HF1889: Legislation that Wastes Taxpayer Money and Government Time

HF1889/SFXXX: Legislation that Wastes Taxpayer Money and Government Time
Drug Testing Applicants for the Minnesota Family Investment Program and General Assistance

HF1889/SFXX is a New Unfunded Mandate on Counties, Local Law Enforcement, and the Judiciary
Contrary to the stated intent of the Legislature to relive local governments of unfunded mandates, HF1889/SFXX imposes a new, unfunded bureaucratic mandate requiring drug testing. The legislation creates significant new responsibilities for counties without providing counties with additional funds to implement the staff training, testing and storage practices, or computer systems modifications required to implement the mandate. Nor are Local law enforcement agencies given any additional funds to provide “once per month” arrest records to hundreds of social services providers across the state. Finally, the courts are not appropriated additional funds to address an inevitable increase in appeals.

HF1889/SFXX Forces Minnesota Taxpayers to Foot the Bill for Negative Tests
HF1889/SFXX requires the State to reimburse applicants for a negative test result. In Florida’s recent experience with drug testing, a mere 2% of applicants tested positive. Therefore, under this bill, Minnesota taxpayers could be asked to engage in the extremely wasteful reimbursement of expenses for the 98% of applicants whose tests are negative. Drug testing can range from $15 to $150 depending on the test.

State Law Already Allows Counties Test Persons with a Prior Drug Conviction
Counties already have the power to test persons with prior drug convictions and to sanction participants for a positive test. The Department of Human Services reports fewer than 20 positive drug tests in the past 14 years.

HF1889/SFXX is Likely Unconstitutional
Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a person has the right to be free from unreasonable searches. It is well established that a drug test is considered a intrusive search. Government has the burden of showing that such intrusions are based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing or there exists a special government need – such as the protection of public safety – to drug test. The test required by HF 1889/SFXX is an unreasonable search because it is not motivated by individualized, reasonable suspicion of drug use and public safety is not implicated. The courts have never recognized the wholesale deputization of a State’s county workers to find suspicion based on arbitrary indicators created in the bill (i.e., “bizarre behavior, odor of alcohol, twitching, inability to verbalize, nausea”). Such indicators are more likely to erroneously single out persons with disabilities, chronic physical illness, and mental health challenges than they are to detect drug use. The courts have long held that there are “few activities in society more personal or private than the passing of urine.” Due to a lack of empirical data showing low-income people as likely drug users, the Courts have explicitly and continually dismissed “special need” arguments such as the necessity to save taxpayer dollars or to protect children from their parents.

HF1889/SFXX is Discriminatory
If HF1889/SFXXX is intended to protect the integrity of all Minnesota taxpayer dollars, then the legislation should apply to all who receive money from the government — state agency workers; legislators; students receiving educational grants and loans; small business owners receiving state subsidies; veterans receiving state benefits; the elderly, the blind and disabled receiving state benefits; and unemployment insurance applicants. Unless the Legislature can show higher incidents of illegal drug use among low-income parents and disabled adults in MFIP and general assistance, the legislation as written is discriminatory.

Written Testimony to Minnesota Judicial Special Redistricting Panel – October 6, 2011

Thank you, Members of the Panel, for providing the opportunity to submit testimony. My name is Sarah Walker and I am the Chief Operating Officer of 180 Degrees, Inc. and co-founder of the Minnesota Second Chance Coalition.

I am also a member of the Board of the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts-based non-partisan, non-profit center which for the last decade has been the leading organization studying how the U.S. Census counts people in prison and working to quantify the policy and legal implications flowing from those technical decisions. Prison-based gerrymandering is also on the Second Chance Coalition’s Legislative Policy Agenda, and we supported the passage of S.F. No. 3097, introduced by Senator Higgins, and H.F. 3536 introduced by Rep. Champion during the last legislative session, which would have addressed this issue.
Each decade, Minnesota redraws its legislative districts on the basis of population to ensure that each district contains the same population as other districts. In this way, all residents are given the same access to representation and government, fulfilling the Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” rule.
However, the Census Bureau’s practice of counting incarcerated people as residents of the prison location, instead of their home communities, results in significant distortions in achieving fair representation. Traditionally, Minnesota uses Census Bureau data for redistricting purposes, engaging in prison-based gerrymandering, even though Article VII, § 2 of the Minnesota Constitution says that a person’s residence does not change upon incarceration.
The problem in Minnesota is wide-spread; currently there are 10 Minnesota House districts where state and federal prison populations were counted as residents during the last redistricting cycle, significantly enhancing the weight of a vote cast in those districts. (See table below.) Treating prison populations as if they were actual constituents of the districts where prisons are located dilutes the votes of everyone who does not have a large prison in their district.
District Census Population Prison population Percent deviation between actual resident population and ideal district size
56A 36,812 1,746 -4.48%
20A 36,641 1,324 -3.80%
52A 36,767 1,124 -2.91%
26B 36,496 1,097 -3.58%
26A 36,780 943 -2.38%
08A 36,721 861 -2.32%
08B 36,998 847 -1.53%
30A 36,890 839 -1.80%
15B 36,573 800 -2.56%
06B 36,697 599 -1.67%

Minnesota could follow the example of other states that have already ensured the end of prison-based gerrymandering within their borders. New York and Maryland are counting incarcerated individuals at their home addresses this redistricting cycle. Similar legislation is awaiting the Governor’s signature in California and already passed in Delaware, allowing both states to take the same approach after the 2020 Census.
Although it is too late for Minnesota to collect the information necessary to count incarcerated people at their residential address, the state need not wait another decade to take action to lessen the harm of prison-based gerrymandering. Arizona and Massachusetts are already currently working on interim solutions for the current redistricting cycle to avoid exacerbating the major distorting effects of prison populations in redistricting.
There are three ways that the Panel can greatly reduce the impact of prison-based gerrymandering in Minnesota during this redistricting cycle. First is to simply remove any prison populations form the redistricting data, thus eliminating large concentrations of phantom constituents from districts with large prisons. The second option is to deliberately overpopulate any district that contains a correctional facility by approximately the population size of the correctional facility, and slightly under-populate the home districts of incarcerated individuals. Third, the Panel could identify prison populations in any redistricting tables it publishes so that the inclusion of such populations would be transparent to all, and use that information to take prison populations into account when drawing majority-minority districts.
First Option
The Panel can use the Census Bureau’s Advance Group Quarters Summary File to remove the correctional facilities from the Census counts used in redistricting. Mathematically, counting incarcerated people at the prison location has a larger vote dilutive effect than simply failing to count them at the correct home address. Below is a subset of this file in tabular form showing the 22 census blocks that contain state prisons, federal prisons, private prisons and halfway houses in Minnesota along with the populations counted within those facilities by the Census Bureau. The Prison Policy Initiative has also made point shapefiles of this Minnesota data in both ESRI and Maptitude formats . The shapefiles include direct links to Census data on the race and ethnicity of the incarcerated population within each block. (For more technical information on these files or using the Census Bureau’s group quarters summary file, you can contact Peter Wagner at Aleks Kajstura at the Prison Policy Initiative at (413) 527-0845.)

County Tract Block Correctional Population Facility Name(s) Facility Type(s)
Anoka County 050229 1020 1,305 Minnesota Correctional Facility-Lino Lakes State
Carlton County 070500 5021 1,128 MCF Willow River/Moose Lake State
Chisago County 110200 1049 980 MCF Rush City State
Hennepin County 008400 1000 25 Volunteers of America Private
Hennepin County 021602 1014 16 Damascus Way Private
Hennepin County 105600 3000 21 180 Degrees Halfway House
Olmsted County 002300 5012 954 Federal Medical Center, Rochester Federal
Pine County 950400 2132 1,315 FCI Sandstone Federal
Polk County 020700 1013 8 Red River Valley Juvenile Center Halfway House
Polk County 020700 1031 139 Tri-County Community Corrections Halfway House
Ramsey County 033200 1015 12 RS Eden (Women’s) Halfway House
Ramsey County 035500 2007 34 RS Eden (Men’s) Halfway House
Ramsey County 041602 2008 46 Volunteers of America- Female Private
Rice County 070700 3013 2,058 MCF-Faribault State
Scott County 080500 2009 588 MCF Shakopee State
Sherburne County 031500 4008 1,000 MCF St. Cloud State
St. Louis County 000300 1043 772 Federal Prison Camp Duluth Federal
St. Louis County 002000 2004 45 Bethel Work Release Program Halfway House
St. Louis County 011100 2003 150 Northeast Regional Correction Center Private
Waseca County 790500 2104 1,067 FCI Waseca Federal
Washington County 070801 1001 1,587 MCF Stillwater State
Washington County 070802 1001 448 MCF Oak Park Heights State

Second Option
The second option is to deliberately overpopulate any district that contains a correctional facility by approximately the population size of the correctional facility. Conveniently for Minnesota, no individual prison is larger than the allowable population deviation. As long as multiple large prisons are not clustered together in the same district, it should be possible keep the actual population of each district within the traditional maximum population variance of 5%.
The Panel can do this through a careful use of the allowed population deviation between districts. The ideal size of House districts to be drawn this year is 39,582, with each district ranging in size from 37,603 to 41,561 (allowing for the 5% deviation in each direction). The Panel can deliberately overpopulate each district that contains a correctional facility by about the same population as the correctional facility.

For example, if a prison has a population of 1,000 people, try to draw the district that contains the prison to contain about 40,582 people, instead of the ideal size of 39,582:
2012 District: Hypothetical District with prison

Ideal District Size in 2012: 39,582
Allowable District Size in 2012: 37,603 to 41,561
(assuming ± 5 % deviation)

Census population: 40,582
Prison population: 1,000
Actual population: 39,582

Deliberately overpopulating this district by the prison population counted within it will result in a district with the ideal number of actual residents.

Third Option
Third, the Panel should at the very least identify prison populations in any redistricting tables it publishes so that the inclusion of such populations could be taken into account by anyone reviewing the maps. Disclosing which districts contain prison populations as part of the Panel’s demographic analysis would be useful to the public. A healthy discussion about redistricting needs to include information about the number of people incarcerated in each district.
Critically, being aware of prison populations while drawing districts will also help the Panel minimize the vote dilutive effect of prison-based gerrymandering because it will make it less likely that several large prisons are concentrated in the same district, and it will lessen the odds that a large prison will be placed within a district that is already underpopulated.
The Panel should also take prison populations into account when drawing majority-minority districts, Arizona’s Redistricting Commission, for example, is currently excluding prison populations when analyzing districts for Voting Rights Act purposes. The Arizona Redistricting Commission states that it would exclude prisons from its Voting Rights Act Section 5 analysis in order to avoid creating “artificial majority-minority districts” comprised largely of non-voting incarcerated populations. As the Commission’s redistricting expert Bruce Adelson emphasized at a September 8 hearing: “The election analysis in determining what are effective majority-minority districts where minorities have the opportunity to elect, as we’ve talked about, cannot include felons who are incarcerated because they can’t vote.”

Conclusion
Crediting all of Minnesota’s incarcerated people to a few locations enhances the political clout of the people who live near prisons, while diluting voting power of all other Minnesotans. I urge the Panel to consider the above solutions to ensure that the weight of a person’s vote is not based on the happenstance of where they live.

• More information is available:
   Preventing Prison-Based Gerrymandering in Redistricting: What to Watch For is a guide for advocates who want to minimize the effects of prison-based gerrymandering in their state or community: http://www.demos.org/pubs/Preventing_pbg.pdf
   States are Authorized to Adjust Census Data to End Prison-Based Gerrymandering, and Many Already Do is a fact sheet summarizing the discretion given under federal law to adjust the Census for redistricting purposes: http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/factsheets/adjusting.pdf
   Importing Constituents: Prisoners and Political Clout in Minnesota, is a district-by-district analysis of prison-based gerrymandering in Connecticut state legislative districts: http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/mn/report.html

Education & Advocacy Moves MN Employers to Voluntarily “Banning the Box”

In 2009, Minnesota became the first state to require, by law, all public employers to wait until an applicant has been selected for an interview before inquiring about criminal record.  “Ban the Box” aims to give individuals with criminal records the opportunity to be evaluated on their skills and qualifications, not only their criminal record.  Although employers may still ask about prior arrests and convictions during an interview, giving ex-offenders the chance to reach that interview stage will result in a much better chance of getting hired because they are able to explain their past problems with the law in person.  This effort has been successful thus far, but it is important to note that private employers throughout Minnesota are not yet required to “ban the box.”

The StarTribune recently published its 20^th annual report on Minnesota’s top 100 employers – employing over 1.2 million Minnesota residents.  These employers are not required by law to eliminate questions regarding criminal records on their applications; however, many of these employers have.  In attempt to review all one hundred online applications, I found that while thirty-four (34) of the top 100 employers still ask applicants if they have been convicted of a felony, forty (40) employers never inquire about past criminal convictions.  The remaining twenty-six (26) employers do not provide an online application; rather, these employers ask the applicant to send a resume and cover letter to the company’s Human Resource Director.

 Nine (9) of the twenty-six (26) employers who ask for resumes specified that once they receive this information they allow the applicant to apply and the question regarding prior arrests and convictions is on their application.  Therefore, a total of forty-three (43) of the top 100 employers in Minnesota have not voluntarily “banned the box” and continue to ask the question. However, three (3) of these employers ask for permission to conduct a background check rather than asking specifics about felony convictions. The remaining twenty (20) employers did not specify either way.

Most of the companies, which do not provide online applications, are ranked somewhere between 40 and 100 of the StarTribune’s annual report, while companies with higher rankings do provide online applications.  However, less than half of the top employers ask applicants if they have been convicted of a prior felony. The Human Resources Director at 3M (ranked 5^th) states that:

 “Several states have mandated a regulation that companies can not ask criminal history questions prior to making an offer due to disparate impact on hiring decisions when having that information prior to interview/offer. More states are considering the same legislation. Due to continuous changing state laws and the inability to stay abreast of it at all times, 3M made the conscious decision last fall (2010) to remove the criminal history questions until after offer.”

Conversely, the majority of employers on the bottom half of the StarTribune’s annual report (#40-100) ask about the applicant’s prior arrests and convictions.  Exact percentages are unclear because a number of these employers do not have online applications and do not clarify whether they ask this question on subsequent applications; however, it is likely that many of these employers have yet to “ban the box.”

The Human Resources Director at Clearfield (ranked 90^th) states that:

“Except for safety related positions, I’m not convinced an employer needs this information (regarding prior criminal convictions).  I’d be more comfortable limiting the question to whether they had a conviction that related to assault and battery or other violence.  Fortunately, our company product isn’t one that is attractive to theft, so those types of convictions are not relevant for us.”

It seems that the larger, more profitable businesses are voluntarily “banning the box.” Although every company’s specific reason for this change is not known, 3M claims to have followed this trend in attempt to keep up with continuously changing state laws – implying that the law will eventually require private employers to remove this question from their application as well.

It is safe to say that the “ban the box” movement has made an impact – public employers are required to remove this question from their application and many private employers have followed their lead.  However, in effort to make “ban the box” even more effective Minnesota should also require private employers to wait until the interview process to inquire about criminal records.

- Sarah Walker, COO 180 Degrees & Lauren Clausen, Minnesota Justice Foundation Intern

Prison Based-Gerrymandering: Minnesota Citizens Redistricting Commission – September 19, 2011

Testimony
Thank you, Members of the Commission, for providing the opportunity to provide testimony here today. My name is Sarah Walker and I am the Chief Operating Officer of 180 Degrees, Inc. and co-founder of the Minnesota Second Chance Coalition.
I am also a member of the Board of the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts-based non-partisan, non-profit center which for the last decade has been the leading organization studying how the U.S. Census counts people in prison and working to quantify the policy and legal implications flowing from those technical decisions. The issue of prison-based gerrymandering is also on the Second Chance Coalition’s Legislative Policy Agenda, and we supported the passage of S.F. No. 3097, introduced by Senator Higgins, and H.F. 3536 introduced by Rep. Champion during the last legislative session.
Each decade, Minnesota redraws its legislative districts on the basis of population to ensure that each district contains the same population as other districts. In this way, all residents are given the same access to representation and government, fulfilling the Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” rule.
However, the Census Bureau’s practice of counting incarcerated people as residents of the prison location, instead of their home communities, results in significant distortions in achieving fair representation. Minnesota uses Census Bureau data for redistricting purposes, engaging in prison-based gerrymandering, even though Article VII, § 2 of the Minnesota Constitution says that a person’s residence does not change upon incarceration.
The problem in Minnesota is wide-spread; currently there are 10 Minnesota House districts where state and federal prison populations were counted as residents during the last redistricting cycle, significantly enhancing the weight of a vote cast in those districts. This also dilutes the votes of everyone who does not have a large prison in their district.
Minnesota could follow the example of other states that have already ensured the end of prison-based gerrymandering within their borders. New York, Maryland and Delaware, soon to the joined by California, have all ensured the end of prison-based gerrymandering though legislative requirements that incarcerated people be counted at home for redistricting purposes.
Crediting all of Minnesota’s incarcerated people to a few locations enhances the political clout of the people who live near prisons, while diluting voting power of all other Minnesotans. Ending prison-based gerrymandering before the next redistricting cycle will ensure that no one gets more of a vote just because they happen to live near a large prison.

2011 Legislative Session: Reflect on Progress, Refocus on Work Ahead

Thank you for your ongoing support and another successful year of advocating for Second Chance’s in Minnesota. With special session behind us I want to make sure that everyone is aware of both the progress made in the 2011 session and challenges that remain as we continue to educate and advocate for public policies that allow individuals with criminal records the opportunity to become tax paying productive members of our communities.

As the legislative session began Coalition members went to work educating the 60 new legislators. Although getting to know new legislators was time consuming it also presented opportunities. Many new legislators arrived with fresh perspectives and without entrenched positions. As a result, the coalition was able to develop new and unexpected allies in our work.

Although the coalition was not ultimately successfully in passing any new legislation we made significant progress in gaining support both for the expansion of the 2009 “Ban-the-Box” bill that would require private employers to remove the question about criminal record from initial employment applications and our juvenile records bill that would have limited access to criminal records of 16 and 17 year old youth.

The expansion of “Ban-the-Box” (MN Hiring Advantage HF1448 / SF1122) received bi-partisan support in both the house and senate. HF1448 received a hearing in the House Jobs and Economic Development Finance Committee and passed out of committee on a voice vote. After opposition for the MN Chamber, the bill was referred to the Commerce Committee and was not granted a hearing. The coalition is actively working with the MN Chamber to clarify and educate its members on the positive economic impacts of this legislation. In addition, the coalition is actively working with local jurisdictions to pass resolutions that require contractors to remove the question about criminal record from initial employment applications.

The Second Chance Coalition also made significant progress with our efforts to limit access to juvenile records. While most people believe that juvenile records are and should be private and very limited in their long-term impact, current law creates a number of situations where juvenile records are public and/or limit the ability of the child to be employed in certain fields for many years or even the rest of their lives. HF0876 / SF0602 would have limited the number of permanent juvenile records. HF0876 made it into the house public safety omnibus bill but, was removed during conference committee.

The Coalition successfully opposed bills that would have limited opportunities for individuals with criminal records. The Second Chance Coalition was instrumental in opposing a bill that would have disqualified criminal offenders from becoming bus and light rail vehicle operators. With the support of Representative Rukavina we were also able to prevent the Higher Education Notification bill from being removed from statute. The Higher Education Notice Act provides postsecondary students in Minnesota with notification and an increased awareness of the possible impact of criminal records on future employment and was passed in 2009 with the support of the Second Chance Coalition.

While progress was made we still have considerable work ahead. The coalition was disappointed that the expansion of voting rights for individuals with felony convictions who are under correctional supervision and the Racial Impact Statement bill garnered little attention. We need Second Chance supporters to continue to participate in Second Chance Day on the Hill, to write letters/email, and make phone calls.

The Second Chance Coalition wants to thank the over 500 people who attend our lobbying day, who visited over 80 legislators, who met with over 30 key legislators and who wrote and called their legislators. We need to continue our efforts and expand our visibility and we look forward to seeing everyone at Second Chance Day on the Hill 2012 on January 31st @ 10AM.

For more information on specific legislation please read below or feel free to contact me.
EMPLOYMENT

HF1448 / SF1122- Criminal history reliance modified for employment requirements.(House Authors: McFarlane ; Mahoney ; Lesch ; Cornish ; Gunther ; Champion ; Hayden ; Leidiger ; Murray ; Peterson, S. ; Lanning Senate Authors: Magnus ; Harrington ; Jungbauer ; Latz ; Wolf )

Representative Carol McFarlane (R-White Bear Lake) and Senator Doug Magnus (R-Slayton) introduced HF 1448/SF 1122 prohibited private employers to inquire or consider the credit history or credit score or criminal record or criminal history of an applicant for employment until the applicant was selected for an interview. Under current law, public employers are not allowed to ask about or consider the criminal record or criminal history of an applicant for public employment until the applicant has been selected for an interview. We received a hearing in the House Jobs and Economic Development Finance Committee.

JUVENILE JUSTICE

HF0876 / SF0602- Court hearing opening modified in delinquency or extended jurisdiction juvenile proceedings. If you are 16 or 17, and charged with any felony-level offense, in Minnesota you will automatically have a public hearing and a public record. This unnecessarily limits the future opportunities of Minnesota youth. (House Authors: Smith ; Woodard ; Shimanski ; Johnson ; Hilstrom ; Gauthier ; Howes ; Champion ; Moran Senate Jungbauer ; Harrington )

BILLS OPPOSED

HF1080 / SF0910 – Metropolitan Council authorized to disqualify criminal offenders from becoming bus and light rail vehicle operators. House File 1080 and Senate File 1090 would allow Metropolitan Council to disqualify criminal offenders from becoming bus and light rail vehicle operators. If passed hundreds of good paying jobs will no longer be available! (House Author: Woodard ; Senate Jungbauer )

HF1087 / SF1053 Nursing; criminal history record check required, and money appropriated. House Chief Author (House McElfatrick) (Senator Sheran)

HF1428 – Emily’s Law established, and age of extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution for violent offenses lowered. A new bill was just introduced that will lower the age for Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile cases from 14 to 13 for a new category of “Violent Juvenile Offenses”. Our current laws adequately address juvenile offenses, and any lowering of ages or creation of new categories of offenses undermines the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile justice system and does not take into account the developmental differences of children. (House Authors: Westrom ; Nornes ; Franson Senate: Author Hoffman)

Testimony on Racial Impact Statements: 04/14/10

Racial Impact Statements SF:3326
The principle of impartial justice is a cornerstone of American democracy. Yet in the drafting of our laws, insensitivity to issues of class and race can result in a legal system that tilts against one segment of our population and unfairly privileges another. For this reason, I ask that the legislature consider adopting racial impact statements.
Racial impact statements are a new tool developed to estimate the unequal racial impacts of criminal justice policies in the same way that fiscal or environmental impact statements describe the budgetary and ecological effects of other policies. This allows legislators to make an informed consideration of racial impacts when crafting solutions to crime and delinquency, and helps ensure that racial justice costs are included in the public dialogue regarding criminal justice choices.

There is little question that extreme racial disparities exist in the criminal justice system.
The U.S. Department of Justice reports that nationally 17% of adult black males and 8% of Latino males have been jailed compared with just 2.6% of white males. States in the Northeast and Upper Midwest have the highest rates of racial disparity in the nation. Forthcoming research provides evidence that states with smaller minority populations exhibit greater racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
Disparities in the Criminal Justice system result from a complex set of factors. Among them are sentencing and drug policies that produce disproportionate racial/ethnic effects. More than two decades ago Congress mandated longer prison sentences for abusers of crack cocaine than for those who abuse the powder version. The result was a dramatic increase in the incarceration of African Americans.

Recognizing its error – belatedly – Congress recently reversed itself. Minnesota showed its leadership on this very issue 15 years ago by eliminating the unwarranted and unscientific distinction between powered and rock cocaine.

Both the Minnesota and US action were triggered by the undeniably unequal impact those laws had on African Americans. Had racial impact statements been part of the legislative process, many of these effects could have been predicted before the policies were put in place.

Once legislation is enacted, it is very difficult to change it, even to correct the racial disparity it causes. In order to avoid unwarranted disparities within the criminal justice system, policymakers must weigh the potential racial impact of proposed sentencing legislation. One means of accomplishing this is through “Racial Impact Statements.”

Impact statements allow the legislature to anticipate any unwarranted racial or ethnic disparities, and to consider alternative policies that could accomplish the goals of proposed sentencing or related criminal justice legislation, without causing avoidable racial disparity.

WHY SHOULD MN CONSIDER IMPACT STATEMENTS?
In 2006 MN had the nation’s 5th highest rate of racial disparity in incarceration and 13th highest for total disparities under supervision – meaning probation or supervised release. On average, in MN 9 African American males are incarcerated for every 1 Caucasian male. In 1978, the Minnesota prison population was 12% African American. Today it’s approaching 50%. These disparities persist in our juvenile justice system. Today in both Ramsey and Hennepin County the percentage of youth of color in detention is approximately 85%. These lopsided trends also impact our youth in out-of-home placement where MN has the 7th highest rate of racial disparity.
In a recent national poll over 50% of Americans agreed that is extremely important that we not tolerate a criminal justice system that is unfair to racial and ethnic minorities. In same poll over 70% believed that individuals were not treated fairly in the criminal justice system regardless of circumstance.

Our justice system cannot function without the trust and confidence of the citizens it is meant to serve. Proactively identifying potential disparities will increase the trust and therefore the efficacy of our justice system.

The original legislation creating the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines mandates that sentences should be impartial with respect to race and social status. It also requires that guidelines should be proportional, based upon sentencing practices prior to the implementation of guidelines and take into “substantial consideration” the prison capacity.
Minnesota’s Sentencing Guidelines Commission is a national leader in evaluating racial impact of sentencing polices on felony level offenses. Its work is considered a model for other Midwestern states adopting the use of racial impact statements.
In 2009, Iowa, Wisconsin and Connecticut began using racial impact statements to evaluate legislation. At the time legislation was passed Iowa ranked 1st for racial disparities and CT 4th. Unfortunately, MN is not far behind. States currently considering related legislation include Oregon, Illinois and Texas.

In MN – in 2009 – through bi‐partisan efforts, the Disproportionate Minority Contact Act passed. It provides: “It is the policy of the state of Minnesota to identify and eliminate barriers to racial, ethnic, and gender fairness within the criminal justice, juvenile justice, corrections, and judicial systems, in support of the fundamental principle of fair and equitable treatment under law.” Racial Impact statements strengthen and support the legislation passed in 2009.
Minnesota’s population is growing more diverse each year. Demographers estimate that by 2030 MN’s population will be majority people of color. We are all aware of the collateral consequences that result from involvement with the Justice System. Failure to consider unequal impacts in criminal justice policy will not only impact the individuals caught in the system, but threaten the social, civic and economic futures of communities across that state.

Racial impact statements do not “TIE THE HANDS” of policy makers, rather they support our increased move towards adopting evidence-based decision making in public safety policy. Racial impact statements are a straightforward way to move the debate on these critical issues to the forefront of the criminal justice policy development process.

Saint Paul City Council Passes Resolution in Support of the Second Chance Coalition

RECOGNIZING THE MINNESOTA SECOND CHANCE COALITION DAY ON THE HILL
3 WHEREAS, The Minnesota Second Chance Coalition is an unincorporated coalition of community-based organizations and
4 individuals advocating for fair and responsible laws, policies, and practices that allow those who have committed crimes to
5 redeem themselves, fully support themselves and their families, and contribute to their communities to their full potential; and,
6 WHEREAS, The MN Second Chance Coalition represents forty-six partners from the non-profit, private and public sector
7 throughout the state of MN; and,
8 WHEREAS, one in five Americans face barriers to employment as a result of a criminal record; each year more than 6,000
9 Minnesotans are released from prison or jail; and 60 percent of individuals who are incarcerated in prisons and jails report
10 symptoms of mental illness; and,
11 WHEREAS, nationally more than two million children have a parent in prison and are six-to-10 times more likely to end up in
12 prison themselves, and one-in-five African American men cannot vote because they are incarcerated, or on parole or probation;
13 and,
14 WHEREAS, the MN Second Chance Coalition supports policies that ensure that everyone, regardless of means or background,
15 is treated equally and fairly through every part of the criminal justice system; and,
16 WHEREAS, the MN Second Chance Coalition supports policies and practices that maximize the ability of individuals with
17 criminal records to access employment, housing and education to become fully contributing members of their communities; and,
18 WHEREAS, the MN Second Chance Coalition supports policies that ensure that juvenile offenders are not limited in their
19 ability to become successful adults; and,
20 WHEREAS, the MN Second Chance Coalition supports the full diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and chemical
21 addiction; and,
22 WHEREAS, the MN Second Chance Coalition supports policies and practices that limit the potentially adverse impact of the
23 criminal justice system on children and families;
24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council recognizes the MN Second Chance Coalition Day
25 on the Hill on Feb. 22, 2010, at 10 a.m. in the State Capitol Rotunda where hundreds will join together to raise statewide and
26 national attention to the barriers facing individuals with criminal record; and,
27 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council supports the efforts of the Second Change Coalition to remove those
28 barriers that affect the social, civic and economic stability of families and communities.
29

THE NEW YORK TIMES

January 19, 2010

EDITORIAL

Among the leading causes of recidivism are employment policies in the private and public sectors that discriminate against former offenders and too often drive them back to jail. New York State first addressed this problem more than 30 years ago with laws protecting the employment rights of people with criminal convictions. But two investigations by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo suggest that some companies are finding ways around these laws.

Employers in New York can, of course, review an applicant’s history. But they cannot deny an applicant a job on the basis of a conviction without considering whether the offense bears a relationship to the job being sought. New York law also forbids employers from shutting out qualified applicants because of convictions that are sealed or dismissed, minor infractions like speeding tickets or for arrests that do not lead to conviction.

In a recently completed investigation, the attorney general found that ChoicePoint, a nationally known employee screening company, was involved in creating an online job application system for employers that automatically disqualified thousands of applicants who disclosed criminal convictions. Moreover, investigators found that the company had recommended to employers that they disqualify applicants based on sealed or dismissed convictions and legal outcomes that are regarded as violations — not crimes — under New York law. One ChoicePoint client violated state law by withdrawing conditional job offers after information that should not have been taken into account turned up in background checks.

In a separate investigation, the attorney general found that RadioShack also had ignored the law by rejecting job applicants whose violations had been sealed, set aside or deemed to be minor. Both companies have agreed to pay financial penalties and to obey the law, without admitting or denying wrongdoing. But the cases raise the disturbing possibility that the practices they engaged in may be more widespread than supposed in a state that has been a national model in giving former prisoners a chance at honest work.

Gubernatorial Candidate Forum: Justice & Reentry

WHO WILL LEAD US?
BUILDING THE ROAD TO RESTORATION

What: Second Chance Gubernatorial Candidate Forum
When: Saturday, Jan. 23rd, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Where: Coffman Union, 3rd Floor, University of Minnesota
(300 Washington Ave., S.E., Mpls, 55455

The Second Chance Coalition is a non-partisan organization supported by hundreds of individuals and more than 40 organizations in MN that advocate for policies that allow people with criminal records to redeem themselves, fully support themselves and their families, and contribute to their communities to their full potential.

Join us for a unique, two-way dialogue with governor candidates from both parties. Candidates will hear our stories and concerns about the criminal justice system, and we will hear candidates’ ideas for change.

Minnesota Becomes First State to “Ban the Box”

Minnesota Becomes First State to “Ban the Box”, Narrows Employer Liability for Criminal Records On May 11th Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty signed into law a public safety policy omnibus bill (House File 1301) which includes two provisions that begin to address the growing problem of individuals with criminal records finding employment. One provision requires all Minnesota public employers to wait until a job applicant has been selected for an interview before asking about criminal records or conducting a criminal record check, except for positions that already require a background check. Passage of this legislation makes Minnesota the first state to adopt a statewide “Ban the Box” law since the initiative was started by a group called All of Us or None in California several years ago.

The other provision limits the admission of evidence of an employee’s criminal record against an employer if: (1) the duties of the position did not expose others to a greater degree of risk than that created by the employee interacting with the public outside of the duties of the position or that might be created by being employed in general; (2) a court order sealed any record of the criminal case; or (3) the record did not result in a criminal conviction.

The legislation was passed in large part due to the grassroots organizing efforts of the Second Chance Coalition, a diverse coalition of 24 community organizations, including: 180 Degrees, Inc., AMICUS, Goodwill/Easter Seals MN, Council on Crime and Justice, Rebuild Resources, Jacob Wetterling Foundation, RS Eden, Minnesota Council of Churches, NOLA Investigates – Criminal Defense Investigation, MN Catholic Conference, Minnesota Fathers & Families Network, Northside Policy Action Coalition, People Escaping Poverty Project, Project for Pride in Living, Children’s Defense Fund, Peace Foundation, Minneapolis Urban League, HIRED, LIFE in Recovery, NAMI MN, the Barbara Schneider Foundation, Elim Transitional Housing, Emerge Community Development, Greater Minneapolis Council on Churches, and Juel Fairbanks Chemical Dependency Services.

The Minneapolis-based Council on Crime and Justice led direct lobbying efforts for the legislation. According to Council President and former Hennepin County Judge Pamela Alexander: “Over the last several decades increases in criminalization combined with easier access to criminal records and heightened fear and scrutiny have created an entire class of people who are subject to permanent punishment and find it extremely difficult to become fully-contributing members of their communities through stable housing and gainful employment. It includes hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans. Passage of this legislation is an important first step towards alleviating this situation, making our communities more safe, economically stable, and just.” According to the Council’s Director of Public Policy and Advocacy, Mark Haase, the “Ban the Box” law reduces discrimination and confusion based only upon initial application, does not limit access to the criminal record, saves public employers time and money and gives them a more diverse applicant pool, increases employment opportunities for otherwise-qualified applicants, and does not limit private employer discretion but provides them with a best practice model.

The civil liability, or “Safe Hiring” law, gives employers some tools in knowing when criminal records are relevant and which types of records need not be considered at all. Employers will need to be trained on how this law can help them increase employment opportunities for individuals with criminal records. The bills’ chief authors were Senators Mee Moua and Ron Latz and Representatives Sheldon Johnson and Bobby Champion.

For more information contact Sarah Walker, COO at 180 Degrees: 612-813-5017 or sarahw@180degrees.org