: Maryland and local reentry programs should consider including some form(s) of transitional transportation assistance to increase ex-offenders’ chances for employment success. Bus passes, vouchers or, in rural jurisdictions, shuttles may be worthwhile investments.
Status quo: Inmates who are high risk, violent offenders or sex offenders may present special difficulties unless particular assistance is offered. Failure to offer such assistance may increase risks of recidivism, new offenses, and increase taxpayer costs for renewed incarceration.
Recommendation: GPS monitoring can be provided at $4-$7 per day for a sex offender or for a reentering individual for whom there are concerns about cooperation. More intensive supervision, counseling, and prompt proportional responses to misconduct are needed for these inmates.
4. Collateral Consequences
Students in the University of Maryland’s School of Law issued this Report on the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions in MD (2007) examining the consequences of incarceration for the state’s returning citizens.
A major conclusion was “at the time of sentencing, criminal defendants and their counsel are often unaware that collateral consequences will attach to the conviction. Recognizing the direct relationship between collateral consequences and the ability of those with criminal convictions to productively re-enter society, the ABA standards recommend that each jurisdiction collect its respective collateral consequences and codify those consequences in a centralized location, implement mechanisms to inform defendants of these consequences as part of the guilty plea process, require sentencing courts to consider these consequences as part of the sentencing process, and narrow the range of these consequences.”
An expert panel was assembled to consider further collateral consequences of imprisonment and to make explicit recommendations to pursue in the near future. Those recommendations focused on the following four areas:
Status quo: Marylanders brought to criminal court currently are provided only very limited advice as to “collateral consequences.” Legally, a defendant must be advised of the possible maximum sentence a judge may impose, possible immigration consequences, and possible violations if already on probation. E.g., Miller v. State, 435 Md. 174 (2014). However, defense attorneys have no duty to provide information about other collateral consequences, unless such information is readily “available.” Id., citing Padilla v. Ky., 559 U.S. 356, at 370 (2010).
Recommendation: The national Uniform Law Commission (ULC) offers model legislation to make collateral consequences information available, then to require and assist defense attorneys more fully to advise clients of collateral consequences before each trial or guilty plea. Another national organization, the Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC), at no cost, will offer the State of Maryland ample assistance in compiling the comprehensive inventory and website called for by the ULC as to all Maryland collateral consequences imposed by statutes and regulations via experienced legal staff and technology available under a federal grant. Maryland’s Attorney General, at comparatively minor expense, could work with the CCRC to promptly make this list of collateral consequences available.
Status quo: Currently, Marylanders convicted of even minor crimes may lose their jobs, their eligibility for educational benefits, their eligibility for public housing, and more. Particularly, loss of employment may prevent a defendant from paying restitution, child support, taxes, rent, and other obligations.
Recommendation: Additional ULC model legislation would permit a defendant, at the time of a sentencing or parole hearing, to request an exception to one or more particular collateral consequences, for example, to continue holding a license needed for employment. The judge or parole commissioner also could consider information presented by the victim and prosecutor to decide whether the exception would conflict with public safety or other community concerns. Absent a bar mandated by statute, a conviction should be considered a basis for disqualification only if the underlying circumstances or the elements of the offense are substantially related to the benefit or opportunity involved. (This legislation would extend the state policy already approved in MD Code, Criminal Procedure, § 1-209, to other areas in addition to licensing and would permit some hearings to be held before courts and Parole Commission, rather than administrative agencies.)
Status quo: Currently, our Courts’ website, Maryland Judiciary Case Search, lists all criminal charges ever filed against Maryland residents since 1991 whether or not resolved by acquittal, PBJ, nol pros, or other dismissal. Except for minor traffic charges, there is no statute, rule or regulation for expiration and removal of old charges, ever, unless a Marylander files individually for expungement. By comparison, evidence even of a prior conviction may not be offered to attack a person’s credibility in any Maryland court trial if it is more than 15 years old. Maryland Rule 5-609.
Recommendation: Case Search programming, with existing Judicial Information Systems (JIS) personnel, should be altered to automatically shield—i.e., remove from public view—charges resolved by acquittal, PBJ, nol pros, or other dismissal. (Similar programming has been used for many years for minor traffic charges over 3 years old.) While such records would remain available for law enforcement and personnel background investigations, this change would prevent damage to Marylanders’ reputations and job opportunities by uninformed and casual users.
Status quo: Currently, records of state convictions never may be expunged or shielded unless they are on a limited list of misdemeanors or unless a Governor grants a pardon. This remains true, even if a Marylander has been crime-free for many, many years.
Recommendation: Maryland should permit shielding for all convictions, except for serious violent crimes and registered sex offenders, for defendants who successfully complete their sentences, remain crime-free, and become respected citizens after sufficient time—perhaps 7 years[1]. Full expungement should be possible under these circumstances after a greater time, subject to a court’s discretion, perhaps15 years[2].
[1] By comparison, until modern times, Maryland courts followed the common law presumption that an individual had died if he did not return to his accustomed home after 7 years. E.g., Haynes v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 262 Md. 255, 277 A.2d 251 (1971). By statute, proof now may be offered in less than seven years.
[2] As discussed in item 3 above, Maryland Rule 5-609 excludes any trial evidence of most convictions after 15 years passage.
