Christopher Zoukis's Blog, page 12
July 20, 2016
Why FCC Regulations Haven’t Stopped High Rates for Prison Calls
Making phone calls from prison doesn’t come cheap. It also comes with a lot of controversy.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last October issued regulations it said should control the high cost of telephone calls made through private companies to prison and jail inmates. A FCC press release said that regulation, backed by a narrow 3-2 vote, would address the “excessive rates and egregious fees” charged by prison telecom providers; agency advocates for the new regulations pointed out calls from prison could cost $14 per minute.
It wasn’t the FCC’s first stab at the problem. In 2013, it had imposed “interim” per-minute rate caps of 21¢ to 25¢, but only for interstate phone calls. The new rules the agency adopted last October included lower per-minute rate caps, for both interstate and intrastate phone calls, ranging from 11¢ to 22¢.
But the FCC’s regulations and interpretations soon received harsh treatment in the courts. First, early this March, a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C. froze the newer caps before they could take effect, so they could review a legal challenge filed by prison call companies. The court left some other parts of the new regulations untouched, however.
At that point, the pro-price caps advocates at the FCC got what must have seemed at the time like a very bright idea. Even though only the new, blocked rate caps had addressed intrastate calls, they had also dropped the interim rule’s use of the term “interstate” and now just spoke of “inmate calling service.” The court which had blocked the new regulations had not objected to that wording change so, the argument went, the old interim caps now could be applied not just to interstate calls, but to intrastate ones as well.
So on March 16, just one day before the interim regulations were due to lapse for prisons (jails were scheduled to have them until June 20), the FCC issued a “reminder” of forthcoming regulatory changes, and casually -- and for the first time -- gave notice of its new interpretation: the old interim rate caps would now apply to intrastate calls. That bold, but perhaps unwise, step drew call providers back to court, where they quickly got another order, this time blocking the FCC’s new interpretation.
The non-blocked portions of the October 2015 rules included some provisions, like caps on ancillary fees, which would take a bite out of service providers’ income, but at least one, Securus Technologies, aggressively restructured its rates and charges to compensate.
Soon, the Human Rights Defense Center was writing the FCC to complain about a new round of “price gouging,” as the Dallas-based company hiked its fees and intrastate call rates, boosting the cost of some calls by 40% or 50%. Until the courts decide whether the new FCC rules are valid, or whether the agency could legally apply interim rate caps to intrastate calls, the cost of prison calls is likely to remain a continuing irritant.
There’s another, seldom discussed issue: the commissions (opponents call them kickbacks) most state and local correctional systems get for giving call providers exclusive access. The providers wanted the FCC to outlaw them, or at least let them include those payments in their cost structure; the agency spoke unfavorably of such payments but didn’t ban them.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last October issued regulations it said should control the high cost of telephone calls made through private companies to prison and jail inmates. A FCC press release said that regulation, backed by a narrow 3-2 vote, would address the “excessive rates and egregious fees” charged by prison telecom providers; agency advocates for the new regulations pointed out calls from prison could cost $14 per minute.
It wasn’t the FCC’s first stab at the problem. In 2013, it had imposed “interim” per-minute rate caps of 21¢ to 25¢, but only for interstate phone calls. The new rules the agency adopted last October included lower per-minute rate caps, for both interstate and intrastate phone calls, ranging from 11¢ to 22¢.
But the FCC’s regulations and interpretations soon received harsh treatment in the courts. First, early this March, a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C. froze the newer caps before they could take effect, so they could review a legal challenge filed by prison call companies. The court left some other parts of the new regulations untouched, however.
At that point, the pro-price caps advocates at the FCC got what must have seemed at the time like a very bright idea. Even though only the new, blocked rate caps had addressed intrastate calls, they had also dropped the interim rule’s use of the term “interstate” and now just spoke of “inmate calling service.” The court which had blocked the new regulations had not objected to that wording change so, the argument went, the old interim caps now could be applied not just to interstate calls, but to intrastate ones as well.
So on March 16, just one day before the interim regulations were due to lapse for prisons (jails were scheduled to have them until June 20), the FCC issued a “reminder” of forthcoming regulatory changes, and casually -- and for the first time -- gave notice of its new interpretation: the old interim rate caps would now apply to intrastate calls. That bold, but perhaps unwise, step drew call providers back to court, where they quickly got another order, this time blocking the FCC’s new interpretation.
The non-blocked portions of the October 2015 rules included some provisions, like caps on ancillary fees, which would take a bite out of service providers’ income, but at least one, Securus Technologies, aggressively restructured its rates and charges to compensate.
Soon, the Human Rights Defense Center was writing the FCC to complain about a new round of “price gouging,” as the Dallas-based company hiked its fees and intrastate call rates, boosting the cost of some calls by 40% or 50%. Until the courts decide whether the new FCC rules are valid, or whether the agency could legally apply interim rate caps to intrastate calls, the cost of prison calls is likely to remain a continuing irritant.
There’s another, seldom discussed issue: the commissions (opponents call them kickbacks) most state and local correctional systems get for giving call providers exclusive access. The providers wanted the FCC to outlaw them, or at least let them include those payments in their cost structure; the agency spoke unfavorably of such payments but didn’t ban them.
State Prisons Have High Rates of Minority Prisoners, study affirms
The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based non-profit group, on June 14 released a landmark study of the racial and ethnic characteristics of inmates in state prisons, which found African-Americans are on average incarcerated at a rate more than five times higher (5.1, to be precise) than the rate for whites.
The study compared Census state population data with results from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Prisoners Series survey, which annually compiles data on state prison populations; it used data from the 2014 survey. It then calculated each state’s average rate of incarceration for whites, blacks and Hispanics, per 100,000 of population.
Census data shows the nation’s general population is 62% white, 17% Hispanic, and 13% black. According to the Justice survey, state prison population overall is 38% black, 35% white, and 21% Hispanic. While African-Americans do not constitute a majority of the overall population in any state, in 12 states they comprise a majority of state prison inmates.
Eight of those states are below the Mason-Dixon line (Alabama, both Carolinas, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and Virginia); the others where black inmates make up especially high percentages of state prison populations are Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey.
The study found blacks have an overall state prison incarceration rate of 1,408 per 100,000, compared with 378 for Hispanics and 275 for whites. But racial disparities vary widely from state to state. New Jersey state prisons have the nation’s most disproportionate ratio of black male inmates to white male inmates, with 12.2 times as many black prisoners as white prisoners.
Incarceration affects at least 5% of black males in 11 states. The overall average for state incarceration of black adult males is 1 in 26. In eleven states, at least 1 in 20 adult black males is in prison.
The state with the largest disparity for incarceration rates between blacks and whites is Oklahoma, which has the highest incarceration rates per 100,000 for both whites (580) and for blacks (2,625).
States where 10% or more of the black adult male population are incarcerated include Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Even the states which incarcerate the lowest overrepresentation of black males in their state prison populations (Hawaii’s 2.4 to 1 is the lowest), black prisoners are incarcerated at more than double the rate for white prisoners.
Hispanics also appear at an overall 1.4 times higher rate in state prisons than do whites, with have particularly high incarceration rates relative to whites in northeastern states such as Massachusetts (4.3 times higher), Connecticut (3.9 times), Pennsylvania (3.3 times), and New York (3.1 times). Latinos make up 61% of the state prison population in New Mexico, 42% in California and Arizona, and 20% or more in seven other states (Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Nevada, and Texas).
The report, The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons, identifies three main factors that may contribute to the racial and ethnic imbalances in the state prison populations: criminal justice policies and practices (such as three-strike laws or heavy penalties for drug-related offenses), structural disadvantages affecting minority groups (such as poverty and unemployment rates, and housing and education deficits), or disparate treatment in arrests, prosecutions or sentencing.
The study compared Census state population data with results from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Prisoners Series survey, which annually compiles data on state prison populations; it used data from the 2014 survey. It then calculated each state’s average rate of incarceration for whites, blacks and Hispanics, per 100,000 of population.
Census data shows the nation’s general population is 62% white, 17% Hispanic, and 13% black. According to the Justice survey, state prison population overall is 38% black, 35% white, and 21% Hispanic. While African-Americans do not constitute a majority of the overall population in any state, in 12 states they comprise a majority of state prison inmates.
Eight of those states are below the Mason-Dixon line (Alabama, both Carolinas, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and Virginia); the others where black inmates make up especially high percentages of state prison populations are Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey.
The study found blacks have an overall state prison incarceration rate of 1,408 per 100,000, compared with 378 for Hispanics and 275 for whites. But racial disparities vary widely from state to state. New Jersey state prisons have the nation’s most disproportionate ratio of black male inmates to white male inmates, with 12.2 times as many black prisoners as white prisoners.
Incarceration affects at least 5% of black males in 11 states. The overall average for state incarceration of black adult males is 1 in 26. In eleven states, at least 1 in 20 adult black males is in prison.
The state with the largest disparity for incarceration rates between blacks and whites is Oklahoma, which has the highest incarceration rates per 100,000 for both whites (580) and for blacks (2,625).
States where 10% or more of the black adult male population are incarcerated include Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Even the states which incarcerate the lowest overrepresentation of black males in their state prison populations (Hawaii’s 2.4 to 1 is the lowest), black prisoners are incarcerated at more than double the rate for white prisoners.
Hispanics also appear at an overall 1.4 times higher rate in state prisons than do whites, with have particularly high incarceration rates relative to whites in northeastern states such as Massachusetts (4.3 times higher), Connecticut (3.9 times), Pennsylvania (3.3 times), and New York (3.1 times). Latinos make up 61% of the state prison population in New Mexico, 42% in California and Arizona, and 20% or more in seven other states (Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Nevada, and Texas).
The report, The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons, identifies three main factors that may contribute to the racial and ethnic imbalances in the state prison populations: criminal justice policies and practices (such as three-strike laws or heavy penalties for drug-related offenses), structural disadvantages affecting minority groups (such as poverty and unemployment rates, and housing and education deficits), or disparate treatment in arrests, prosecutions or sentencing.
July 1, 2016
Bureau of Prisons Acts to Cut Back on Solitary Confinement
While prison systems and corrections officer unions are often reluctant to discuss the ills of solitary confinement, following pressure from various advocacy groups and even President Obama's stated policy goals of reducing such restrictive confinement, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has recently released information detailing just how common the practice of solitary confinement, or what BOP calls "Special Housing Units."
The most recent report, “Restricted Housing Data,” appeared in mid-May. It shows 8,228 inmates, or approximately 5.2%, of the 159,432 inmates housed in BOP custody – i.e., those in Bureau-operated prisons, not in privately managed or other types of facilities -- were in restricted confinement. In 2011, the figure was about 11,000.
Of them, 6,924 were housed on administrative detention status, while 1,304 were housed on disciplinary segregation status, only available as a formal sanction from a discipline hearing officer for misconduct. Inmates can be housed on administrative detention status for various reasons, including being under investigation for potential rule violations, awaiting transfer, protective custody, and pending transfer, and others.
In descending order of populations, the BOP data shows these reasons for its inmates being held in special housing units:
Pending investigation for a BOP violation (2,884 inmates)
Pending transfer or holdover (1,746 inmates)
Pending hearing for a BOP violation (1,217 inmates)
Inmate requested protective custody (407 inmates)
Pending classification (209 inmates)
Terminating disciplinary segregation, ordered to administrative detention (201 inmates)
Pending investigation for a criminal trial (141 inmates)
Awaiting administrative detention order (95 inmates)
Involuntary protective custody (24 inmates)
The BOP-released data also shows the amount of time federal prisoners are spending in restricted confinement. According to the data, 7,418 prisoners had been in the SHU for less than or equal to 90 days, 810 for over 90 days, 292 for over 180 days, and 65 for over 364 days. Of these, the Bureau clarifies 49 prisoners have been in the SHU for more than 30 days under protective custody status (often requested by inmates seeking isolation to avoid gang-related violence).
In January, six months after ordering the Department of Justice to examine federal uses of solitary confinement as part of a broader criminal justice reform project, the Obama administration announced executive actions designed to reduce use of restricted housing in federal prisons. Federal agencies, including BOP and Justice, were ordered to put the changes into effect within six months.
The revisions banned juvenile prisoners being placed in solitary confinement in federal prisons (only about a dozen juveniles were in solitary at the time), or for low-level offenses. The initiative also adopted over 50 detailed “Guiding Principles” for correctional facilities, devised by the Justice Department.
Despite these new federal policies, state prisons – not covered by the new federal changes -- have by far more prisoners, and prisoners in solitary confinement. But the Justice Department recently reached a major settlement of civil rights charges against a Mississippi county, Hinds County, home to the state’s largest city, Jackson, based on how prisoners there are treated. The proposed settlement, which must still be approved by a judge, would require the county to adopt many of the Justice Department’s new principles.
The most recent report, “Restricted Housing Data,” appeared in mid-May. It shows 8,228 inmates, or approximately 5.2%, of the 159,432 inmates housed in BOP custody – i.e., those in Bureau-operated prisons, not in privately managed or other types of facilities -- were in restricted confinement. In 2011, the figure was about 11,000.
Of them, 6,924 were housed on administrative detention status, while 1,304 were housed on disciplinary segregation status, only available as a formal sanction from a discipline hearing officer for misconduct. Inmates can be housed on administrative detention status for various reasons, including being under investigation for potential rule violations, awaiting transfer, protective custody, and pending transfer, and others.
In descending order of populations, the BOP data shows these reasons for its inmates being held in special housing units:
Pending investigation for a BOP violation (2,884 inmates)
Pending transfer or holdover (1,746 inmates)
Pending hearing for a BOP violation (1,217 inmates)
Inmate requested protective custody (407 inmates)
Pending classification (209 inmates)
Terminating disciplinary segregation, ordered to administrative detention (201 inmates)
Pending investigation for a criminal trial (141 inmates)
Awaiting administrative detention order (95 inmates)
Involuntary protective custody (24 inmates)
The BOP-released data also shows the amount of time federal prisoners are spending in restricted confinement. According to the data, 7,418 prisoners had been in the SHU for less than or equal to 90 days, 810 for over 90 days, 292 for over 180 days, and 65 for over 364 days. Of these, the Bureau clarifies 49 prisoners have been in the SHU for more than 30 days under protective custody status (often requested by inmates seeking isolation to avoid gang-related violence).
In January, six months after ordering the Department of Justice to examine federal uses of solitary confinement as part of a broader criminal justice reform project, the Obama administration announced executive actions designed to reduce use of restricted housing in federal prisons. Federal agencies, including BOP and Justice, were ordered to put the changes into effect within six months.
The revisions banned juvenile prisoners being placed in solitary confinement in federal prisons (only about a dozen juveniles were in solitary at the time), or for low-level offenses. The initiative also adopted over 50 detailed “Guiding Principles” for correctional facilities, devised by the Justice Department.
Despite these new federal policies, state prisons – not covered by the new federal changes -- have by far more prisoners, and prisoners in solitary confinement. But the Justice Department recently reached a major settlement of civil rights charges against a Mississippi county, Hinds County, home to the state’s largest city, Jackson, based on how prisoners there are treated. The proposed settlement, which must still be approved by a judge, would require the county to adopt many of the Justice Department’s new principles.
President’s Commutations Total Rises to 348; Has Sentencing Reform Stalled?
On June 3, President Obama commuted sentences for 42 more federal inmates, bringing his total to 348 individuals to have their prison sentences reduced or ended. A statement from White House counsel Neil Eggleston noted the total outstrips commutations issued by the past seven presidents combined. The last three months brought close to half – 161 -- of Obama’s total commutations, with 61 announced in March and 58 in May, on top of the latest round.
According to White House-released background information on inmates in the latest round of commutations, 20, or almost half, had been sentenced to prison for life, most for possessing or distributing crack or powder cocaine. Including the latest round, Obama has commuted life sentences for 130 federal inmates. The inmates with new commutations now have release dates ranging from the start of October through next June.
Eggleston’s statement also said those receiving commutations were serving prison time under laws with “outdated and unduly harsh” sentencing rules, and added President Obama “remains committed” to continuing to use his commutation powers through the rest of his term to help others who have earned a second chance by repaying their debt to society. Instead of issuing individual commutations, some sentencing reform advocates want him to reduce sentenced for classes of inmates, such as those sentenced for crack cocaine offenses before Congress acted to reduce those penalties.
Arguing that legislation is needed to address federal laws which impose unduly harsh minimum sentences on “thousands” of federal prisoners who as a result longer than needed sentences, the White House statement also pushed for bipartisan Congressional action to send a criminal justice reform bill to the president’s desk.
A sentencing reform bill (S. 2123) cleared by the Senate Judiciary Committee last October would reduce mandatory sentences for federal drug crimes, give judges more discretion in crafting sentences, and even make some of those changes retroactive. As recently as late April, a bipartisan group of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced support for a revised version of the bill.
There is significant support for the measure from some, but far from all of the Republicans controlling the Senate – conservatives like Charles Grassley (IA) and John Cornyn (TX) have supported it, while Ted Cruz (TX), Jeff Sessions (AL) and Tom Cotton (AR) have strongly opposed it.
Proponents have urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) to bring the bill up on the Senate floor, pointing to it as not only useful reforms, but also potentially one of the few measures that might gain enough bipartisan support to pass the sharply divided chamber in an election year. So far, he’s made no commitment the measure will be brought up in the few remaining months Congress will be in session.
In the House of Representatives, several limited measures have cleared the floor, but House Judiciary Committee chairman Robert Goodlatte (VA) says the chamber won’t act on a broad sentencing reform bill unless it adds a provision, strongly opposed by House Democrats, to mandate intent as part of the definition for most crimes. Even without that complication, the dwindling legislative calendar and sharp partisan divisions threaten to keep sentencing reform from seeing House floor action this year.
According to White House-released background information on inmates in the latest round of commutations, 20, or almost half, had been sentenced to prison for life, most for possessing or distributing crack or powder cocaine. Including the latest round, Obama has commuted life sentences for 130 federal inmates. The inmates with new commutations now have release dates ranging from the start of October through next June.
Eggleston’s statement also said those receiving commutations were serving prison time under laws with “outdated and unduly harsh” sentencing rules, and added President Obama “remains committed” to continuing to use his commutation powers through the rest of his term to help others who have earned a second chance by repaying their debt to society. Instead of issuing individual commutations, some sentencing reform advocates want him to reduce sentenced for classes of inmates, such as those sentenced for crack cocaine offenses before Congress acted to reduce those penalties.
Arguing that legislation is needed to address federal laws which impose unduly harsh minimum sentences on “thousands” of federal prisoners who as a result longer than needed sentences, the White House statement also pushed for bipartisan Congressional action to send a criminal justice reform bill to the president’s desk.
A sentencing reform bill (S. 2123) cleared by the Senate Judiciary Committee last October would reduce mandatory sentences for federal drug crimes, give judges more discretion in crafting sentences, and even make some of those changes retroactive. As recently as late April, a bipartisan group of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced support for a revised version of the bill.
There is significant support for the measure from some, but far from all of the Republicans controlling the Senate – conservatives like Charles Grassley (IA) and John Cornyn (TX) have supported it, while Ted Cruz (TX), Jeff Sessions (AL) and Tom Cotton (AR) have strongly opposed it.
Proponents have urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) to bring the bill up on the Senate floor, pointing to it as not only useful reforms, but also potentially one of the few measures that might gain enough bipartisan support to pass the sharply divided chamber in an election year. So far, he’s made no commitment the measure will be brought up in the few remaining months Congress will be in session.
In the House of Representatives, several limited measures have cleared the floor, but House Judiciary Committee chairman Robert Goodlatte (VA) says the chamber won’t act on a broad sentencing reform bill unless it adds a provision, strongly opposed by House Democrats, to mandate intent as part of the definition for most crimes. Even without that complication, the dwindling legislative calendar and sharp partisan divisions threaten to keep sentencing reform from seeing House floor action this year.
Virginia GOP Legislators Sue to Stop Ex-Inmate Voting Rights
Carrying out their earlier pledge to seek court reversal of Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s executive order restoring voting rights to an estimated 206,000 former inmates, Republican leaders of the Virginia legislature filed a lawsuit on May 23, claiming McAuliffe’s action violates the state constitution.
In Howell v. McAuliffe, filed in the Virginia Supreme Court, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates William J. Howell is the lead plaintiff, joined by state Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. and four other state residents.
The governor on April 22 proclaimed he was dropping the state constitution’s lifetime ban on felons’ post-release voting, which dates back to the Civil War era. Other restrictions on state residents with felony convictions include serving on juries, holding elective office, possessing firearms, and becoming notary publics.
Under McAuliffe’s “Restoration of Rights” order, former felons after completing their sentences and any post-release conditions, such as parole or probation, will be automatically able to register to vote. State officials say nearly 5,000 former inmates have registered to vote since the governor’s order. The legislators’ lawsuit asks for the cancellation of those registrations, and a court order forbidding further automatic voter eligibility for persons with felony convictions.
Republicans, a majority in both state legislative chambers, denounced the governor’s action, claiming it was motivated to increase Democratic turnout for elections this November. McAuliffe, who chaired Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential run, once headed the Democratic National Committee and is a long-time associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton, denied the charge.
McAuliffe defended signing the order, calling it his “greatest day” as governor. He argued restoring voting rights was justified for ex-offenders who had “paid the price” and belong “back in society.” When the governor announced the order in April, his administration did not release data on the type of crimes committed by those whose rights he was restoring. Weeks later, it put out a statistical study saying 79% of those covered had not committed violent crimes and overall affected ex-offenders had on average been released 10 to 20 years earlier.
Opponents sought fuller data and countered that the governor’s figures meant 40,000 ex-offenders with convictions for violent crimes might be allowed to serve on juries and own firearms (though local courts would review gun applications by now-eligible former felons).
The lawsuit’s challenge turns on whether Article V, Section 12 of the state constitution -- which empowers a governor to “remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction” -- lets McAuliffe make blanket restoration of rights for entire classes of ex-prisoners, or requires case-by-case analysis and determinations for specific individuals.
The lawsuit asked for accelerated hearing; the state attorney general’s response opposed that, saying there was no need to rush, since plaintiffs took over a month to bring the case. A hearing has been scheduled for July 19. The state claims if the governor is unable to issue large-scale restoration orders, he will issue them individually.
Besides wrongly viewing the governor’s powers, the McAuliffe administration claims, the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the challenge. The same day the state made its response, a statement from McAuliffe called the lawsuit “frivolous” and a “partisan attempt” to deny civil rights to over 200,000 state citizens.
In Howell v. McAuliffe, filed in the Virginia Supreme Court, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates William J. Howell is the lead plaintiff, joined by state Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. and four other state residents.
The governor on April 22 proclaimed he was dropping the state constitution’s lifetime ban on felons’ post-release voting, which dates back to the Civil War era. Other restrictions on state residents with felony convictions include serving on juries, holding elective office, possessing firearms, and becoming notary publics.
Under McAuliffe’s “Restoration of Rights” order, former felons after completing their sentences and any post-release conditions, such as parole or probation, will be automatically able to register to vote. State officials say nearly 5,000 former inmates have registered to vote since the governor’s order. The legislators’ lawsuit asks for the cancellation of those registrations, and a court order forbidding further automatic voter eligibility for persons with felony convictions.
Republicans, a majority in both state legislative chambers, denounced the governor’s action, claiming it was motivated to increase Democratic turnout for elections this November. McAuliffe, who chaired Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential run, once headed the Democratic National Committee and is a long-time associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton, denied the charge.
McAuliffe defended signing the order, calling it his “greatest day” as governor. He argued restoring voting rights was justified for ex-offenders who had “paid the price” and belong “back in society.” When the governor announced the order in April, his administration did not release data on the type of crimes committed by those whose rights he was restoring. Weeks later, it put out a statistical study saying 79% of those covered had not committed violent crimes and overall affected ex-offenders had on average been released 10 to 20 years earlier.
Opponents sought fuller data and countered that the governor’s figures meant 40,000 ex-offenders with convictions for violent crimes might be allowed to serve on juries and own firearms (though local courts would review gun applications by now-eligible former felons).
The lawsuit’s challenge turns on whether Article V, Section 12 of the state constitution -- which empowers a governor to “remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction” -- lets McAuliffe make blanket restoration of rights for entire classes of ex-prisoners, or requires case-by-case analysis and determinations for specific individuals.
The lawsuit asked for accelerated hearing; the state attorney general’s response opposed that, saying there was no need to rush, since plaintiffs took over a month to bring the case. A hearing has been scheduled for July 19. The state claims if the governor is unable to issue large-scale restoration orders, he will issue them individually.
Besides wrongly viewing the governor’s powers, the McAuliffe administration claims, the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the challenge. The same day the state made its response, a statement from McAuliffe called the lawsuit “frivolous” and a “partisan attempt” to deny civil rights to over 200,000 state citizens.
Public Health Service Workers Get Assigned as Prison Guards
Did you know nurses, physician assistants, therapists and other health staff from the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) who have been detailed to federal correctional facilities are also assigned to guard duty or other security-related tasks for which they are not adequately trained?
This astonishing situation stems from persistent security staff shortages across the United States, coupled with a long-festering dispute with the union representing those security staffers. One former U.S. Surgeon General contends that giving PHS health staffers assignments like transporting inmates through maximum security areas, patrolling recreation areas, or securing cellblocks puts “medical professionals in danger” and should be ended.
It’s tough to argue with this logic. I was stunned to learn recently that health staffers are given regular shift assignments performing less dangerous, but still non-health tasks, like monitoring inmates’ correspondence or telephone calls. While the PHS confirms it deals with shortages of security staff by paying overtime to those who work additional hours or by assigning uniformed PHS health staff to security duties, the current head of the PHS recently refused to discuss the controversy, saying it’s wrapped up in an ongoing labor dispute.
The Bureau of Prisons is just one of several dozen federal agencies which draw on PHS medical staffers. By assigning medical staffers to security duties for which they are at best minimally trained, prisons can hold down overtime costs for security staff; the close to 900 PHS staffers assigned to federal correctional facilities, unlike unionized correctional officers, are ineligible for overtime pay.
But at the same time prison medical support staff are being given security-related assignments, federal correctional facilities are experiencing serious shortages of medical staff, ranging in some locations at 40% or greater, according to a report by the inspector general of the Department of Justice Department, which described the shortages as approaching “crisis” proportions.
According to recent media reports, contributing to the problem is a conflict between civilian employees of the Bureau of Prisons, who are represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, and PHS medical staff, who are members of a uniformed military service and are thus prohibited by law from joining a union or being covered by the labor contract.
As a result, some PHS medical staff claim they are being discriminated against because of their uniformed status, in areas like work assignments, in violation of USERRA, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. When unionized civilian nurses exercise seniority rights in bidding on work assignments, PHS nurses are often left with the least desirable jobs, locations and shifts.
One recent example is a dispute decided in a 2-1 ruling last October by the Federal Labor Relations Authority -- which resolves labor disputes involving federal workers, as the National Labor Relations Board does in private-sector cases -- involving nurses in a Lexington, Kentucky prison, over the Bureau of Prisons’ attempt to defend the prison’s practice of reserving some nursing jobs for PHS nurses.
The agency argued that if it couldn’t do so, it would likely face a “mass exodus” of PHS nurses. But because it raised that argument too late in the legal proceedings, the agency was told the federal labor contract precluded reserving any jobs for non-unionized nurses. If left unresolved, the dispute could wind up exacerbating prison shortages of both medical and correctional staff. And in this situation, there are no winners.
This astonishing situation stems from persistent security staff shortages across the United States, coupled with a long-festering dispute with the union representing those security staffers. One former U.S. Surgeon General contends that giving PHS health staffers assignments like transporting inmates through maximum security areas, patrolling recreation areas, or securing cellblocks puts “medical professionals in danger” and should be ended.
It’s tough to argue with this logic. I was stunned to learn recently that health staffers are given regular shift assignments performing less dangerous, but still non-health tasks, like monitoring inmates’ correspondence or telephone calls. While the PHS confirms it deals with shortages of security staff by paying overtime to those who work additional hours or by assigning uniformed PHS health staff to security duties, the current head of the PHS recently refused to discuss the controversy, saying it’s wrapped up in an ongoing labor dispute.
The Bureau of Prisons is just one of several dozen federal agencies which draw on PHS medical staffers. By assigning medical staffers to security duties for which they are at best minimally trained, prisons can hold down overtime costs for security staff; the close to 900 PHS staffers assigned to federal correctional facilities, unlike unionized correctional officers, are ineligible for overtime pay.
But at the same time prison medical support staff are being given security-related assignments, federal correctional facilities are experiencing serious shortages of medical staff, ranging in some locations at 40% or greater, according to a report by the inspector general of the Department of Justice Department, which described the shortages as approaching “crisis” proportions.
According to recent media reports, contributing to the problem is a conflict between civilian employees of the Bureau of Prisons, who are represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, and PHS medical staff, who are members of a uniformed military service and are thus prohibited by law from joining a union or being covered by the labor contract.
As a result, some PHS medical staff claim they are being discriminated against because of their uniformed status, in areas like work assignments, in violation of USERRA, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. When unionized civilian nurses exercise seniority rights in bidding on work assignments, PHS nurses are often left with the least desirable jobs, locations and shifts.
One recent example is a dispute decided in a 2-1 ruling last October by the Federal Labor Relations Authority -- which resolves labor disputes involving federal workers, as the National Labor Relations Board does in private-sector cases -- involving nurses in a Lexington, Kentucky prison, over the Bureau of Prisons’ attempt to defend the prison’s practice of reserving some nursing jobs for PHS nurses.
The agency argued that if it couldn’t do so, it would likely face a “mass exodus” of PHS nurses. But because it raised that argument too late in the legal proceedings, the agency was told the federal labor contract precluded reserving any jobs for non-unionized nurses. If left unresolved, the dispute could wind up exacerbating prison shortages of both medical and correctional staff. And in this situation, there are no winners.
June 2, 2016
Bureau of Prisons Announces Family-Friendly Policies
In a bid to make federal prisons more helpful for inmates’ ability to re-enter society after their release, the Bureau of Prisons in late April announced a set of new policies designed to make it easier for those incarcerated in federal institutions to stay in contact with their families.
Three new initiatives were unveiled in an April 26 speech in Houston by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who visited a federal women’s prison and a re-entry hostel for female inmates awaiting release. The event was part of the “National Reentry Week” declared by the Justice Department to publicize a variety of anti-recidivism programs to aid the more than 40,000 inmates released from federal facilities each year.
During Reentry Week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch issued a framework-setting “Roadmap to Reentry,” which outlined five evidence-based principles which she said underlie the Bureau of Prisons’ efforts to help former inmates overcome the stigma of a criminal record so they can successfully reintegrate into mainstream society and avoid being re-incarcerated.
One of those five principles deals with giving inmates the resources and opportunities they need to maintain their family relations, by strengthening inmate support systems while they are behind bars. (The Justice Department statement notes there’s research evidence showing strong family relationship cut recidivism, improve chances of finding post-release employment, and ameliorate the harm to children from having an incarcerated parent.)
One concrete step the Bureau of Prisons will take to solidify inmate-family relationships is expanding a new pilot program to bring videoconferencing to all its facilities for female prisoners by June 2016, with an eye to expanding video visits to all federal facilities eventually. Over 7% of Bureau of Prisons inmates are women, and because there are fewer facilities for women, they are often assigned farther away from their children than male prisoners might be.
Another measure the Bureau of Prisons plans is to start a pilot program, in cooperation with DOJ’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, for children with a federally incarcerated parent. The pilot program, to be launched at federal facilities in four states (Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia), aims to involve inmate parents and their children in youth development activities, such as mentoring and academic support. This program is already well underway; the $1.3 million in federal grants awarded last September to service providers will support these programs, starting this June.
The Bureau of Prisons also says it will develop and train its staff on best practices for interacting with child visitors and will create kid-friendly visiting areas at its facilities.
The other four principles in the Roadmap to Reentry are: providing each inmate with an individualized reentry plan matching his or her risks and needs; providing inmates with education, job-related training or other programs (such as those addressing mental health or substance abuse); assessing and improving the care halfway houses provide about 80% of newly released ex-inmates in the crucial time immediately after release; and giving newly released ex-prisoners reentry-related information and help accessing needed services, through a new reentry services hotline (1-877-895-9196) and a revised reentry manual for federal prisoners on their release.
Three new initiatives were unveiled in an April 26 speech in Houston by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who visited a federal women’s prison and a re-entry hostel for female inmates awaiting release. The event was part of the “National Reentry Week” declared by the Justice Department to publicize a variety of anti-recidivism programs to aid the more than 40,000 inmates released from federal facilities each year.
During Reentry Week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch issued a framework-setting “Roadmap to Reentry,” which outlined five evidence-based principles which she said underlie the Bureau of Prisons’ efforts to help former inmates overcome the stigma of a criminal record so they can successfully reintegrate into mainstream society and avoid being re-incarcerated.
One of those five principles deals with giving inmates the resources and opportunities they need to maintain their family relations, by strengthening inmate support systems while they are behind bars. (The Justice Department statement notes there’s research evidence showing strong family relationship cut recidivism, improve chances of finding post-release employment, and ameliorate the harm to children from having an incarcerated parent.)
One concrete step the Bureau of Prisons will take to solidify inmate-family relationships is expanding a new pilot program to bring videoconferencing to all its facilities for female prisoners by June 2016, with an eye to expanding video visits to all federal facilities eventually. Over 7% of Bureau of Prisons inmates are women, and because there are fewer facilities for women, they are often assigned farther away from their children than male prisoners might be.
Another measure the Bureau of Prisons plans is to start a pilot program, in cooperation with DOJ’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, for children with a federally incarcerated parent. The pilot program, to be launched at federal facilities in four states (Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia), aims to involve inmate parents and their children in youth development activities, such as mentoring and academic support. This program is already well underway; the $1.3 million in federal grants awarded last September to service providers will support these programs, starting this June.
The Bureau of Prisons also says it will develop and train its staff on best practices for interacting with child visitors and will create kid-friendly visiting areas at its facilities.
The other four principles in the Roadmap to Reentry are: providing each inmate with an individualized reentry plan matching his or her risks and needs; providing inmates with education, job-related training or other programs (such as those addressing mental health or substance abuse); assessing and improving the care halfway houses provide about 80% of newly released ex-inmates in the crucial time immediately after release; and giving newly released ex-prisoners reentry-related information and help accessing needed services, through a new reentry services hotline (1-877-895-9196) and a revised reentry manual for federal prisoners on their release.
New Round of Jail Sentences Commuted by Obama
The Obama administration has unveiled a second batch of 2016 commutations for federal prisoners, scheduling early release for another 58 inmates. Most of them will be released at the start of September, although some will remain incarcerated until early 2017.
Like the 61 federal prisoners whose commutations the White House announced in March, the newest group were serving time for drug charges, primarily for powder or crack cocaine; 18 had been sentenced to prison for life. A total of 110 prisoners thus far have had life sentences commuted during the Obama presidency.
Besides the 119 commutations announced by the White House this year, another 187 federal prisoners received sentence commutations during the earlier years of the Obama presidency. The president’s total for commutations to date stands at 306 – which already exceeds his six most recent predecessors’ combined total. Clinton issued 61, both Bush presidents combined awarded 14, Carter gave 29, Ford signed 22, and Nixon issued 60, according to an annual scorecard on the Department of Justice website which tracks statistics on presidential pardons and commutations over the last 116 years.
Obama got off to a somewhat late start, issuing only a single commutation during his first term and just a total of 10 more during his first six years in office. But that pace began to quicken after the Department of Justice launched its “Clemency Initiative” in April 2014, and promised to give priority consideration to clemency applications from federal prisoners who met an exacting set of qualifications (non-violent, no significant criminal history, served at least 10 years, good conduct while incarcerated, likely to receive a lighter sentence for the same crime today).
Assisting applicants on legal issues and the substantial paperwork was the Clemency Initiative 2014, a coalition of non-profits and non-government advocacy groups, including the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and three others. Using volunteer lawyers, commutation applications soon soared: the annual average of about 1,000 received during George W. Bush’s presidency climbed to over 6,500 in 2014.
The Clemency Initiative says it has submitted over 1,000 applications, and groups active in the coalition say the White House pardon attorney has thus far cleared 120 of them, with President Obama approving 86. The head of the Clemency Initiative says about 30,000 of 36,000 commutation applications have already been reviewed, despite some early glitches.
A Department of Justice official described the clemency effort as an element in a broader campaign to reform the criminal justice system, which also includes working with the U.S. Sentencing Commission on issues like mandatory minimum sentences, and with Congress to enact broad-reaching criminal justice reform laws.
The White House has also made clear President Obama intends to keep working on clemency orders throughout the remainder of his time in office, a view reinforced in a statement he gave to the Medium website in connection with the latest batch of commutations. The statement also prodded Congress to make lasting changes in sentencing for federal crimes, and noted bipartisan efforts there to reduce mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenses. Excessive penalties, the president added, neither serve taxpayers nor make them safer.
Like the 61 federal prisoners whose commutations the White House announced in March, the newest group were serving time for drug charges, primarily for powder or crack cocaine; 18 had been sentenced to prison for life. A total of 110 prisoners thus far have had life sentences commuted during the Obama presidency.
Besides the 119 commutations announced by the White House this year, another 187 federal prisoners received sentence commutations during the earlier years of the Obama presidency. The president’s total for commutations to date stands at 306 – which already exceeds his six most recent predecessors’ combined total. Clinton issued 61, both Bush presidents combined awarded 14, Carter gave 29, Ford signed 22, and Nixon issued 60, according to an annual scorecard on the Department of Justice website which tracks statistics on presidential pardons and commutations over the last 116 years.
Obama got off to a somewhat late start, issuing only a single commutation during his first term and just a total of 10 more during his first six years in office. But that pace began to quicken after the Department of Justice launched its “Clemency Initiative” in April 2014, and promised to give priority consideration to clemency applications from federal prisoners who met an exacting set of qualifications (non-violent, no significant criminal history, served at least 10 years, good conduct while incarcerated, likely to receive a lighter sentence for the same crime today).
Assisting applicants on legal issues and the substantial paperwork was the Clemency Initiative 2014, a coalition of non-profits and non-government advocacy groups, including the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and three others. Using volunteer lawyers, commutation applications soon soared: the annual average of about 1,000 received during George W. Bush’s presidency climbed to over 6,500 in 2014.
The Clemency Initiative says it has submitted over 1,000 applications, and groups active in the coalition say the White House pardon attorney has thus far cleared 120 of them, with President Obama approving 86. The head of the Clemency Initiative says about 30,000 of 36,000 commutation applications have already been reviewed, despite some early glitches.
A Department of Justice official described the clemency effort as an element in a broader campaign to reform the criminal justice system, which also includes working with the U.S. Sentencing Commission on issues like mandatory minimum sentences, and with Congress to enact broad-reaching criminal justice reform laws.
The White House has also made clear President Obama intends to keep working on clemency orders throughout the remainder of his time in office, a view reinforced in a statement he gave to the Medium website in connection with the latest batch of commutations. The statement also prodded Congress to make lasting changes in sentencing for federal crimes, and noted bipartisan efforts there to reduce mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenses. Excessive penalties, the president added, neither serve taxpayers nor make them safer.
May 21, 2016
Top Justice Official Bans Term like ‘Felon’ and ‘Convict'
The Assistant Attorney General who runs the section of the Justice Department responsible for programs assisting the re-entry into society of released inmates recently took to the op-ed pages of the Washington Post to announce a policy change: her section will stop referring to the people it’s trying to help with terms such as “convicts,” “offenders,” or “felons.”
According to Karol Mason, who since 2013 has headed DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, the change reflects the belief that such labels represent a psychological barrier to becoming reintegrated back into mainstream society.
In her May 4 op-ed, she voiced her view that labels attached to those who have done time in jails or prisons can “drain their sense of self-worth” and “perpetuate a cycle of crime” that prevents achieving the goals of re-entry. The changed terminology was not meant to condone past criminal behavior for which those responsible need to be held accountable, Mason wrote, but instead to make it easier for those who have repaid their debt to society by serving out their sentence to get on with rebuilding their lives.
While noting the American Bar Association’s criminal justice section has compiled a list of 46,000 obstacles to re-entry facing former inmates, Assistant Attorney General Mason says in talking with formerly incarcerated persons, she frequently hears there is no harsher punishment that being “permanently branded a ‘felon’ or ‘offender’.”
As a result, Mason said she had issued a directive telling employees to use care in how they refer to those trying to achieve re-entry, since the language used can influence how successful they are. So instead of terms like “felon,” “convict” or “offender,” more positive terms such as “individual who was incarcerated” or “person who committed a crime” would be used by the Office of Justice Programs in its speeches and written and electronic communications.
In her Washington Post article, Mason also expressed the hope that similar usages would be adopted by other agencies and groups. (Moore’s article was later amended to clarify that, despite her reference to having issued an “agency-wide policy,” the ordered change would only be mandatory in her Division, not in the entire Justice Department).
Not coincidentally, Moore’s article was published hard on the heels of National Re-entry Week, which the Justice Department declared for April 24-30, in the name of raising public awareness of the challenges faced by former prisoners.
Even before the change was announced, a similar controversy was bubbling in journalistic circles. Margaret Love, a former pardon attorney for DOJ and a veteran clemency lawyer, in a blog entry took to task the New York Times for using the term “felons” in the headline of its front-page story on Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe’s order ending disenfranchisement of ex-prisoners.
In response, Bill Keller, the former Times executive editor and the current editor-in-chief for the criminal justice-focused The Marshall Project conceded she probably had a point that casual use of such labels for such persons makes it more difficult for them “to assimilate and live within the law.”
According to Karol Mason, who since 2013 has headed DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, the change reflects the belief that such labels represent a psychological barrier to becoming reintegrated back into mainstream society.
In her May 4 op-ed, she voiced her view that labels attached to those who have done time in jails or prisons can “drain their sense of self-worth” and “perpetuate a cycle of crime” that prevents achieving the goals of re-entry. The changed terminology was not meant to condone past criminal behavior for which those responsible need to be held accountable, Mason wrote, but instead to make it easier for those who have repaid their debt to society by serving out their sentence to get on with rebuilding their lives.
While noting the American Bar Association’s criminal justice section has compiled a list of 46,000 obstacles to re-entry facing former inmates, Assistant Attorney General Mason says in talking with formerly incarcerated persons, she frequently hears there is no harsher punishment that being “permanently branded a ‘felon’ or ‘offender’.”
As a result, Mason said she had issued a directive telling employees to use care in how they refer to those trying to achieve re-entry, since the language used can influence how successful they are. So instead of terms like “felon,” “convict” or “offender,” more positive terms such as “individual who was incarcerated” or “person who committed a crime” would be used by the Office of Justice Programs in its speeches and written and electronic communications.
In her Washington Post article, Mason also expressed the hope that similar usages would be adopted by other agencies and groups. (Moore’s article was later amended to clarify that, despite her reference to having issued an “agency-wide policy,” the ordered change would only be mandatory in her Division, not in the entire Justice Department).
Not coincidentally, Moore’s article was published hard on the heels of National Re-entry Week, which the Justice Department declared for April 24-30, in the name of raising public awareness of the challenges faced by former prisoners.
Even before the change was announced, a similar controversy was bubbling in journalistic circles. Margaret Love, a former pardon attorney for DOJ and a veteran clemency lawyer, in a blog entry took to task the New York Times for using the term “felons” in the headline of its front-page story on Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe’s order ending disenfranchisement of ex-prisoners.
In response, Bill Keller, the former Times executive editor and the current editor-in-chief for the criminal justice-focused The Marshall Project conceded she probably had a point that casual use of such labels for such persons makes it more difficult for them “to assimilate and live within the law.”
‘Ban the Box’ Movement Spreads across America
Last November, U.S. President Barack Obama issued an executive order to “ban the box” - the widely-hated part of a job application that allows federal agencies and other employers to force prospective hires to disclose criminal their criminal record history.
In issuing the order, the president declared government hiring shouldn't use criminal history "to screen out” applicants before their qualifications have been considered. The order allows federal hiring officials to ask about past convictions, but only after making a conditional job offer.
New measures such as this are clearly needed to halt the premature termination of job prospects for the 600,000+ former inmates who re-enter the job market each year. And thankfully, the movement is taking hold, not just for the federal government, but in the private sector, too. Since Obama issued his order, the ’ban-the-box’ campaign is percolating at the municipal and state level across the country.
Most recently, the states of Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wisconsin imposed the policy on their own governments, bringing the total to 23 participating states. The prohibition also covers private employers in seven states: Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.
Over 100 cities and counties now have their own "ban the box” laws. That includes nine of the 30 most populous U.S. cities: Chicago, San Francisco, Baltimore and Portland, Oregon acted before their states adopted a statewide measure. Altogether, the National Employment Law Project calculates, about 185 million people – over half the nation’s total population – now live in jurisdictions with ‘ban the box’ or similar restrictions.
Last December, Portland joined the roster of major cities barring employers from using their own or third-party criminal record checks before extending a conditional job offer. The same month, Philadelphia expanded an earlier groundbreaking “ban the box” law by attaching onto it a new ordinance, which bars both public- and private-sector employers from asking about, taking into consideration, or sharing information about arrests which did not lead to a conviction. Philadelphia employers may only consider convictions from the previous seven years the job applicant was not incarcerated.
The most recent major city to act is Austin, now the nation’s eleventh largest. In March, the state capital became the first city in Texas to approve a “ban the box” ordinance. It covers only private-sector employers with 15 or more workers for 20 weeks a year (federal and state agencies are exempted, along with private membership clubs). It also forbids using criminal records to deny promotions to current workers, and spells out factors for making individual assessments of whether an applicant with a criminal record is suitable for a position.
In issuing the order, the president declared government hiring shouldn't use criminal history "to screen out” applicants before their qualifications have been considered. The order allows federal hiring officials to ask about past convictions, but only after making a conditional job offer.
New measures such as this are clearly needed to halt the premature termination of job prospects for the 600,000+ former inmates who re-enter the job market each year. And thankfully, the movement is taking hold, not just for the federal government, but in the private sector, too. Since Obama issued his order, the ’ban-the-box’ campaign is percolating at the municipal and state level across the country.
Most recently, the states of Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wisconsin imposed the policy on their own governments, bringing the total to 23 participating states. The prohibition also covers private employers in seven states: Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.
Over 100 cities and counties now have their own "ban the box” laws. That includes nine of the 30 most populous U.S. cities: Chicago, San Francisco, Baltimore and Portland, Oregon acted before their states adopted a statewide measure. Altogether, the National Employment Law Project calculates, about 185 million people – over half the nation’s total population – now live in jurisdictions with ‘ban the box’ or similar restrictions.
Last December, Portland joined the roster of major cities barring employers from using their own or third-party criminal record checks before extending a conditional job offer. The same month, Philadelphia expanded an earlier groundbreaking “ban the box” law by attaching onto it a new ordinance, which bars both public- and private-sector employers from asking about, taking into consideration, or sharing information about arrests which did not lead to a conviction. Philadelphia employers may only consider convictions from the previous seven years the job applicant was not incarcerated.
The most recent major city to act is Austin, now the nation’s eleventh largest. In March, the state capital became the first city in Texas to approve a “ban the box” ordinance. It covers only private-sector employers with 15 or more workers for 20 weeks a year (federal and state agencies are exempted, along with private membership clubs). It also forbids using criminal records to deny promotions to current workers, and spells out factors for making individual assessments of whether an applicant with a criminal record is suitable for a position.
