Collateral Consequences Workgroup Meeting
November 15, 2016
Members present:
- Judge Alex Williams, Chair, Center for Education, Justice & Ethics
- Shaina Hernandez, Greater Baltimore Committee
- Glenn Fueston, 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 Hygiene
- Rachel Sessa, Public Safety and Correctional Services
- Victoria Wilkins, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
- Marsha Netus, AmericaWorks
A draft of “The Williams Report: Collateral Consequences Project” was distributed and provided the focus of the entire meeting. Each of the fourteen recommendations was read and discussed by the committee members. Rather than presenting the analysis and text of the report only the comments are reflected in these minutes.
Recommendation 1: Require Maryland agencies to begin collecting, analyzing, and reporting relevant data.
Tosi and Wilkins observed that they “don’t have the technology” to complete their data reporting without hiring additional staff. However Caryn York had done her research and presented data. York brought up the need to determine the potential impact of a state-wide “Ban-the-Box” policy. Further discussion centered on what the various licensing boards are now doing.
Recommendation 2: Encourage Maryland state agencies to publish more information and guidance on data regarding the issuance of licenses to persons with criminal records.
Caryn York emphasized the need for transparency, letting everyone know what the policy and procedures in each instance. She felt that the State should encourage returning citizens to apply.
Representatives of licensing boards and agencies were generally skeptical regarding information that returned citizens were avoiding applying for licensure because of “word on the street” that they were unlikely to be successful. They repeatedly pointed to their very low rates of refusal to issue licenses or renewals.
Recommendation 3: Establish uniformity in, and publish guidance on, the review processes of state licensing boards.
Hernandez wanted more clarity on who is responsible for doing this. York was concerned that information on arrests that didn’t result in conviction could still be used in background checks.
The text of the recommendation stated that “testimony received by returning citizens during stakeholder meetings indicated an overwhelming level of distrust regarding the possibility of successful applications to State licensing boards.” Tosi argued that “overwhelming” was too strong a term and said the source of the testimony should be clarified.
In addition Tosi wanted clarification of the term “position of trust.” The detailed recommendation required “publishing a list of “positions of trust” (e.g., positions requiring licenses from the Maryland Board of Physicians) that mandate licensing boards to complete a criminal background check, as opposed to self-reporting, so the public is aware prior to applying for those pre-determined positions of trust.” It appeared that the definition pointed to any position that required a background check, which seemed “somewhat circular.”
York asked, “How can we educate potential applicants on what to expect?” Both York and Fueston emphasized that the State needs to be “up front” with the applicants on what to expect. Transparency was an important goal.
There seemed to be an agreement that there was no “one size fits all” approach and each application will still need to be evaluated on its merits.
Tosi noted that there are instances where federal rules will affect how state licensing operates. He cited the example of the woman whose mortgage processing credentials were revoked. This occurred in response to a federal rule.
Recommendation 4: Ban all “blanket ban” occupational licensing laws that require permanent and mandatory disqualifications.
Wilkins asserted that “we don’t have any blanket bans” and that the ABA report is just a tabulation of instances where background checks are required. This was disputed by other members of the workgroup. York spoke to the implementation of “Ban-the-Box” policy, especially for non-“position of trust” applications: “Does the applicant have the opportunity to explain their record?” And, “How does the applicant know in advance that they have an opportunity to explain?” Wilcox admitted that the applicant was required to request an opportunity to explain.
Wilkens reiterated that her agency does not have any “blanket bans.” Although most applicants are not interviewed, all may request it to explain circumstances. All have a right to a personal interview within 30 days if they are denied licensure.
It was interesting that these representatives of MD regulators seemed unaware of the ABA listing of 1,013 Collateral Consequences in MD.
Recommendation 5: Ensure that the need for public safety is being balanced with the needs of people with criminal history.
Judge Williams commented that we need more study focused on this recommendation. He commented that we don’t know how effective these regulations are in the other four states. Tosi remarked that studies cost money.
Recommendation 6: Provide each returning citizen with a valid driver’s license upon release.
Note that the text of this recommendation referred to an ID-card, not to a valid driver’s license, and only at state prisons, not detention centers (sentences up to 18 months). The returned citizen would still need to visit MVA with the ID card and a birth certificate (which could also be reissued by BOC with notice). Sessa remarked that extending this to detention centers in addition to State prisons would be expensive.
The DOC is very interested in applying Risk and Needs Assessment tools – emphasizing the “Needs” aspect of this requirement. The federal Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, has asked Maryland to issue this document to people being released from Federal institutions.
Recommendation 7: Remove unnecessary legal barriers that would limit career-advancement opportunities for individuals with criminal histories.
Caryn York emphasized the restriction that the “look-back” on criminal background checks be limited to the last seven years, and no further.
Recommendation 8: Renew Maryland programming that protects private employers and encourages them to hire returning citizens.
There was general agreement that the Maryland Long-Term Employment of Ex-Felons Tax credit, which expired in December 2011, should be reinstated. Another incentive is the Federal Bonding program. However, none of the discussion addressed the potential liability of employers who offer jobs to returning citizens.
Hernandez pointed to a section of the report that proposed: “The Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (DLLR) create a public campaign to inform private employers of current incentives and the benefits of hiring persons with a criminal history. DLLR also increase recruitment of private employers into these incentive programs.” She said this was going to be a central recommendation of the Greater Baltimore Committee soon to be released.
Tosi remarked that any “public campaign” could lead to significant costs.
Recommendation 9: Provide Best Practice guidance to private employers in hiring individuals with criminal backgrounds.
Part of the recommendation focused on “ways to implement Diversity program within the business that would support employees with criminal records and/or have been incarcerated.” Caryn York objected to the use of “diversity” in this recommendation, as that is an overloaded word. The group subsequently suggested deleting the fourth point where this suggestion occurred.
Recommendation 10: Provide individuals who have successfully completed supervision with positive information to balance certain aspects of their criminal history.
This is equivalent to the JRA certificate of rehabilitation, and the members of the workgroup questioned the need for this recommendation.
Huffington brought up an interesting point: would employers eventually consider a certificate of rehabilitation a “requirement” for employment?
York noted that the JRA included only nonviolent offenders, leaving violent offenders who have served their time out in the cold. Would it be possible to extend the JRA to include all returning citizens in this recommendation?
Fueston felt that this recommendation should be stricken if in fact it is duplicative of the JRA.
Recommendation 11: Commission a Maryland-specific study on the impact of collateral consequences.
York raised a red flag on this recommendation: wasn’t this exactly what the current Collateral Consequences Workgroup was supposed to do? This recommendation needs a good deal of rewording.
Fueston also noted that this recommendation is largely duplicative of recommendation #1: data study.
Recommendation 12: Mandate State licensing agencies to collect, store, and report data.
This was obviously duplicative of recommendation #1, and all agreed that this should be stricken as well.
Recommendation 13: Ensure a smooth transition and continuity of care for returning citizens.
Sessa noted that the DOC already supports reentry services. The GOCCP is currently completing a gap assessment for substance abuse treatment. She suggested that an equivalent gap assessment and comprehensive evaluation of reentry services be performed by her department.
York said that the recommendation of a coordinating state-wide reentry office will be part of the upcoming Greater Baltimore Committee recommendations.
Fueston noted that the GOCCP was currently doing an assessment of the reentry services in each Maryland county.
What is happening with the grants for local initiatives??
Recommendation 14: Maryland Judiciary Case Search/Public Information Access
This was Judge Williams’ particular contribution. Case Search is available to anyone with internet access, and the information in that database is potentially erroneous and incomplete. The Case Search web site warns that info is not to be used for background checks, but one wonders why else people would go there. There was a concern to place this recommendation earlier in the report.
In closing, Judge Williams appreciated everyone’s contributions, and requested that any additional comments be forwarded by Monday, Nov 21 to receive consideration. The report will be released to the Governor on Dec 1, and he expects to have it there a few days before so the Office can be prepared for comments.
