The hearing began with testimony from Governor Patrick, who highlighted the real needs for reforms. He noted that there are 20,000 people incarcerated in Massachusetts, and that 97 percent of these people will return to their communities at some point.
Patrick argued that the best reentry program was a job, and maintained that the Commonwealth would save millions if we are able to reduce recidivism ($43,000 per prisoner each year). Patrick also touted the importance of reducing the waiting period to seal CORIs. He emphasized that a person’s likelihood of re-offending dramatically declines after six or seven years. His bill would reduce the waiting period to seal a felony from 15 years to 10, and the corresponding period for misdemeanors from 10 years to 5.
Senator Dianne Wilkerson and Representatives Gloria Fox, Willie Mae Allen, Linda Dorcena Forry and Steve D’Amico commended the Governor for taking a good step towards reforms, but argued that he had not gone far enough.
Senator Wilkerson called Patrick’s bill a “CORI Repair” bill rather than real CORI reform. Legislators raised concerns over the lack of juvenile related provisions, the importance of “fair hiring” protections that remove the felony check box from job applications, a need to remove non-convictions and not guilty findings, and the importance of reducing the waiting periods to seal a felony to 7 years and a misdemeanor to 3 years.
The Right Reverend M. Thomas Shaw, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts also testified his support for more significant CORI reforms. He described the several hundred participants in a CORI Prayer Service that he officiated earlier in the day, and detailed the importance of redemption and second chances rather than this debilitating CORI system.
Organizations including CAP/CJS, EPOCA, Neighbor to Neighbor, MARC, CJPC and MLRI gave testimony calling for the favorable reporting of #4476, contingent on a few critical amendments. The hearing lasted from 1 until 7 pm, with the Boston Workers Alliance (BWA) being the very last to testify.
BWA Board Clerk Terri Hinton described her own exclusion from the health care field after successfully completing nine-month training as a nurse assistant, due to her CORI. Hinton called on O’Flaherty and Creedon to report out the bill with reduced waiting periods for sealing as it would directly affect her ability to get a stable job.
BWA staffperson Aaron Tanaka cited CORI sealing laws in other states, including Utah (7 years for most felonies, 3-5 for misdemeanors), Oregon (3 years to seal first felony offenses) and Michigan (5 years to expunge most first felonies).
He also decried the felony “check box” on job forms which leads employers to rule out applicants before reviewing resumes, holding interviews or checking references. Boston, Cambridge, Chicago, Minneapolis, San Francisco and Los Angles are among the cities which have already removed the criminal records question from their job applications.
The hearing demonstrated sustained momentum and real dedication to uprooting CORI discrimination. At this point, it is unclear if Chairmen Creedon and O’Flaherty plan to report out the CORI bill this year.
Regardless, the CORI reform movement will continue to grow, and constituents across the state will hold these elected officials accountable until real relief is provided to the hundreds of thousands suffering from the CORI.
As with most bills, it doesn’t do any good to have a perfect bill that never makes it to a vote. I really hope something gets passed this year, so we can build upon it in the future.
Why is this something in need of reform, or even modification?
I’m not convinced that any sort of CORI reform is necessary. Why shouldn’t employers and an individual’s fellow employees have the right to know whether a potential job hire has committed a felony in the past? In fact, given that crimes are public violations, why shouldn’t they remain on the public record generally? I’m not following the great “need” out there for CORI reform.
because the CORI database is a huge mess. Reports are difficult to interpret, and they include a lot of non-conviction information — I believe that arrests are reported. (Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can clarify.)
<
p>I’m with you on convictions being public records. But there’s more to it than that.
I would get a mishmash of information in CORI readouts, including arrests without conviction.
In response to the last two posts, the basic argument for CORI reform is that if you make it impossible for ex-cons to get a job and impossible for them to rent an apartment, they’ll have little choice but to return to crime. This is balanced against the rights of landlords and employers to know the backgrounds of their potential tenants and employees. The real problem is that most companies have blanket policies against hiring people with certain offenses, which makes it almost impossible for them to reintegrate into society. The pervasive attitude seems to be “once a criminal always a criminal”, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy if you use it deny offenders work and housing. While I’m not sure that ex-cons should be able to hide their pasts entirely, the current laws and attitudes combine to ensure high recidivism rates.
I can see that, to an extent. On the other hand, I would really kind of like to know if someone has embezzled money before hiring them as a bookkeeper.
<
p>In other words, convictions, at least, are public records, and ought to be available as such. I’m not sure that concealin infrmation is a good way to address the issue. Maybe the answer is to provide incentive for an employer to knowingly take the risk.
<
p>Thanks for answering the question, which at least provides some context to monitor the issue.
And I wonder if the bill (I have not read it) has any specific protections for employers when the underlying crime specifically relates to the job.
<
p>I’m with you on the public records issue. Generally suppressing public information is something that I am not (and most liberals are not) particularly comfortable with. Does anyone that knows the issue well know if Mass. (or any other state) provides incentives to employers to hire former felons? It seems like a pretty good idea, so I would think that there would be some sort of an incentive program (though I admit I’m pretty much getting that from an episode of The Office.
First of all CORI records are exempt from public record laws so they are not “public records” as most think. Secondly, nobody is saying that the day someone gets out of jail they should be able to seal their records. Under the Governor’s proposal one would still have to wait 5 (misdemeanors) or 10 years (felonies).
<
p>Most states allow one to seal their records after 3 or 7 years rather than the current 15 or 10 in MA. There does come a point when we need to reintegrate people into society in order to become productive citizens or they will have no choice but to turn to crime.
<
p>There are many other aspects to CORI reform including the right of someone to seal their record if they have a “non-conviction” record from an acquittal, CWOF, dropped charges, etc. Currently, if someone is wrongly charged with a felony they must face the same scrutiny of a convicted criminal. This means 15 years of being blacklisted from jobs, loans, college, apartments and so on.
<
p>The most ironic thing is that it is not only against MA state law for an employer to make an employment decision based on a non-conviction record but they can be held liable if they maintain or ask a potential job candidate about a non-conviction record. I believe businesses should have no liability for someone’s non-conviction or sealed record. These are just a few of the reforms that need to be implemented.
Painters & Allied Trades District Council #35 was unable to attend the CORI reform bill hearing (we were tied up in some long hearing on something to do with gaming that day)but our union supports Governor Patrick’s bill as a reasonable solution to a unreasonale policy.
<
p>Having had members in their late 40s face job loss over criminal convictions from their early 20s, it’s clear we need to address this and have in place a 2nd chance policy.