The Economic Case for Clean Slate Policy
April is Second Chance month, which raises awareness of the many barriers people face when re-entering the community after incarceration and their adverse economic and social effects. Throughout the month, advocates highlight policies that help those who have served time overcome the constraints brought about by their criminal records. Indeed, the economic consequences of criminal convictions—particularly convictions for low-level, nonviolent offenses—are generally overlooked in the discourse surrounding criminal justice reform. But the unpredictable nature of our current economic landscape makes the case for second chances even more important.
“Clean slate” policy aims to automate the sealing of certain nonviolent criminal records in order to facilitate second chances. States across the country have pursued this bipartisan policy, with 12 enacting the legislation. The remainder continue to rely upon antiquated, petition-based record-sealing processes. Addressing the social costs of conviction and permitting those involved with the criminal justice system to re-enter society and regain some semblance of a normal life benefits both the individuals themselves and society as whole.
Background
In the aftermath of the tumultuous 1960s, the federal government and society began to take a harder-line stance on crime. Commencing with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and continuing through the Bail Reform Act of 1984 and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the criminal justice system increasingly targeted drug possession and other nonviolent offenses, increased the incarceration rate for those accused, and raised the minimum sentences associated with these offenses.
The return on these investments in public safety was miniscule at best. Prison populations exploded, with the number of incarcerated people rising from around 200,000 in 1970 to over 2 million today. Meanwhile, the associated cost of holding these individuals behind bars ballooned from around $84 billion in 1982 to around $265 billion in 2012. But these numbers measure only the explicit costs of incarceration—researchers have estimated the value of lost income and social disruption caused by arrests at around $1.2 trillion.
In terms of enhanced public safety and reduced crime rates, the benefits of these steeper penalties were marginal. Indeed, they had almost no deterrent effect at all on individuals dealing with mental illness, substance use, or poverty. Moreover, once released, formerly incarcerated individuals face a number of barriers to re-entering the workforce and society that increase their likelihood of reoffending as they turn to “survival crime” (e.g., theft, drug use, prostitution) to help make ends meet. As a result, approximately 1 in 3 Americans now have a criminal record.
Barriers to Re-entry
The penalties imposed by incarceration do not end after a person is released. Long after serving their sentence, many still face barriers created by public records associated with their arrests. These “collateral consequences” limit access to employment, business and occupational licensing, credit, housing, education, and economic opportunities. According to the Clean Slate Initiative, around 94 percent of employers, 90 percent of landlords, and 72 percent of colleges run criminal background checks on applicants. As a result, individuals with records are more likely to experience unemployment (or under-employment) and thus earn less than their counterparts. For instance, a study published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that formerly incarcerated individuals have an unemployment rate of 27 percent after the first year of release and earn approximately 40 percent less than those who have had no contact with the justice system. This equates to about $87 billion per year in lost income.
Formerly incarcerated individuals are also seven times more likely to experience homelessness, and those who served more than one term are 13 times more likely to live on the street than those who have never gone to prison. Moreover, under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, those with drug offenses are banned from receiving food stamps or any assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, thereby increasing their food and income insecurity.
These consequences impact dependents and other family members, too. Almost half of children in the United States have at least one parent with a criminal record. These children are more likely to experience poor educational and health outcomes as well as an increased likelihood of being arrested themselves. Taxpayers are affected by these consequences as well, as they must foot the bill when formerly incarcerated individuals reoffend or become dependent upon the government for housing, food, and income assistance.
Some states have instituted “fair chance” or voluntary record sealing and petition-based expungement programs, but they have proven less than satisfactory. Voluntary record sealing is insufficient to overcome the stigmas that cause employment disparities, while the complexity and cost associated with petition-based expungement presents a significant barrier to eligible individuals. Indeed, only 6.5 percent of those eligible for record sealing or expungement actually obtain it, whether due to the cost, not understanding the process, or simply being unaware of the opportunity. In light of these issues, automated record sealing is the best option for helping formerly incarcerated people reintegrate into society.
Wiping the Slate Clean
Clean slate laws utilize technology to automate the record-sealing process, provided individuals remain crime-free for a minimum period. While rightfully excluding violent and sexual offenses, these laws permit those with misdemeanor offenses to have their records removed from the public eye. In addition to the 12 states with clean slate laws in place, many other states (and the federal government) are considering efforts to correct the collateral consequences of incarceration by helping those who have served their time and changed their ways find better employment and housing opportunities. A recent study on the efficacy of record clearing in Michigan found that only 4 percent of individuals were convicted of another crime within five years of receiving expungement and that the average increase in quarterly earnings within a year of expungement was 23 percent. The potential benefits of such initiatives are clear, both to the individuals involved and to society.
The commission of a crime requires social and legal redress. However, once a person has atoned for their crime and shown a willingness to mend their ways, they should be able to go about the rest of their lives without the burden of their past mistakes weighing them down.