Collateral Consequences Stakeholder Input
October 14, 2016
Frederick Douglass-Isaac Myers Maritime Park Museum, Baltimore
Members present:
- Judge Alex Williams, Chair, Center for Education, Justice & Ethics
- Shaina Hernandez, Greater Baltimore Committee
- Christi Megna, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
- Don Hogan, Governor’s Office of Crime Control & Prevention
- Caryn York, Job Opportunities Task Force
- Yariela Kerr-Donovan, Johns Hopkins HR Department
- Mike Brenton, Giant Foods
- John Huffington, Living Classrooms
- Jeff Tosi, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
- Christi Megna, Department of Health and Mental Hygien
- Rachel Sessa, Public Safety and Correctional Services
- Victoria Wilkins, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
- Shirley Devaris
Members not present:
- Marsha Netus, AmericaWorks
- Christine Ross, Maryland Chamber of Commerce
- Mike O’Halloran, National Federation for Independent Business – Maryland
Following welcome and introduction of members of the Workgroup and approval of the minutes of 9.26.16, Judge Williams called for speakers for testimony from the public.
Brian Lewis, Uniform Law Commission (ULC), Chicago, reviewed the Uniform Collateral Consequences Act proposed by the Uniform Law Commission and compared it with collateral consequences codes in Maryland.
- He emphasized the requirement that defendants must know the collateral consequences and the State must list them all in one place.
- The (Model) Uniform Collateral Consequences Act
- removes ambiguity;
- removes barriers to re-entry when appropriate;
- allows an agency to remove collateral sanctions related to employment, housing, licensing, general restoration of rights, if there is no risk to public safety;
- includes provision for certification of “Restoration of Rights” after a period of satisfactory living following the completion of sentence.
If the Workgroup chooses to recommend The Uniform Collateral Consequences Act to the Legislature, it would be made harmonious with Maryland law by the Uniform Law Commission. Vermont has enacted the Uniform Collateral Consequences law, North Carolina has enacted a portion of it, and 6 or 7 states are considering it this year.
The ULC has assembled a list of collateral consequences by state, and the American Bar Association has also. Information is also available at the Collateral Consequences Resource Center. Thus assembling this information does not need a lot of additional work.
The high rate of recidivism is the reason the Uniform Collateral Consequences Act is being recommended.
Asked if there were sanctions provided for an attorney not informing a client of collateral consequences in the Model Act, the answer was no.
A Member asked for comment on the impact of limiting the restoration of rights, and sought advice re expanding the certification of rights to include lifetime disqualifications. Discussion followed.
Amol Sinha, Innocence Project, recommended that the Workgroup design a robust framework to help those who have been accused and incarcerated but later exonerated to recover from the harm they have endured:
- suffering from physical, mental, and economic need;
- missing traditional career and developmental benchmarks;
- medical issues (severe shortage of medical care in our prisons);
- categorically denied opportunities and services.
Maryland is the only state that requires that an arrestee obtain a pardon if wrongly convicted. These pardons must be recommended by the governor. The pardon is political rather than judicial. Gov. Hogan has not yet recommended any pardons. Other states deal with wrongful conviction by
- a motion for re-trial;
- a judicial rather than a political process;
- application
In Maryland, when a wrongfully convicted person is released, none of the services available to a convicted person being released are offered. The person is simply turned out, with no ID, no social security card, no money, no bus pass, no meds, nothing. For example, a wrongfully accused person was exonerated and released on 5/16/2016 after 18 years with none of these. The Department of Public Works determines how much money the wronged person can receive in compensation and it places strict limits on its use.
The National Registry of Exoneration (at University of Michigan) says that there are 25 to 30 wrongly convicted individuals in Maryland who have not been exonerated. Maryland has one Wrongful Conviction Unit, which suffers from a lack of resources. A recent release of a wrongfully convicted individual from the unit after 18 years of incarceration was made directly from the courthouse with no home plan, no resources, nothing to help him with re-entry.
The Innocence Project offers to help in any way with this issue.
Linda Dworak, Baltimore Workforce Funders Collaborative: works with employers to develop best practices re work force development. Baltimore Workforce Funders Collaborative recommends hiring locally, and hiring returned citizens, but actual practice is up to employers.
The Workforce Funders Collaborative suggests:
- dropping occupationally irrelevant conditions from licensing barriers;
- relegating “the box” to a point later in the application/recruitment process (necessary background checks should come at a later point in the process);
- correcting the unfair application of collateral consequences to cases of arrest without conviction.
- reviewing data that agencies have in their records to assure the accuracy of background checks (e.g., are expunged records deleted from data bases?);
- Increasing support services for mental health, addiction, recovery, expungement.
Using the query, “Before we do the background check, is there anything you would like to tell me,” was suggested to give candidate the opportunity to tell about the past in a setting that enables discussion.
A Member suggested that the Workgroup should include a definite recommendation regarding this in its report, and that it should not be reported “pending data”.
Ms. Dworak said there is definite confusion among some employers regarding removing the box.
In discussion, there is a concern among many returned citizens about “lifetime” bans or disbarments by licensing organizations. Jeff Tosi, who oversees several licensure boards, said that of 30,000 licenses applied for annually, 5 were denied last year. Others said that long-term employees of licensure boards reported people are not automatically disbarred because of a record. Judge Williams asked for suggestions on how to correct the difference between perceptions of these boards and actual reported experience.
Angela Davis, “home owner, mother, sister, grandmother, full-time employee, and ex-felon,” gave an effective presentation about her experience of two convictions and how she has rebuilt her life. Her experience included being barred from her industry because her license was revoked due to her status as an ex-felon (she was a loan officer in the mortgage industry).
Ms. Davis noted that:
- Criminal acts are a by-product of poverty, lack of resources and lack of mental health service. There are also no resources inside that are available to the wide population of inmates.
- Most incarceration is for non-violent crime.
- All inmates leave prison with trauma because there is mental, physical and sexual abuse in the prisons.
- Lack of housing, mental health care, transportation, court costs, the cost of having been in prison, these all contribute to ongoing trauma for the returned citizen.
Ms. Davis recommended that returned citizens should have opportunities for apprenticeships, in which they would work for lower pay while they were mentored and learning the job. Then, if they acquire the skills, they should be offered the position with full pay.
A Member extended this, suggesting a situation where employers might “apprentice” returned citizens, paying them an introductory wage, using the balance of the wage to pay court costs and repay expenses of training, being supported by the State, and granting that trainee a normal position at normal wage after the completion of a pre-agreed period.
Ronald Stanley provided written testimony but left before he was called to speak.
Martin Schwartz, Vehicles for Change. Vehicles for Change (VC) recruits inmates who have received some training in auto mechanics while in prison and provides them advanced training. They repair autos for the public, as well as repair and sell donated vehicles (to low income families). There is high demand for workers in auto-tech fields and of the 36 returned citizens who have completed the Vehicles for Change training, 35 have been placed in full time positions at an average wage of $34,000/year . Only one of the 36 has returned to prison. After Mr. Schwartz’s initial work to market his graduates, there is now demand for VC’s trainees in the local market. They are recognized as motivated and harder working.
Mr. Schwartz recommended:
- Development of good preliminary training programs in the prisons for a substantially larger number of inmates than can currently be served. In one institution, there is an auto trades program but it has only 12 spaces for more than 1200 inmates. In general, only about 1% of inmates have opportunity for learning skills that are needed in the labor force;
- A marketing program to encourage employers to give released citizens opportunities;
- Response to the concerns raised by other testimony about need for ID, housing, transportation, money to start a new life, apprenticeships, licensing, etc. His current group of trainees raise these concerns about their attempts to return to society.
Lauren Lipscomb, Baltimore City States Attorney’s Office re expungements.
Ms. Linscomb testified in September; she was returning with additional data.
- In 2015, there were 8432 expungement petitions. 6077 were signed, 774 denied.
- In 2016 until Sept 23, there were 10,060 petitions. 9072 were signed, 529 denied. 160 more have been received so far in October.
An expungement petition costs $30. This goes to the general fund.
A Member raised question about ‘the unit rule’ (by which if multiple charges from the same incident include one that is not expungable, then the record cannot be expunged even if the citizen was found not guilty of the charge that is not expungable). To date, there is no discretion for expungement judges regarding the unit rule.
Life Bridge Health in Baltimore City. Three individuals were present to speak. They described their program in Park Heights, the Kujichagulia Center, focused on making youth aware of collateral consequences as a means of helping them decide not to engage in acts that could lead to arrest. They made no recommendations to the Workgroup regarding collateral consequences.
Toni Holness, ACLU-Maryland. Ms. Holness raised the issue of race and admonished the panel to be mindful of the role it plays within the justice system.
She made the following recommendations:
- Legislation to remove the Unit Rule should be enacted because the Unit Rule defeats the purpose of the expungement law.
- Educational opportunity within the prison system should be expanded and systematized.
- A robust centralized data collection system to track re-entry experience and racial difference in opportunities.
- Publication of a complete list of offenses that are eligible for shielding and expungement.
- There are more offenses that should be eligible for expungement; legislate their inclusion. Apply the principle of remorse, and assure that it is applied without racial bias.
Opportunity for audience members to speak.
Several members of the audience spoke in response to presentations throughout the session. The Maryland Justice Project had hoped to make a presentation but took this final opportunity to make a statement about the unfairness of the collateral consequences returned citizens face and the harm these consequences wreak on the community.
Upcoming meetings. The Chair announced the dates and locations of upcoming stakeholder and workgroup meetings.
Reported by Adrian Bishop and Rosalie Dance for MAJR
